Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > [snips] > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:21:24 -0800, Jason wrote: > >> You should have provided better options. >> >> For example, I could ask you: >> >> Would you choose to kill your wife or your son? >> >> Either one of those choices is a bad choice. > > Yes, and that was kinda the point: sometimes all the choices suck, but > generally some suck worse than others. > > In the exemplar, you could cave in to the terrorist demands and kill the > one kid, but risk repeat performances since they know this sort of thing > will work. > > Or you could blow up the (boat, I think it was), killing the threat, but > also killing several kids. > > Or you could do nothing, thus killing millions. > > Your choice? Maximum possible harm to the maximum number of people. As > choices go, that's about as bad as it gets. Let's hope you're never in a > position to make serious decisions affecting others, because you suck at > it. > Since he would decide to sit back and do nothing, chances are nil that he will ever get into a position of power. Usually, people who prefer to do nothing don't rise that high.... Tokay -- "Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets" The Brigader, "Dr. Who" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > [snips] > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:59:00 -0400, Mike wrote: > >> Now your only options are: >> >> 1: Kill the child yourself. > > Distasteful, to be sure. > >> 2: Drop depth charges on the sub, killing them but also killing several >> children on board. > > Likewise. > >> 3: Do nothing and let them nuke NYC, thus killing the child as well as >> many others. > > Worst of the lot. > > Of the three, the last is the worst and the two before it are about equal, > except for one minor point: if you give in this time, you set a precedent > that tells others this sort of action gets the results they want. Once > you open that door, you can't close it. Yes. Pandoras Box... All choices suck, but some are worse than others. Tokay -- "Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets" The Brigader, "Dr. Who" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <kg8ii3903hjb8u27imco3supu5oqluo5oo@4ax.com>, Al Klein > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:18:45 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> In article <fs8hi3p9uicde8hc9npmclr6r0cr3o7424@4ax.com>, Al Klein >>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:00:34 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> >>>>> I disagree. Roy Mooore worships God. >>>> Then why did he violate the law in an attempt to place a rock in a >>>> court house? You usually make no sense, Jason, but this is stupid >>>> even for you. >>> I have heard Roy Moore preach a sermon and he mentioned in that sermon >>> that he worships God. >>> >> Then why did he violate the law in an attempt to place a rock in a >> court house? > > He claims to have the law on his side related to this issue. Of course, > various liberal judges disagreed with him related to this issue. As you > may know, liberal judges have an agenda. > > Oh no. Not the "liberal judges" again. Don't know in this case and don't know about judges in the USA in general. But last time you made such a remark, you refered to a Bush appointed republican judge. John Jones was the name, I think.... Around here, judges are supposed to rule by the law. Funnily enough, they sometimes are allowed to follow the spirit of the law and not the actual letters of it. So, if the law says that there is to be no intertwining of state and religion, therefor law and religion, then you can't put up any idol or stone tablet or whatever religious symbol in a courthouse. Or a school. Or any other official building. So, what he CLAIMS is simply wrong. And NO judge could sensibly agree with him. If he would, he would not follow the law. And judges are not supposed to make new laws. Whatever political background they come from. Tokay -- "Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets" The Brigader, "Dr. Who" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <t2dii3lrumssluaspo3rqab0f9o133r27h@4ax.com>, Al Klein > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:02:05 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> In article <kg8ii3903hjb8u27imco3supu5oqluo5oo@4ax.com>, Al Klein >>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:18:45 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <fs8hi3p9uicde8hc9npmclr6r0cr3o7424@4ax.com>, Al Klein >>>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:00:34 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I disagree. Roy Mooore worships God. >>>>>> Then why did he violate the law in an attempt to place a rock in a >>>>>> court house? You usually make no sense, Jason, but this is stupid >>>>>> even for you. >>>>> I have heard Roy Moore preach a sermon and he mentioned in that sermon >>>>> that he worships God. >>>>> >>>> Then why did he violate the law in an attempt to place a rock in a >>>> court house? >>> He claims to have the law on his side related to this issue. >> But he was wrong, because the law says he CAN'T put a religious symbol >> in a government building. >> >>> Of course, various liberal judges disagreed with him related to this issue. >> Because the Constitution is a liberal document. >> >>> As you may know, liberal judges have an agenda. >>> >> Yes - upholding the "liberal" Constitution. Face it, Jason, you live >> in a nation that BY LAW is liberal and secular. Tying to make it >> conservative or sectarian is ILLEGAL. > > The 10 commandments have been in American court houses hundreds of years. Does that make it legal? No. > Due to the actions of the ACLU and liberal judges, 10 commandment displays > are now considered to be illegal. In official buildings. Secular nation, remember? Believe it or not, liberal judges have > an agenda. Their agendas are more important to them than the constitution. Then you should have no problem showing us examples where such were overruled by higher courts. The law and your constitution says the stone tablets cannot be there. So, where exactly did these "liberal judges" follow their "agenda" and not the law? Tokay -- "Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets" The Brigader, "Dr. Who" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <MPG.21917052cf64970d98a28f@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James > Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > >> In article <Jason-3010071332070001@67-150-126-93.