Linux-Advocacy Digest #679, Volume #28 Sun, 27 Aug 00 11:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Large disks still not supported on Linux? ("RCS")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Gary
Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:20:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >In article <8o3bun$l4o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> -- snip --
> >> >>
> >> >> > The term "abusive monopoly" is an oxymoron;
> >> >>
> >> >> Hmm, I think you mean "the term 'abusive monopoly' is redundant."
> >> >>
> >> >> Kind of like "violent explosion."
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >But he'd still be wrong.
> >> >
> >> >It's entirely possible to have a monopoly which abuses its position.
> >>
> >> Not really. It is impossible to have a monopoly which does not abuse
> >> its position, by definition.
> >
> >Wrong. Show me your definition.
>
> "The threshold question in this analysis is whether the defendant's
> conduct is "exclusionary" - that is, whether it has restricted
> significantly, or threatens to restrict significantly, the ability of
> other firms to compete in the relevant market on the merits of what they
> offer customers. "
>
> That's a decent head start on a *description*. I don't argue by
> *definition*.
That's your problem. You don't sit down and think about what things mean
before you start posting.
You have some kind of emotional reaction against profitable companies
and wealthy people and start spewing hatred and venom without
understanding what you're talking about.
Since you don't have any definitions, you can spin the argument however
you want and contradict yourself left and right and think you can get
away with it.
>
> >What if I were an ultimately benevolent person who really didn't need
> >money and I ruled a monopoly with an iron fist. I set prices as low as
> >they'd be with enormous competition. How would that be abuse of my
> >position?
>
> What fucking if what?
Few of your arguments make any sense, but this one is below average --
even for you.
>
> >I didn't say it's likely. But you keep coming up with premises that make
> >certain assumptions, then use them to prove the same assumptions. It's
> >called "circular logic".
>
> Point out the assumption, don't give me straw men based on asinine
> thought experiments where someone is an ultimate benevolent person.
You make the assumption that what you call a permanent monopoly is
always harmful. Then, you use that to prove that permanent monopolies
are bad.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 27 Aug 2000 13:25:34 GMT
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:28:25 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> What do you pay in taxes? Take 8% of that. Ask yourself if it's worth
>> that amount to prevent millions of children from starving to death.
>
>Cut the crap. Nobody is in danger of starving in this country.
Mostly because there is no danger that they'll be dumb enough to implement
the kind of system you advocate.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 27 Aug 2000 13:27:36 GMT
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:27:18 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>In Michigan, the highest per-pupil spender is the Detroit Public
>Schools,
>which also has had the worst performance for the last 10+ years.
>
>Obviously, the solution involves something OTHER than money.
Not quite true ( if you don't spend anything, you don't get anything
back ). What seems to be true ( and should be obvious ) is that there
is a point of diminishing returns.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 27 Aug 2000 13:30:09 GMT
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:13:53 GMT, Joe Ragosta wrote:
>My company uses entrance exams for executive positions. They've found
>that people who score higher on the exam tend to do better jobs than
>those who score poorly.
THe funny thing about this ruling is that it's so easy to circumvent,
because companies construct their own "IQ" tests.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:30:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Marion
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Perry Pip wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > And you want my taxes to pay for vouchers for that shit? No way.
> > > >
> > > > As someone who started out in public schools, then switched to
> > > > private school, I can say without a doubt that the education I got
> > > > at
> > > > the private school was _much_ better then I could've gotten in the
> > > > public system. My parents sacrificed a lot for my sister and I
> > > > (and
> > > > we both let them know that we appreciate what they did) to go to
> > > > private school. I have plenty of friends that went to public
> > > > school
> > > > that wish they could've also gone to private school and talk about
> > > > how bad they were/are.
> > >
> > > It depends where you live. In rich suburbs, the public schools are of
> > > very high quality. They're properly funded. In inner cities, they're
> > > woefully underfunded, and they're horrible.
> >
> > You might want to check your facts.
> >
> > The funding level in some of those inner city schools isn't very
> > different from suburban spending.
>
> In 1992 in New York state the richest (suburban, of course) school
> district spent $38,572 per student vs. $5,423 for the poorest (inner
> city).
>
> In Texas, it was $42,000 vs. $3,098.
>
> In Illinois, it was $16,700 vs. $2,276.
I suppose you can provide evidence for these figures.....
AND, note that I never said that ALL schools had equal funding. Do you
know what "some" means?
