-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 fr
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
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 nat
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.
>
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 cal
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 invasio
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.
http://history.acusd.e
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 will
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 invasio
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 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 n
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 i
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 enslaveme
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
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 sai
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.
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 c
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 choi
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 S
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
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:55:21AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> 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, m
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 th
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-ma
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, abl
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 hasn't
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,
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
Christ
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
poo
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 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 thi
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:
>
> http://www.taxable
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
col
> 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 helicopte
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 a
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)
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
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 fir
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:
> >
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
> >
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? Co
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 tormen
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 forei
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
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 communis
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 muc
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 I
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
* 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) Peopl
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
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 UNSUBSCR
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]
ht
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 billio
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
> > | Austral
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
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
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
> > >bei
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
>
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
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 http://www.just1wo
59 matches
Mail list logo
