A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

funny things to do on a bike



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #491  
Old May 27th 04, 03:23 AM
G.T.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)


"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message

. ..

But it's interesting you don't find the biggest air pollution
reduction act in over a decade significant. Go figure.


I suppose trying to reverse Clinton's declaration of National Monument
status for Escalante (mining interests want coal there) and
overturning national forest roadless rules somehow count as
environmentalism?

Go figure.


You should come on out to Arizona to find out how much we all like
liberal northeast environmentalists out here, and what their
"environMENTAL" actions have done to HUGE areas of the forest (now
resembling the surface of the moon). With a few forest roads, some
intelligent thinning of trees we wouldn't lose entire ecosystems every
summer.


I don't know what environMENTALists are but environmentalists would have let
the fires burn long before the forests got to be tinderboxes and let nature
run it's course. Unfortunately there were too many influential capitalists
worried about protecting their stolen property to let that happen.

Greg


Ads
  #492  
Old May 27th 04, 04:19 AM
John Henderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)

"Mark Hickey" wrote:

See, all that research on ad hominem attacks has done you some
good. You're getting better at them.


It's great to see us moving on from /ad hominem/ to /tu quoque/.

John


  #494  
Old May 27th 04, 05:24 AM
Hunrobe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)

Frank Krygowski

wrote:

Hunrobe wrote:

Frank Krygowski



wrote:


Well, since the current rationalization for our $100 billion adventure
is that Saddam was evil, somebody needs to explain how we decide exactly
which evil dictators are evil enough to justify invasion.

Apparently, not everyone on the "evil dictator" list qualifies. And not
every terribly repressive country gets invaded.

Some of the repressive countries just serve as sources for inexpensive
bike frames. Others serve as sources for oil. Others, with no major
resources to sell us, go completely unnoticed.



Leaving aside your unsupported hyperbole describing the Saudi Crown Prince

as
"one of the world's worst dictators"...


Try googling dictators, or worst dictators, or similar topics. His name
will come up. I've seen it in several such lists.


---snip---

I've done that, Frank. Try reading the resulting links instead of relying on a
mere list. The Human Rights Watch for one has called him an oppressive dictator
and I won't argue that he's not. I will point out though that the actions that
they point to when they apply that label are censorship of the press and
establishing a de facto state religion. Neither is something I would support or
even live peacably under but neither are they mass murder and genocide so your
characterization of him as "one of the world's worst dictators" remains
unsupported hyperbole.


Absent truly evil acts like genocide, we haven't the right to interfere

with
other nations' internal affairs through military force...


Sorry for interrupting, but you know as well as I that genocide has NOT
been a criterion. We've ignored genocide quite nicely. And if you ask
most Native Americans, they'd say we did worse than ignore it.

... *unless* those nations'
activities pose a threat to our own nation's security either militarily or
economically.


I'd hope you'd want to rephrase that. Because, as it reads, if Saudi
Arabia decided they wouldn't sell us any more oil (yes, far fetched),
that would pose a threat to our nation's security "economically." Your
statement would justify an invasion in that case. Surely you don't mean
that.


---snip---

Why would I rephrase it? If such a thing took place and there was no way for
this nation to continue to exist- the truest definition of national security-
then it most certainly *would* justify an invasion IMO.

Also, from what I understand, it was a similar action on our part -
cutting off oil, hurting Japan's security both militarily and
economically - that triggered the Pearl Harbor attack. Most people in
America think that attack was not justified.


---snip---

Your understanding is flawed. When the US refused to sell Japan oil, rubber,
and other materials we didn't threaten their national security. True, we
disrupted plans by some in that nation to continue to build and use a war
machine designed to annex neighboring nations through brute force but that's
not the same thing now is it?

As you well know the decision to use or not use military force in
either type of offending nation- truly evil regimes or those that pose a

threat
to us- is now and has always been a matter of weighing the possible
consequences of such action or inaction.


Or rather, the consequences of one action versus another.

Which brings us back to the fact that damned near the entire world
thought that applying just enough pressure on Iraq to continue UN
inspections was a suitable action. Damned near the entire world thought
at the time that it was a better action than the one we performed,
considering the possible consequences.

And even more of the world thinks so now.


---snip---

On the one hand you speak of world opinion as if opinion in itself were a
consequence and OTOH you say that in the opinion of "damned near the entire
world" the risk of the action wasn't worth the possible consequences. Is world
opinion a consequence or not? I'd say it's not. It's a global case of, "Okay,
that's what you *think*. Now what are you going to *do*?", with the usual
answer- not a damned thing.

