if this long thread has gone for
soo long with the [OT] tag
why don't you go to another place
to talk about this *rather* OT stuff.
Please?
Now!
fede
On Tuesday 27 January 2004 20:30, Nano Nano wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 05:26:52AM +0800, Katipo wrote:
The only westernized
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:37:39PM -0300, federico silva wrote:
if this long thread has gone for
soo long with the [OT] tag
why don't you go to another place
to talk about this *rather* OT stuff.
okay
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2004/debian-user-200401/msg06917.html
--
To
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:37:39PM -0300, federico silva wrote:
if this long thread has gone for
soo long with the [OT] tag
why don't you go to another place
to talk about this *rather* OT stuff.
Please?
Now!
procmail is your friend.
Nano Nano wrote:
(2) The oil thing. Yeah, there's some of that. But do me a favor and
separate out (1) from this in your rhetoric.
Not my rhetoric but it is a common enough one that people need to address
it.
The best thing you can do about (2) is change cars, the the oil
companies
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:43:56AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
invites the same to be done to it. And if we don't want people messing
with the US they why the hell do we put up with the US messing with other
nations. It's called a double-standard, really pissy things.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 10:09:57PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Mike M wrote:
I am not going to defend .gov's oil policy. My point is there has to be
an oil policy. You can't disengage and think things will just turn out
alright.
Why does there have to be one that includes invasion?
I
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:04:43AM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:43:56AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
invites the same to be done to it. And if we don't want people messing
with the US they why the hell do we put up with the US messing with other
nations. It's called a
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:50:25AM +0100, Mike M wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:04:43AM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
Definition of Isolationism
1. involvement without commitment - advantages without obligations
Impossible.
2. no permanent, entanglinq alliances
Impossible.
3. keep
Nano Nano wrote:
Bah.
Bah is right. The author (not you) asked what was wrong with going the
socialist way.
It doesn't work.
It doesn't work in small systems.
It doesn't work in large systems.
It certainly doesn't work in huge systems like a nation requires.
It
Katipo wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:42:14 -0600 Dave's List Addy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/04 6:00 PM, Paul M Foster wrote:
1. Don't call us when you need help fending off the next power-mad
psycho bent on enslaving the entire planet.
This personality is your current president, ably
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:55:21 -0800
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Katipo wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:42:14 -0600 Dave's List Addy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/04 6:00 PM, Paul M Foster wrote:
1. Don't call us when you need help fending off the next power-mad
psycho bent on
Katipo wrote:
I'd debate the issue, but you have your preferred view that appears to be
based on a mixture of misconception and a confused perception of Europe
being socialist.
Uhm, no. I ran with what you agreed Nano said. IE, that Europe was
trending towards socialism. You said it was
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:55:21AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
snip
Quite frankly I'd be more than happy if the US got out of the world.
I'm tired of footing the bill for other nation's defense. I'd love for the
US to get out of Isreal and Palastine. Not that we're really *IN* it,
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:55:04AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Uhm, no. I ran with what you agreed Nano said. IE, that Europe was
trending towards socialism. You said it was the right direction which means
You're getting my part of the thread confused. Katipo originally
replied to Paul M.
s. keeling wrote:
Ditto that, but if you wonder where it comes from, start up a
discussion with RMS sometime. I guarantee you'll be tossing furniture
in frustration within hours. The man appears to be impervious to
real-world reason.
The problem is that it is too easy to think that the Free
El mié, 28 de ene de 2004, a las 03:55:21 -0800, Steve Lamb dijo:
[snip]
Could it be because they are listening to their media and believing all
of
what they say without thinking for themselves? Could it be the limiting
view
their parochial education and limited political choice?
Mike M wrote:
The point-by-point rebuttal was rendered moot by this last part. We (the
US) must not withdraw from the world and our borders must remain open and
we must accept being hated and we must stop being so arrogant and we must
do business fairly.
I never said the borders should be
Jose Boix wrote:
One out of two representatives of two parties is not what I would call
unlimited political choice.
Funny, last national election I counted 5 parties that I was personally
aware of.
Republican
Democrat
Libertarian
Green
Reform
Hint, I am not a member of the first two.
On Wednesday 28 January 2004 17:55, Steve Lamb wrote:
Katipo wrote:
I'd debate the issue, but you have your preferred view that appears to be
based on a mixture of misconception and a confused perception of Europe
being socialist.
