A lap around "The Ring"

"Asgeir Nesoen" > wrote in message
...
> What's wrong with "ghastly"? I thought I knew what that meant...

Where did I say there was something wrong with it ?


>
> And I won't continue this thread, because you are not arguing. You're just
being
> a dickhead. I suggest you focus on continue being a dickhead, and you'll
see
> where that brings you over the years. Good luck.

So, does this mean you won't answer my question ?


>
> So, if you tell me where I made a spelling error, I'll leave this thread
better
> educated.
>
> ---A---



"I won't continue this thread because you are not arguing"

<laughter>

Interesting statement.

Anyway, I thought you weren't going to continue this thread, yet you ask
me a question.

It's Iraqi btw.

So, since you finally admit that the sanctions, etc. were SH's fault (is
that what you're saying ?), and he got all the meds, etc. he needed, why are
you blaming Albright et al for your alleged problems with the sanction ?


"Asgeir Nesoen" > wrote in message
...
> I am discontinuing the argue with you, sir, because it is a waste of time,
and
> you are lost, and you will find out in due time.
>
> BTW, the reason for the sanctions was Saddam Hussein. The victim of the
> sanctions were the Iraqi people. Saddam got all the medication he needed.
This
> was my point, and you failed completely to see it.
>
> Good luck in your life.
>
> ---A---
>
> JP wrote:
> > "Asgeir Nesoen" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Try this:
> >>http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Hu..._children.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Or this:
> >>http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Or this:
> >>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
> >>
> >>The only thing you have to do is to open your eyes.
> >>
> >>---A---
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <laughter>
> >
> > I'd suggest you open yours. But thanks for verifying the quote, with
the
> > second and third link. First one didn't at all.
> >
> > As to the quote, so ? You read her other remarks, right ? Didn't
think
> > so.
> >
> > And again, and how did/who's fault was it that the sanction come about
?
> > Put the tin beenie down, and try a thinking cap.
> >
> >

No Andrew nothing too out of the ordinary Oh man you just reminded me I
need a root canal....

Mitch


"Andrew MacPherson"
> PPS Apologies if there's anything unusual about this post (apart from the
> fact it's full of OT euro-bollox). I'm posting with Mozilla Firebird for
> the first time and I'm not convinced I know what I'm doing. Nothing new
> there then ;-)

Stephen F. wrote:
> "MartyU" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>VW Golf R32....
>>
>>Yum.
>>
>>Marty
>
>
> Wait until you see the next-gen Golf GTI which VW will send to the states in
> 2006. We already have it here. It's a back-to-basics car (as much as is
> possible in an era of airbags, ABS, ESP, crush zones, necessary comfort
> etc.) which makes the old R32 really look like the overweight cruiser it
> was. A healthy and reliable 200hp from a blown 2.0L, and bags of torque as
> early as 1800rpm. Available with the DSG transmission (double clutch,
> uninterrupted power on upshifts) and the first decent suspension in a long
> time from VW. Very nice machine, and likely to rekindle the North American
> interest in hatchbacks to some degree.
>
> Stephen
>
> p.s. A shame you won't see the Ford Focus ST... it will be another killer
> car. Not to mention the crazy 180hp Seat *turbodiesel* Ibiza which has more
> torque than a locomotive. Or the Civic Type R.

Not surprised. Thanks for the info. I'll start saving up now.

The U.S. has long been denied most of the best performance cars the
world has to offer. GT3&4 really drives the point home with the variety
of cool cars not available here. The R32 is one exception because, as I
read it, some American automotive journalists asked a VW exec. why we
often don't get to have such cars.