>
> > Money doesn't solve problems.
>
> No, but good teachers, good equipment and good facilities do, and money
> pays for all of that.
Equipment and facilities are overrated. A good teacher can do a great
job with less than state of the art equipment. And I'm not aware of any
evidence at all that says that teacher quality is directly related to
salary. If you can find it, you've lost your argument, btw. Many, many
private schools (particularly Catholic schools) pay their teachers less
than the public school salaries. Yet their students outperform. (and
don't assume that it's equipment, either. The school my kids used to go
to had lousy equipment and teacher salaries around $16 K and the kids
excelled by any standard).
So why are high teacher salaries only important in public schools?
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: "RCS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Large disks still not supported on Linux?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:17:40 +0200
I was wondering if the upcoming kernel 2.4 supports larger harddisks than
previously?
( or maybe its lilo that needs to be updated for this?)
As it is today, it is some hassle to install Windows and Linux on the same
machine due to this.
Also, since you don't get newer computers with harddisks less 6 GB (more or
less) any more, it is some hassle also to install Linux by itself on one
harddisk.
Of course, you could get through the partitioning if you have some
experience, but for beginners this is something that will turn them of
trying Linux.
Of course, as always, I could have missed something :-)
RCS
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 10:07:42 -0400
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Is it also theft any time I pay taxes to the government, and I
>> > > > don't get back all that money in the form of government services?
>> > > > If so, then we have a society Robin Hood would be quite proud
>> > > > of.
>> > >
>> > > The more fortunate are paying for the benefit of not having the
>> > > less fortunate starving in the streets.
>> >
>> > Now, isn't that exactly an argument I could use to say that even if
>> > you never get paid social security benefits, they payroll tax wasn't
>> > stolen from you, because you got the benefit of not having the less
>> > fortunate starving in the streets?
>>
>> Yes. But what comes along with the idea of preventing people from
>> starving in the streets in the assumption that you yourself won't be
>> allowed to starve if it ever comes down to that. If you eliminate social
>> security you eliminate that safety net.
>There are several problems with that.
>1. A "safety net" can mean a lot of different things. For some people, it's
>only meant to cover the most dire emergencies. For others, it's meant to
>cover every little thing that could go wrong -- and ends up being a way of
>life.
>2. I have sufficient savings and insurance to provide my own safety net.
>Barring that, I have a family. Then a church. The argument you're facing is
>that people should rely on their own resources _first_. What's happening is
>that they're relying on the government first.
You can't get enough government assistance to live, if you have your own
resources. Those who do are about as far down the ladder as a person can be
in this society. Of course there are people who lie their way into assistance
-- but then corporations do that too and we always find money for them.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 10:00:02 -0400
Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Or the fact that US teenagers routinely rank ***LAST*** for all
>> industrialized nations in:
>>
>> Mathematics
>> Basic Physical Sciences (biology, chemistry and physics)
>> World History
>Yet for some reason, we consistently rank *first* in doing things like
>creating new technologies, worker productivity, and gross national product,
>versus those other countries that have high test scores but can't get it
>together otherwise.
None of which are controlled by high school age people, who have the problems.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 09:41:08 -0400
JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Bob Hauck wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 15:35:31 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >What's bad about it? It maintains superiority, which is good.
>> >
>> > The major problems with missle defense are:
>> >
>> > 1. It is horrifically expensive and the threat is vague. The stated
>> > threats of "third world nukes" and "terrorist nukes" are bullshit
>> > because those groups will deliver nukes, if they deliver them, through
>> > means other than the ICBM's they don't have. Can you say "Maginot
>> > Line"?
>> >
>> > 2. Offense is much cheaper than defense. A warhead is orders of
>> > magnitude cheaper than the interceptor that's supposed to stop it.
>> > Decoys are effective and cheaper still. Therefore, a defense that is
>> > at all effective, or claimed to be, simply invites the adversary to
>> > build a bigger and more varied offense. This will make it more
>> > difficult to get meaningful reductions in arsenals from the countries
>> > that *do* have ICBM's, thereby decreasing our security and world
>> > stability rather than increasing it.
>>
>> So...then, your idea is...
>>
>> Expand the number of ICBM's in the American arsenal, AND
>> build large numbers of decoys, and blast China to hell if
>> they launch even one missile.
>No new missiles, we have enough right now to destroy the entire earth. No
>decoys. Blast China to hell even if they launch a single missile is a
>promise.