Uhm, no. I ran with what you agreed Nano said. IE,
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 12:23:00PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Mike M wrote:
The point-by-point rebuttal was rendered moot by this last part. We (the
US) must not withdraw from the world and our borders must remain open and
we must accept being hated and we must stop being so arrogant and we
Mike M wrote:
There's no way to separate the
private concerns from the public ones. How is the business of oil to be
separated from the world's current woes?
How does government meddling in it improve anything?
Who is responsible for the atrocities that
followed, consisting of human
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 09:08:17PM +0800, Katipo wrote:
I'd debate the issue, but you have your preferred view that appears to be based on a
mixture of misconception and a confused perception of Europe being socialist. You
obviously also appear to have no understanding of what happened in
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 07:37:00PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Mike M wrote:
There's no way to separate the
private concerns from the public ones. How is the business of oil to be
separated from the world's current woes?
How does government meddling in it improve anything?
I am not going
Mike M wrote:
I am not going to defend .gov's oil policy. My point is there has to be
an oil policy. You can't disengage and think things will just turn out
alright.
Why does there have to be one that includes invasion?
They are in front of the line. My vote is all of the above.
Even
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 10:09:57PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Mike M wrote:
I am not going to defend .gov's oil policy. My point is there has to be
an oil policy. You can't disengage and think things will just turn out
alright.
Why does there have to be one that includes invasion?
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
From what I heard the constitution explicitly defines two types of taxes
(I forget the names), but basically they are taxes on things and just
you have to pay it taxes, and our government is only supposed to
collect the first kind.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 05:21:32AM -0500, Carl Fink wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
From what I heard the constitution explicitly defines two types of taxes
(I forget the names), but basically they are taxes on things and just
you have to pay it taxes,
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:00:11 -0500
Paul Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 04:49:26 +0100, Jan Minar wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:01:17PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
Here's another view of that data:
What about this one?:
| Country Aid(Billions) People(Millions)
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:37:51 +
Michael Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u w x y and zed (not zee I'm
British!)
Hmm and maybe there should be a v!
I knew that would happen! I'd take the piss out the guy for not noticing
the order then feck up the
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 05:21:32AM -0500, Carl Fink wrote:
Perhaps you've heard of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution,
explicitly authorizing an income tax?
The first guy I heard talking about this was on AM-radio, back before
Tim McVeigh took all the fun out of black helicopters
Carl Fink wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
From what I heard the constitution explicitly defines two types of taxes
(I forget the names), but basically they are taxes on things and just
you have to pay it taxes, and our government is only supposed to
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 08:26:34AM -0600, Kent West wrote:
Even if the 16th were declared void, it wouldn't matter, because since
that amendment was passed, the courts have decided that an income tax
was constitutional all along, with our without the amendment:
On 1/26/04 6:00 PM, Paul M Foster wrote:
Right On Paul My sentiments exactly, I think the comedian Robin Williams has
a bit on what America should do, I don't have it handy, but mirrors those
thoughts.
Really? And you get that from this table, do you? The *worst*?
You know what? I think
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:42:14 -0600
Dave's List Addy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/04 6:00 PM, Paul M Foster wrote:
Right On Paul My sentiments exactly, I think the comedian Robin Williams has
a bit on what America should do, I don't have it handy, but mirrors those
thoughts.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 05:26:52AM +0800, Katipo wrote:
The only westernized nation that spends less on health care/capita than the U.S. is
Turkey.
You are forgetting the private sector. It's the best in the world for
those who can get it. True, it's not distributed uniformly, but our
poor
Carl Fink wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 09:57:38PM -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote:
I'd suggest that comparing ethnic groups with religious groups is rather
like comparing apples to oranges. I'm assuming that you meant to imply
either the expenditures for keeping the MUSLIMS safe from their
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:57:35PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
Carl Fink wrote:
oh wow, you're SO wrong. unless 'these days' is pretty much the same
as thousand years or so :-)
actually 'yugoslavia' is fairly recent artificial term...