Marty

"Andrew MacPherson" > wrote in message
...
> Asgeir Nesoen wrote:
> > claiming that Stalin was the direct cause of the starvation
> > is like claiming that Charlton Heston is the direct
> > cause of the thousands of gun deaths in America every year!
>
> I agree that the Stalin period was much more complex than (TV) history
> often reports it, and on an abstract level he did an incredible job of
> modernising a peasant nation. But I think we can definitely say Stalin's
> policies were directly responsible for many millions of deaths and many
> more millions of people suffering greatly.
>
> Whether there was any other way of preparing Russia before Germany made
> its move eastwards (as Stalin feared from an early stage) we can only
> guess.
>
> One thing's for sure though, we owe Stalin's Russia a lot (in regards to
> defeating Hitler), and that's a bitter pill to have to swallow in some
> ways.
>
> Andrew McP

One of the hilarious effects of the cold war is how the west has become
so anti communist that they have abandoned their sense of community - now
interpreted as communism - and live in an every man (and woman - even more
funny) for him/herself.

The New England Patriots demonstrate the power of team - the rest are a
demonstration of collections of so called "superstars". Maybe the other
teams of the NFL can start an anti communist campaign to oust the Patriots?

"JP" wrote...
>> <snip>
> Your proof of this assertion ? I won't address the
> inherent incorrectness of your facts, but lets see some
> proof. Not theories, that means.

Since when does one have to prove a definition? -not supporting your
currency in a sagging economy, thus alllowing it to drop and cheapening your
exports with regard to other countries in order to preserve your market
share is, by definition, a protectionist measure.

The oil thing I could hardly word better than Asgeir, so I won't bother. You
think the middle east is gonna allow you to suck it dry of it's natural
resources? -think again.

> <laughter>
>
> *I* have no logical argument ?

No you don't.

> Show me some proof of your allegations and your alleged
> future end results.

You're saying there are reasons other than short term fixes so voters
wouldn't feel the effects of a global economic downturn as sharply in order
to get re-elected? -You mean to say George and the gang took these measures
in good faith and only afterwards realised "Dang, European imports are now
20% more expensive than before.... hadn't thought of that!!" -get out of
here!!

>> <snip>
> You first.
>
> Btw, explain to me exactly how the Bush admin. is "stepping
> on the weakest parts of my society". Facts please, and try
> to answer at least one question directly for a change.

Hello? -Bush plans to completely privatise healthcare. That means have money
or die. I can't believe voters overlooked that aspect. Too busy yahooing
about kicking Iraqi ass, I would imagine.

> I'm curious, since you didn't seem so concerned about the
> weakest parts of the US society under the Clinton admin.
> You know, when he and Reno had the Texas Barbecue, the
> Florida Fiasco, and the Idaho Adventure ?

The primary sector over here was hit hard over this period of time too. I
don't think Clinton did anything significantly worse than politicians over
here. They didn't win any popularity contests either. However, we don't have
this 2 term deal so continuity prevailed and those areas are on the up again
in different ways -instead of being artificially sustained. Anyway, you guys
were too busy wondering whether Monica sucked his dick or not (who f'ing
cares?) for much detail to filter through on this side of the Atlantic.

I've gained a lot of respect for the man, post office. I think he's doing
you guys a hell of a service while he could be just hacking in to the
current administration.

> Show me one event under the Bush admin. regarding US citizens
> that is comparable to those. Assuming you even know what they
> were, but then, someone so concerned and knowledgeable about
> the US as you think you are, it should be no problem, eh ?

Exactly, that's the whole point. You want to be the leading nation in the
world without having to take the responsabililty towards the future that
goes with it and Georgie is working his nuts off to ensure that you don't,
so you like him a lot. But the reality is this: you guys consume, per
capita, twice as much natural resources as anyone else in the world and, if
you hang on to your blinkers and preserve "your way of life", your grandson
is going to have to turn his SUV into a flowerbed. Because there isn't going
to be left anything to run it on.

Jan.
=---

"JP" wrote...
>> <snip>
> I'd agree with most of this. Forcing someone to do
> anything never works.

No way!! -That's far too sensible. And you call yourself a patriot?