I don't doubt your intelligence but your overly-simplistic
request for a 'formula' for those decisions certainly leads me to question

your
sincerity.


And I don't doubt your intelligence, which is why I'm sure you
recognized that as a rhetorical device.

The world isn't black and white and you darn well know that.


The guy who said "You're either with us or against us" (I think that's a
direct quote) doesn't seem to think so. Perhaps you should write him a
letter. If he could learn to perceive shades of grey, he might be
better at his job.


I'll make you a deal, Frank. I'll write him that letter if you'll explain why
you can use rhetoric but no one else is allowed. (See your own comments above
about "formula for decisions to use military force")

Regards,
Bob Hunt


  #495  
Old May 27th 04, 06:10 AM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)

JP wrote:

...
No, it is more like about 3 million jobs lost minus 900 thousand
(crappy) jobs gained back....


A lot of the "job growth" over the last two months are positions in
agriculture and construction. In most of the US, these are seasonal
businesses.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

  #496  
Old May 27th 04, 02:24 PM
Mark Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)

"G.T." wrote:

"Mark Hickey" wrote


You should come on out to Arizona to find out how much we all like
liberal northeast environmentalists out here, and what their
"environMENTAL" actions have done to HUGE areas of the forest (now
resembling the surface of the moon). With a few forest roads, some
intelligent thinning of trees we wouldn't lose entire ecosystems every
summer.


I don't know what environMENTALists are but environmentalists would have let
the fires burn long before the forests got to be tinderboxes and let nature
run it's course.


That would have probably been the best approach - but it's too late
now unless we want to just burn it all to the ground (literally) and
wait a couple centuries for it to come back to its natural state.

I don't have *quite* that much patience... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
  #497  
Old May 27th 04, 02:32 PM
Mark Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)

Tom Sherman wrote:

A lot of the "job growth" over the last two months are positions in
agriculture and construction. In most of the US, these are seasonal
businesses.


So let's see if I understand the principle - during the "off season"
they were "lost jobs" but then during the "on season" they're not "job
growth".

I suppose by that accounting unemployment must be at well over 100% by
now accumulatively. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
  #498  
Old May 27th 04, 03:12 PM
Mark South
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
Tom Sherman wrote:

A lot of the "job growth" over the last two months are positions in
agriculture and construction. In most of the US, these are seasonal
businesses.


So let's see if I understand the principle - during the "off season"
they were "lost jobs" but then during the "on season" they're not "job
growth".


You just broke the code. Standard governmental-type methods, used by G's
everywhere.

I suppose by that accounting unemployment must be at well over 100% by
now accumulatively. ;-)


Expect the black helicopters imminently!
--
Mark South
Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net
Tiens! Ce poulet a une grenade!


  #499  
Old May 27th 04, 03:53 PM
Frank Krygowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)

Hunrobe wrote:


I'll make you a deal, Frank. I'll write him that letter if you'll explain why
you can use rhetoric but no one else is allowed.


What an odd proposition - considering I never said no one else is
allowed to use rhetoric!


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

  #500  
Old May 27th 04, 05:36 PM
andres muro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)

There was a titanium bike thread started a few days ago. Not a peep
from Mark to instruct us about titanium. instead he continues to be
entangled in a purely rhetorical exercise, which at this point is most
likely futile to all parties involved.

So, Mark: if you are engaging in this dialogue purely for fun, please
continue, but do not neglect your duties in this group as a ti expert.

Everyone else: if you are doing this for fun, again, please continue.
However, in reading some of the posts, I can sense the frustration
that some of you may feel. So, how about some titanium?

Andres

Tom Sherman wrote in message ...
JP wrote:

...
No, it is more like about 3 million jobs lost minus 900 thousand
(crappy) jobs gained back....


A lot of the "job growth" over the last two months are positions in
agriculture and construction. In most of the US, these are seasonal
businesses.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
buying my first road bike Tanya Quinn General 28 June 17th 10 10:42 AM
True Cost of a Supermarket Bike Elisa Francesca Roselli General 41 January 25th 04 05:18 AM
Secure Bike Parking.? M. Barbee General 14 January 6th 04 03:00 AM
my new bike Marian Rosenberg General 5 October 19th 03 03:00 PM
Best Way to Travel with a Bike on an Airplane F1 General 5 August 14th 03 10:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.