I'm very irritated by your and Alex's comments, but
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:01:17PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
Here's another view of that data:
What about this one?:
| Country Aid(Billions) People(Millions) Dollars/Person
| Australia 1 19.750.76
| Austria 0.5 8.1 61.73
| Belgium 1.1 10.2107.84
| Canada
Incoming from Jan Minar:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:01:17PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
Here's another view of that data:
What about this one?:
| Country Aid(Billions) People(Millions) Dollars/Person
| Australia 1 19.750.76
| Austria 0.5 8.1 61.73
| Belgium 1.1
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:19:38PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
Incoming from Jan Minar:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:01:17PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
Here's another view of that data:
What about this one?:
| Country Aid(Billions) People(Millions) Dollars/Person
| Australia 1
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:19:38PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
I think the world's needy are going to be far happier with the US 12.9
billion than they are going to be with Canada's paltry 2.0 billion.
Or would you prefer they had Norway's _massive_ (per Capita)
contribution of only 1.7 billion?
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:51:20PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
[...], but anything which
reduces the rhetorical strength of the terrorists and eurosnobs is
probably useful.
YMMD.
--
Rico -mc- Gloeckner | 1024D/61F05B8C | jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 1/26/04 3:51 PM, Nano Nano wrote:
Naively I would say the US should be giving about $55/person
Yeah Right! With world opinion of the US, many are lucky that the 12.9 is
even given.
Charity starts at home.
--
Thanks!!
David Thurman
List Only at Web Presence Group Net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 04:49:26AM +0100, Jan Minar wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:01:17PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
Here's another view of that data:
What about this one?:
| Country Aid(Billions) People(Millions) Dollars/Person
| Australia 1 19.750.76
| Austria 0.5
* Paul M Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-26 19:00 -0500]:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 04:49:26AM +0100, Jan Minar wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:01:17PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
Here's another view of that data:
What about this one?:
| Country Aid(Billions) People(Millions)
Dave's List Addy wrote:
Yeah Right! With world opinion of the US, many are lucky that the 12.9 is
even given.
Charity starts at home.
Charity is not coerced. How much of those figures is actual charity
and how much are just the different states spending their populations money
with little to
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:54:45AM +0100, David Jardine wrote:
I don't know about the world's needy, but I do remember (well,
perhaps not too accurately, perhaps :)) reading some years ago
that 48 per cent of what was called US foreign aid was accounted
for by what had to be paid to Israel
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 04:57:15PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Dave's List Addy wrote:
Yeah Right! With world opinion of the US, many are lucky that the 12.9 is
even given.
Charity starts at home.
Charity is not coerced. How much of those figures is actual charity
and how much are just
On Monday 26 January 2004 7:00 pm, Paul M Foster wrote:
Yeah, the U.S. really sucks. And we love hearing it over and over again
from people who are cut off from the fruits of observation, and are
really incapable of doing anything but whining. Or who really just have
a socialist or communist
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 04:49:26 +0100, Jan Minar wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:01:17PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
Here's another view of that data:
What about this one?:
| Country Aid(Billions) People(Millions) Dollars/Person
| Australia 1 19.750.76
| Austria 0.5 8.1
On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 19:03, Carl Fink wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:54:45AM +0100, David Jardine wrote:
I don't know about the world's needy, but I do remember (well,
perhaps not too accurately, perhaps :)) reading some years ago
that 48 per cent of what was called US foreign aid
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 09:57:38PM -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote:
I'd suggest that comparing ethnic groups with religious groups is rather
like comparing apples to oranges. I'm assuming that you meant to imply
either the expenditures for keeping the MUSLIMS safe from their
Christian
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 09:13:12PM -0500, Jeff Elkins wrote:
As a paleolibertarian/paleoconservative I'm totally opposed to the current US
foreign policy. However, as far as these so-called taxes go, they are
nothing more than state-imposed slavery.
You want my $55 Nano-Nano? Come ring
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:11:25 -0500
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 09:57:38PM -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote:
I'd suggest that comparing ethnic groups with religious groups is rather
like comparing apples to oranges. I'm assuming that you meant to imply
either
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 06:59:04PM -0600, Colin Keefe wrote:
* Paul M Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-26 19:00 -0500]:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 04:49:26AM +0100, Jan Minar wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:01:17PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
Here's another view of that data:
What
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to mention the fact that the US is following more than one thread by
being by far the largest donor of aid to poorer nations
Google for foreign aid usa denmark netherlands and you'll
find things like
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:29:02PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to mention the fact that the US is following more than one thread by
being by far the largest donor of aid to poorer nations
Google for foreign aid
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Nano Nano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:29:02PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to mention the fact that the US is following more than one thread by
being by far
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:16:24PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:29:02PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to mention the fact that the US is following more than one thread by
being by far the
59 matches
Mail list logo
