|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#502
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
Mark Hickey wrote:
"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... ;-) Damn, I didn't set that hook very well. Greg |
#503
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
Mark Hickey wrote:
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".... My point is that a jump in employment due to seasonal factors should not be seen as a sign of economic recovery or long-term job growth. One needs to factor out regular seasonal variations to determine the true employment situation. -- Tom Sherman – Quad City Area |
#504
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
|
#505
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
|
#506
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
Hunrobe wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: 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! Perhaps it wouldn't seem so odd if you read my post and didn't snip so much as to lose context. You wrote: "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." Since we haven't launched any attacks on Spain for instance (they *did* withdraw their support after all), I trust you'll agree that "You're either with us or against us." is an obvious overstatement made to emphasize the depth of conviction. You then defended another part of your post by claiming you were using a "rhetorical device". This combination led me to believe you refuse to grant others the right to use rhetorical devices hence my offer. Now that you've said that others may use rhetorical devices I can only assume that either you didn't read what was written or you expect us to attack Spain in the near future. There seems to be some confusion here about the difference between "rhetorical device" and "simplistic and uncompromising foreign policy." -- --------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
#507
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
|
#508
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
Hunrobe wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: There seems to be some confusion here about the difference between "rhetorical device" and "simplistic and uncompromising foreign policy." No, you seem to not understand the difference between *foreign* policy and *antiterrorism* policy. Foreign policy is a government's policy toward other nation states. Antiterrorism policy is a government's policy toward terrorist organizations, actions, and supporters. While the latter can and should influence the former the two are not interchangeable terms. I'd say: When "antiterrorism policy" refers to measures taken within our borders, it's not part of "foreign policy." When "antiterrorism policy" refers to measures like invading a foreign country, it's part of "foreign policy." And there is more to foreign policy than the antiterrorism part. That has certainly not been the only simplistic and uncompromising part of our current foreign policy. -- --------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
#509
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
|
#510
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
In article , Mark Hickey wrote:
And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention. Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress: http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm Any comments? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 04:18 AM |
Secure Bike Parking.? | M. Barbee | General | 14 | January 6th 04 02:00 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 |