>Now if there was a way to stop missiles immediately after launch.....
> The current plan is to launch a full counter strike. It is the only plan,
>and MUST be the only plan. The only thing worse than that plan is to NOT
>launch a counter strike. Not very desirable options. A way to stop attacks
>before they happen is the only other way. The cost is impossible to calculate
>because of the technology gained from most major endeavors such as this. Who
>can tell what the payoff on this investment would be in the long run.
I think you ought to join the service and find out what war is about, before
you tell those who have what ought to be done. Furthermore, anyone who doesn't
find nuclear war to be completely unthinkable, is a complete asshole.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 09:35:33 -0400
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> On what grounds do you make the claim that "basic reading, writing,
>> mathematics and history" have suffered ?
>Not that I think it was for the reasons he said that they are suffering, but
>one only has to look at the countless people graduating from High Schools in
>the country that can't even read at an adult level to know that something is
>seriously wrong. Lack of money likely isn't it either... I think it's
>probably more like sorry misuse of funds by the school boards.
If you get into the details, which teachers see, but most people don't -- you
find that the students with the problems are by and large the ones with
problem homes. And it comes with them to school -- and what happenes to them
is not much different from say the worker who has problems on the job because
of divorce, loss of a partner, etc. Except that the adults can usually deal
with it better. -- What one often sees is a child who can't focus on the
work, and parents (or a parent) who don't care.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 09:20:30 -0400
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/26/00
at 10:28 PM, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>david raoul derbes wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Chad Irby wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Courageous
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > We were having to pay off the Vietnam War buildup, we had an Energy
>> >> > > Crisis that was out of anyone's control (in this hemisphere, anyway),
>> >> > > Iran kept the hostages because Reagan gave them...
>> >> >
>> >> > You are woefully confused about certain things, like the
>> >> > order in which certain Presidents were elected, for example.
>> >>
>> >> The Vietnam War was expanded in the '60s, ran through '73, and the
>> >> payments on it were stalled until after Ford lost in 1976, dropping the
>> >> financial issues for it into Carter's lap.
>> >
>> >The Vietnam War was DEMOCRAT Johnson's baby.
>> >
>> >In case you don't recall...
>> > REPUBLICAN Nixon got us ***OUT*** of that boondoggle.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The Energy Crisis was during Carter's Presidency.
>> >
>> >The OPEC embargo lasted less than 6 months.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The hostages were taken during Carter's Presidency and released after
>> >> Reagan won, partly through the Iran-Conrta situation.
>> >
>> >They hostages were in captivity for 444 days.
>> >
>> >They were released shortly after the election....only about
>> >180 days after Reagan secured enough primary delegates.
>>
>> The hostages were released within *minutes* of Reagan taking the oath
>> of office. Those of us who were adults in 1980 remember this very, very
>> well. Most of the networks had to do a split screen of the jet taking
>> off from the Tehran airport and Reagan's inaugural address.
>>
>> The mullahs were so angry at Carter for the abortive hostage rescue
>> that they were never, ever going to release their captives so long
>> as Carter was president.
>So, you admit that no bribe was necessary, as all of the Reagan-haters are
>always frothing at the mouth about.
So you admit that ragon was too stupid to understand the situation and
committed treason instead.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 09:04:56 -0400
Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>> And you want my taxes to pay for vouchers for that shit? No way.
>
>No.
>I don't want you being taxed for *anybody's* education.
>PARENTS should pay for their kids' education.
>Those who can't afford tuition shouldn't be having kids.
By this logic, those who don't drive or fly where you go, shouldn't be taxed
to provide you with what you need either. Please pay your own way in society
from now on.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 08:59:16 -0400
JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:39a8232e$4$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> >ZnU wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
>> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > ZnU wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > > You're setting up strawmen again. I haven't said a word
>about
>> >> > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > timeframe to pay off the national debt.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Upon maturity of the outstanding Treasury bills, you idiot.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Why do you keep repeating that when it has nothing to do with
>> >> > > > > anything
>> >> > > > > I've said?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > It does---you're merely to ignorant to see the connection.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > It doesn't. Please explain how Bush intends to pay off the national
>> >> > > debt
>> >> > > while deficit spending. You seem to be arguing that he can. If
>you're
>> >> > > not arguing that he can, then you're not arguing with anything I've
>> >> > > said.
