GARY FONG LOVES THE 20D !

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:07:15 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


"smb" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:58:26 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"William Graham" wrote in message
om...
The religious aren't strong on logic........

So true, which helps explain the problem with so many American
fundamentalists.

Surely you aren't serious.

But then again, maybe you've seen devout Christians strapping bombs to
themselves and blowing up dozens of people at a time. I must have
missed that.

Well, there are always a few bipolar Christian fundamentalists who commit
suicide, but I can't say its a common problem....


Well, if that happens it is because they are bipolar, not because they
are Christian fundamentalists.


Steve

On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 21:02:40 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"William Graham" wrote in message
...
If they are rich, then let them use their own money for the charities of
their choice, and not steal mine.....

No, you prefer to do your own stealing :-)
It's amazing how the rich think it's OK to steal from the poor, but not vice
versa.

Examples, please.




I can support my own charities,
thanks....

I'll bet you don't support any, other than yourself.

What makes you think you know what charities he or anyone else chooses
to support?



MrT.

On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 17:02:11 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"smb" wrote in message
.. .
So if people with guns are having rocks thrown at them, they shouldn't
use the guns because it isn't a fair fight?

If the rocks were killing people, then that's probably an appropriate
response.
Do you have evidence they were?

Hell, there isn't even any evidence those killed actually threw *any* rocks
AFAIK, let alone killed anyone!

MrT.



OK, then you believe that you shouldn't shoot back at someone unless
you get killed first?

Look, I'm not justifying what happened, just saying that it could have
been avoided with some common sense. For whatever reason, those with
the guns felt threatened and responded to the threat. They were just
kids not much different from the ones throwing the rocks and taking
over the buildings.


Steve

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:59:49 -0500, Unclaimed Mysteries
theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysterie s.net wrote:

smb wrote:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 16:20:11 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"smb" wrote in message
...
You are a fool if you think that is what we actually do.
Of course not. You call it collateral damage, so that makes it alright then.

Ah, so you think we deliberately kill women and children and then call
it collateral damage to make ourselves feel good?


Who feels what is irrelevant; "collateral damage" is an effective
euphemism that has less emotional impact than "civilian deaths." It's
very important for propagandists to precisely control language,
intensifying emotion and dialing it back at will to achieve consent.

For example, "providing appropriate tools for law enforcement" is a bit
less inflammatory than "ass-raping the Constitution."


C.


You're avoiding the question, which is do you believe that we
deliberately target civilians?


Steve

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:35:38 -0500, Unclaimed Mysteries
theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysterie s.net wrote:

William Graham wrote in part:

There were a huge number of, "civilian deaths" during WW-II too.......Would
you have liked it better had we stayed at home then? Perhaps you should sit
down and write out a little essay explaining just what incentives you would
need to go to war, and how you would conduct it so only the bad guys die.
Like, suppose your enemy holed up in a church or orphanage....What would you
do then, coach? I'm sure Bush and his generals would be overjoyed to hear
your solution to the problem....I know I sure would......



Perhaps you should blow me.


Once again we see the liberal/leftie response to things they can't or
won't respond to... And they wonder why they keep losing the big
elections?



C.

On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 17:51:51 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"William Graham" wrote in message
...
Terrorism started the war we are engaged in today.

Which Iraqi terrorist act was that?

We were attacked first.

By Iraq? When was that?

Even your right wing press no longer believes that load of dog-****!

Again, NOBODY ever said that Iraq attacked the US. That was never a
reason given for getting rid of Saddam. It was his constant refusal
to obey a decade's worth of U.N. mandates.

You keep trying to beat a dead horse that was never alive in the first
place.


Steve




MrT.

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:42:58 -0500, Unclaimed Mysteries
theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysterie s.net wrote:

Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
smb wrote:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 16:20:11 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"smb" wrote in message
...
You are a fool if you think that is what we actually do.
Of course not. You call it collateral damage, so that makes it
alright then.

Ah, so you think we deliberately kill women and children and then call
it collateral damage to make ourselves feel good?


Who feels what is irrelevant; "collateral damage" is an effective
euphemism that has less emotional impact than "civilian deaths." It's
very important for propagandists to precisely control language,
intensifying emotion and dialing it back at will to achieve consent.

For example, "providing appropriate tools for law enforcement" is a bit
less inflammatory than "ass-raping the Constitution."


C.



I've said my piece on these topics and it's time to let it go. If the
other parties want to crow about how they won the debate, fine. I can
live with my views on the subjects discussed, and I hope they can too,
though I'm not sure how.

The only defeat on USENET comes when one of these Keyboard Commandos
gets under my skin.


We're simply waiting for you to say your piece, unless your piece is
nothing more than the slogan-based accusations and name calling you've
presented.





C.

On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 17:03:55 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"smb" wrote in message
.. .
Ah, so you think we deliberately kill women and children and then call
it collateral damage to make ourselves feel good?

Of course not, you simply don't give a **** about anyone else, or their
lives.
You've made that abundantly clear already.

You are truly ignoring the big picture, and you have never provided an
alternative to anything other than those worn-out anti-American rants.



MrT.

On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 19:09:10 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


"Brother Freebyrd" wrote in message
newshQti.1446$mw4.291@trndny09...

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message
...

It's a matter of faith, either you believe it or you don't.

....but when you die it WILL become a reality :-)

Only for the believers. - They envision themselves, after death, looking
down on the rest of us from their perch up in heaven. A great advantage, to
be sure, since I will not be looking at anyone or anything after I am dead.
But you have to wonder why they can't send us some message from their lofty
perch, don't you? - After all, if they are immersed in all that magic,
surely they could tip us off in some way? But no one....Not even Harry
Houdini, has ever been able to send us even the simplest of messages from
the "other side"....Doesn't that seem strange to you? Maybe the great God
who created us all has nothing better to do than police their message center
to make sure that no contraband messages get through.......It would not
surprise me. After all, he buried all those bones in my back yard trying to
trick me into believing the earth is billions of years old instead of the 3
or 4 thousand years that the bible says it is.
Why did he bother to do that, anyway? - If he wants me to go to hell, then
why doesn't he just send me there? - Because that wouldn't be "fair"? Fair,
shmear. Why does he have to be fair.....Does he have a bunch of peers
looking over his shoulder? - What "rules" does he think he has to play by,
anyway. First he raises me to be a logical, scientific person, and then he
uses that acquired logic to trick me into his hell? - I don't think so.....
Even the Henry Parker books are more logical than that....Or is it Henry
Potter, or something......


God doesn't trick anyone into going to hell. It sounds to me like
you have a very distorted view of Christianity.

There have been many people just as logical and scientific as you who
have come to quite different conclusions about the reality of it all.


Steve

On 8/6/07 10:35 PM, in article ,
"Unclaimed Mysteries"
theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysterie s.net wrote:

William Graham wrote in part:

There were a huge number of, "civilian deaths" during WW-II too.......Would
you have liked it better had we stayed at home then? Perhaps you should sit
down and write out a little essay explaining just what incentives you would
need to go to war, and how you would conduct it so only the bad guys die.
Like, suppose your enemy holed up in a church or orphanage....What would you
do then, coach? I'm sure Bush and his generals would be overjoyed to hear
your solution to the problem....I know I sure would......



Perhaps you should blow me.

C.
Now THAT'S a truly brilliant and cognitive response!