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, >> Jason@nospam.com says... >>> In article <MPG.21916532b69ef8aa98a28e@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <Jason-3010071246080001@66-53-215-221.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, >>>> Jason@nospam.com says... >>>>> In article <5ooq5lFnlvkbU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >>>>>> >>>>>> snip] >>>>>>> no--as you probably know--Christians don't follow all of the > laws in the >>>>>>> Old Testament. >>>>>> Thank goodness for that. >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, if all the world was christian, what would be your plans for >>> stopping >>>>>> the different sects of christianity from making war upon each other? >>>>> There may be some wars but nothing like the wars that envolve the use of >>>>> nuclear weapons. Iran is presently making nuclear materials and > once they >>>>> start making several nuclear weapons per year--not a single large > city in >>>>> the world is safe to live in. It would be very easy to smuggle a nuclear >>>>> weapon into America and even easier to smuggle a nuclear weapon into >>>>> England or France. >>>>> >>>> Nukes, you means "GOD'S CLEANSING FIRE!!!!!" or some other name your >>>> grand poobah would call it when using it to wipe out the christians that >>>> fell out of grace because of a difference in how they worship? >>>> >>>> Dude, stop while you are ahead. >>>> >>>> >>>> Jim >>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to >>> be used for peaceful purposes--I have land (located under the ocean) that >>> I would like to sell you. >>> >> I don't think ANY religous fanatics should have access to nukes. >> Muslims, christians, jews, or otherwise. >> It worries me that a bunch of wackos that think there is a better place >> on the other side just waiting for them has that kind of power. >> "Your" people (christians) are just as war like as any other groups of >> zealots. >> You do know that the US fought Mexicans (christians), Germans >> (christians), each other (christians), Spain (christians), and the >> english (christians). That's just the what I could pull out of my head >> quickly about the USA. The list goes on and on, no jews, muslims, >> shintos, buddists, or the like required. Do you REALLY want to keep >> going there? >> >> Jim > > The major difference is that nuclear weapons were not used in any of those > wars. If Iran starts an assembly line for nuclear weapons, millions of > people in various cities will be killed. More people will die in one year > than died in all of those wars that you mentioned in your post. The only > option is to destroy the nuclear facilities in Iran before (not after) > they start producing dozens of nuclear weapons per year. Read this report: > > Please answer this question: Do you want to allow a religious nut case to > have total control over dozens of nuclear tipped missiles? Ehm. Funny you should say this..... There IS a religious nut case that de facto has control over uncounted nuclear weapons. And that bugger probably thinks that armageddon will come in his time... So tell me, where is the difference? Tokay -- "Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets" The Brigader, "Dr. Who" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:12:42 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> If Iran is allowed to develop hundreds of nuclear weapons > > They don't have the equipment to START developing ONE nuclear weapon. > >> Would you prefer to destroy the nuclear facilities in Iran or allow >> millions of people in various countries to be killed? > > Would you prefer to live as a woman or a wombat? Hm, Good question. Maybe if I was a women, I'd understand them.... but would have no point anymore in understanding them.... Wombat.. Hm. Also an interesting option. Tokay -- "Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets" The Brigader, "Dr. Who" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <81klv4-drh.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:38:05 -0800, Jason wrote: >> >>> RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL >> Bush says we should start a war in Iraq! For no justifiable reason! >> Which we can't get out of! Let's go kick some heathen butt! >> >> Yup, when religious loonies are in charge, you get problems. Which isn't >> to say atheists in charge wouldn't have problems, either, but at least >> they're not living an entire life of delusions of magic and pixies and >> muddleheaded nonsense - nonsense which often induces horrific crimes in >> its name. >> >> I'm sure you had a point, but other than demonstrating that religion >> should not be allowed in office - which we're happy to agree with - the >> point isn't clear. >> >> Oh, you mean it's okay if religion is in office as long as it's your >> religion, just not if it's the other guy's religion? Nah, can't be. From >> the outside, they're about equally meaningless - and about equally >> dangerous. > > America had no desire to take over the world. Looks different from here, I must say. Otherwise, Americans would > now have total control over Germany and Japan. Don't know about Japan, but we still have US military basis in Germany. And Berlin was ruled by the four powers after the second World War until 1989. So... What was your question again? The Muslims have made it > clear that their end goal is to take over the world. Nope. That is IRAN. Not Islam per se. If you want to argue by religious nutcases and their books.... the bible is no different from the Qu'ran in that respect. Tokay -- "Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets" The Brigader, "Dr. Who" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <3t4ii3th1lc8t37l4frmmuhj3ls4amt8cp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:16:50 -0800, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3110070016500001@66-53-216-130.