>> >> >
>> >> > What makes you so sure he will be deficit spending? (At least, that
>his
>> >> > will be any worse than Gore's.) Yes, he is cutting more taxes than
>> >> > Gore, but he is also spending less than Gore on programs like health
>> >> > care.
>> >>
>> >> And spending more than Gore on things like (broken) missile defense.
>> >>
>> >> The fact is, I don't _know_ he'll be deficit spending. He's so vague on
>> >> the issues that it's hard to tell anything at all. But he'll either be
>> >> deficit spending or he'll be cutting killing rather important social
>> >> programs, and neither is worth it just to give the average american
>> >> family a $43/year tax break. And there's certainly no chance of him
>> >> paying down the debt.
>>
>>
>> >If the Democrats are oooooooooh so fucking worried about the National
>Debt,
>> >then why did they run it up to $7,000,000,000,000 in the first place?
>>
>>
>> Are you playing complete asshole to entertain us or are you really stupid
>> enough to think that the Democrats passed Reaganomics -- Which is where
>the
>> debt came from.
>No - Reagan asked congress to spend less every single year he was in office.
>They refused to spend less.
> http://reagan.webteamone.com/images/deficits.gif
No. reagon asked the congress to spend less on what reagon didn't like, while
he increased spending on everything that he did like. -- In any event your
position is pure bullshit, because there is nothing that kept reagon from
vetoing any and every budget -- therefore, he is the responsible party since
he had to power to control spending, but didn't have the courage to make sure
the buck stopped at his desk.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 08:54:28 -0400
JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Iran kept the hostages because Reagan gave them arms in a
>> technically-treasonous exchange, and Carter admitted to having lust in
>> his heart for women, versus Reagan's denial of same (while not
>> mentioning that his daughter was conceived out of wedlock, and he was
>> sleeping with Nancy while he was still married to Jane Wyman).
>If I remember correctly the first thing Reagan did was seize Iranian assests,
>although minute details escape me on that. The first thing Iran did was free
>the hostages....hmmm...
>And the bombing of Kadafi's HOUSE was a classic "you wanna fuck with me!?"
>exchange.
>There was never a finer President in recent history.
We know from the Iran-Contra hearings what the sequence was. You version is
drivel.
>BTW - He denies any knowledge of arms deals. :-)
>Besides his international dealings were all superb, why question the details.
And what future international problems did raygun ron prevent? What major
crisis did he end?
The truth is NONE.
>> The economy was starting to pull out of it, Reagan got elected, and
>> while he was still formulating policy, Carter's economic strategies
>> started to take hold. Three or four years later, Reagan's policies took
>> effect, and we had the mid-80s recession.
>No it wasn't "just starting to pull out" it took three years.
Do you honestly think everything a president does is not connected to either
the past or the future? That the term begins with a clean page?
>> So tell us again why you thought Carter was a dud as President?
>He thought all the answers were to be found with MORE government.
Give examples of his actions to bring more government. How do you feel about
the fact that it was Carter's planning that allowed us to win the Gulf war?
How do you feel about the fact that raygun ron and bush left us so broke, that
bush had to travel around around the world passing the hat before we could go
to war?
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 08:41:03 -0400
Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Do you know what a third-world nation is?
>> >
>> > It's a very fuzzy definition, and Russia is dropping further and
>> > further into that every day. Witness the Kursk.
>>
>> Third-world nations typically have nuclear-powered missile submarines?
>"First-world" nations have nuclear submarines that work, and don't screw
>around for a week before asking for help in rescuing the crew.
This is an invalid criteria. We have had our failures too. The primary
difference was that our subs went too deep to bother with a rescue.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 10:27:07 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> I'll put it this way...
>
> *MY* children are *MY* responsibility, not society's
> *YOUR* children are *YOUR* resonsibility, not society's.
>
> If you don't want to see *YOUR* children suffer, then make
> sure that *YOU* can provide for them.
>
> If not, then don't have children. YOU do not have any right to
> take from me for the purpose of supporting *YOUR* kids.
>
> IF you want lots of kids, then go get a job that can pay for
> all of them. If not, then don't blame me if you don't have
> enough money to feed them all...
>
> Is any of this getting through to you?
You are treating children like inanimate objects which are owned by the parents
and have no rights of their own. Certainly it would be better if people who
didn't have the resources to take care of children didn't have any. But once
they are born, the children have rights as human beings that transcend the
parents. You seem to be bordering on advocating genocide.
Gary
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