Jan. <vbseg>
=---

"Jan Verschueren" > wrote in message
...
> "JP" wrote...
> >> <snip>
> > Your proof of this assertion ? I won't address the
> > inherent incorrectness of your facts, but lets see some
> > proof. Not theories, that means.
>
> Since when does one have to prove a definition? -not supporting your
> currency in a sagging economy, thus alllowing it to drop and cheapening
your
> exports with regard to other countries in order to preserve your market
> share is, by definition, a protectionist measure.

Definition ? Seemed like an accusation to me. Which requires facts. But
nice dodge.


>
> The oil thing I could hardly word better than Asgeir, so I won't bother.
You
> think the middle east is gonna allow you to suck it dry of it's natural
> resources? -think again.

Show exactly where I said that (suck dry bit).


>
> > <laughter>
> >
> > *I* have no logical argument ?
>
> No you don't.
>

Better than not answering direct questions put to one, as you are doing.


> > Show me some proof of your allegations and your alleged
> > future end results.
>
> You're saying there are reasons other than short term fixes so voters
> wouldn't feel the effects of a global economic downturn as sharply in
order
> to get re-elected? -You mean to say George and the gang took these
measures
> in good faith and only afterwards realised "Dang, European imports are now
> 20% more expensive than before.... hadn't thought of that!!" -get out of
> here!!


First of all, always amusing who the same group who likes to spout off who
stupid the Bush admin is on one hand, in the same breath credit them with
the most complex of consipiracies. Interesting. Besides the fact that
oil/gas prices rose sharply before the election, so how that would help a
re-election is curious.
You really need to do some research.

Anyway, answer my question. Proof. It's how we do things over here
(figured I might as well do some patronizing myself. In return you
understand).


>
> >> <snip>
> > You first.
> >
> > Btw, explain to me exactly how the Bush admin. is "stepping
> > on the weakest parts of my society". Facts please, and try
> > to answer at least one question directly for a change.
>
> Hello? -Bush plans to completely privatise healthcare. That means have
money
> or die. I can't believe voters overlooked that aspect. Too busy yahooing
> about kicking Iraqi ass, I would imagine.

Um, we already have private healthcare. Always have. What are you
referring to ? Medicare/caid ? (Assuming you even know what those are). Or
do you have Social Security confused ?
It has nothing to do with healthcare, if so.


>
> > I'm curious, since you didn't seem so concerned about the
> > weakest parts of the US society under the Clinton admin.
> > You know, when he and Reno had the Texas Barbecue, the
> > Florida Fiasco, and the Idaho Adventure ?
>
> The primary sector over here was hit hard over this period of time too. I
> don't think Clinton did anything significantly worse than politicians over
> here. They didn't win any popularity contests either. However, we don't
have
> this 2 term deal so continuity prevailed and those areas are on the up
again
> in different ways -instead of being artificially sustained. Anyway, you
guys
> were too busy wondering whether Monica sucked his dick or not (who f'ing
> cares?) for much detail to filter through on this side of the Atlantic.
>
> I've gained a lot of respect for the man, post office. I think he's doing
> you guys a hell of a service while he could be just hacking in to the
> current administration.


You didn't answer my question. Surprised, I'm not.


>
> > Show me one event under the Bush admin. regarding US citizens
> > that is comparable to those. Assuming you even know what they
> > were, but then, someone so concerned and knowledgeable about
> > the US as you think you are, it should be no problem, eh ?
>
> Exactly, that's the whole point. You want to be the leading nation in the
> world without having to take the responsabililty towards the future that
> goes with it and Georgie is working his nuts off to ensure that you don't,
> so you like him a lot. But the reality is this: you guys consume, per
> capita, twice as much natural resources as anyone else in the world and,
if
> you hang on to your blinkers and preserve "your way of life", your
grandson
> is going to have to turn his SUV into a flowerbed. Because there isn't
going
> to be left anything to run it on.


Newsflash for those who can't keep up: The US already IS the leading
nation in the world, like it or not. As to the rest of your moonbat theory,
we'll see. Since you'd rather deal in theories instead of facts, whatever
you'd like to believe is fine.

"Jan Verschueren" > wrote in message
...
> "JP" wrote...
> >> <snip>
> > I'd agree with most of this. Forcing someone to do
> > anything never works.
>
> No way!! -That's far too sensible. And you call yourself a patriot?
>
> Jan. <vbseg>


Hehe, show me where I called myself a patriot. I just don't tolerate
moonbat theories and criticism is all.

"Jan Verschueren" > wrote in message
...
> Since when does one have to prove a definition? -not supporting your
> currency in a sagging economy, thus alllowing it to drop and cheapening
> your exports with regard to other countries in order to preserve your
> market share is, by definition, a protectionist measure.

Jan, I am sure your probably don't really know why our dollar is cheap right
now, BUT here are some real reasons.

1 - As the number of IMPORTS rises it puts downward pressure on the dollar.
We are now importing more goods and services today than we ever have. So
your idea that it is protectionist is completely false.

2 - Our dollar should probably be much lower if it was at a true value, but
other countries prop it up, but because of our low interest rates, they have
not been as eager to do so.

3 - A weak dollar should actually help our economy as it makes our goods and
services more attractive overseas.


>
> The oil thing I could hardly word better than Asgeir, so I won't bother.
> You think the middle east is gonna allow you to suck it dry of it's
> natural resources? -think again.

You are right here, BUT as prices rise the need/desire for THOSE natural
resources will dwindle, alternative fuels sources are already being
developed, but until the costs rise higher, what is the point? Just because
you "run out" of something, doesn't necassarily mean it should be conserved.

> You're saying there are reasons other than short term fixes so voters
> wouldn't feel the effects of a global economic downturn as sharply in
> order to get re-elected? -You mean to say George and the gang took these
> measures in good faith and only afterwards realised "Dang, European
> imports are now 20% more expensive than before.... hadn't thought of
> that!!" -get out of here!!

No, BUT American goods and services are 20% cheaper for foreigners to
purchase and are expansionary for our economy. HOWEVER, if you look at the
facts, it has in no way dampened the American desire for IMPORTS which
therefore is expanding the world economy even faster. Right now, the world
economy looks very attractive.


> Hello? -Bush plans to completely privatise healthcare. That means have
> money or die. I can't believe voters overlooked that aspect. Too busy
> yahooing about kicking Iraqi ass, I would imagine.

That is completely false. No reason to respond.

> in different ways -instead of being artificially sustained. Anyway, you
> guys were too busy wondering whether Monica sucked his dick or not (who
> f'ing cares?) for much detail to filter through on this side of the
> Atlantic.

Why do we care? Because we don't want to let our society degenerate into a
system of "Do whatever you want - no rules on me". YOU have no idea what
the effects of our President getting "Monica'd" has done. Is it OK for
young girls in Junior High to be giving their "Friends with Benefits" -
Monica's in the Bathroom or having "Rainbow" parties? THAT is the reason
why those issues ARE important.


> Exactly, that's the whole point. You want to be the leading nation in the
> world without having to take the responsabililty towards the future that
> goes with it and Georgie is working his nuts off to ensure that you don't,
> so you like him a lot. But the reality is this: you guys consume, per
> capita, twice as much natural resources as anyone else in the world and,
> if you hang on to your blinkers and preserve "your way of life", your
> grandson is going to have to turn his SUV into a flowerbed. Because there
> isn't going to be left anything to run it on.


Jan, as I am sure you are aware of, but it is very likely that JP's grandson
will be running his SUV on alternative fuels by then and oil will be a
non-issue. THIS is the primary reason why OPEC is VERY concerned with
letting oil prices get too high. They do NOT want to give too much
incentive for the continued development of alternative fuels.

P.S. Do you also realize that CHINA's recent capitalistic expansion and
resulting economic success is the primary reason for dramatic increase in
demand for oil? There is also big speculation going on in the oil market
right now.


Bill Bollinger
www.gsxn.com