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >>> In article <81klv4-drh.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> [snips] >>>> >>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:38:05 -0800, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL >>>> Bush says we should start a war in Iraq! For no justifiable reason! >>>> Which we can't get out of! Let's go kick some heathen butt! >>>> >>>> Yup, when religious loonies are in charge, you get problems. Which isn't >>>> to say atheists in charge wouldn't have problems, either, but at least >>>> they're not living an entire life of delusions of magic and pixies and >>>> muddleheaded nonsense - nonsense which often induces horrific crimes in >>>> its name. >>>> >>>> I'm sure you had a point, but other than demonstrating that religion >>>> should not be allowed in office - which we're happy to agree with - the >>>> point isn't clear. >>>> >>>> Oh, you mean it's okay if religion is in office as long as it's your >>>> religion, just not if it's the other guy's religion? Nah, can't be. From >>>> the outside, they're about equally meaningless - and about equally >>>> dangerous. >>> America had no desire to take over the world. Otherwise, Americans would >>> now have total control over Germany and Japan. The Muslims have made it >>> clear that their end goal is to take over the world. The Muslims from the >>> Middle East are presently taking over the Sudan. >>> >> America had no such desire, but we are ruled by George Bush now and he >> chose to go to war, to conquer and occupy Iraq. That is imperialism, >> nothing else. > > If the rulers of Iran want America to leave that country, we will leave > that country. > > Boy, what a typo.... QED, in fact. They WANT them out. In fact, I'd like to see the US-military out of Germany. Different matter, of course. But until 1989, the US effectively RULED the then former german capital. I'd love to see them go... Tokay -- "Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets" The Brigader, "Dr. Who" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to >>> be used for peaceful purposes >> The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. > > Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. > > weeeell. No, not that easy. Plutonium can. Uranium 295 can. Uranium 298 can't. Well, not fission bombs anyway. Plutonium has to be created. In a special reactor. Uranium 295 has to be collected.... rather tedious process.... Tokay -- "Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets" The Brigader, "Dr. Who" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <MPG.2192bf729011ee7498a297@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James > Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > >> In article <Jason-3110071313440001@67-150-123-199.lsan.mdsg- >> pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... >>> In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein >>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> >>>>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to >>>>> be used for peaceful purposes >>>> The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. >>> Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. >>> >> Ah, but it has to be CERTAIN materials. > > Iran either already has those CERTAIN materials or can easily buy those > CERTAIN materials. > > Buy? Sure... but why build a nuclear power plant then? Oh, maybe power? Tokay -- "Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets" The Brigader, "Dr. Who" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 James Beck wrote: > In article <fg8fvc$2jh$01$1@news.t-online.com>, tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net > says... >> James Beck wrote: >>> In article <fg839s$fa9$00$1@news.t-online.com>, tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net >>> says... >>>> James Beck wrote: >>>>> In article <fg7q88$9kt$02$1@news.t-online.com>, tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net >>>>> says... >>>>>> James Beck wrote: >>>>>>> In article <fg7l98$h1k$00$1@news.t-online.com>, tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net >>>>>>> says... >>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <8MqdnQZ7eIgkT7vanZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo >>>>>>>>> Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove that there was a primordial pond. Tell me the exact location of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primordial pond. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Be more specific. >>>>>>>>>>>> Third planet from the Sun, Solar system, Milky Way Galaxy. >>>>>>>>>>> If you can't tell me the location of the primordial pond, don't expect me >>>>>>>>>>> to tell you the location of heaven. >>>>>>>>>> I gave you the location. What do you expect me to do, give you coordinates >>>>>>>>>> of an event that happened before the continents formed, merged, separated, >>>>>>>>>> merged again, separated again, etc? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now that you have the location of the primordial pond neatly narrowed down >>>>>>>>>> to a particular planet out of the Universe billions of light years across, >>>>>>>>>> give me a rough idea where "heaven" is. Next door to Nirvana? Two blocks >>>>>>>>>> south of Hades? Three miles NE of Valhalla, exit 167? >>>>>>>>> Heaven is in another dimension. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ah, he gets specific. Now we are into the sci-fi realm. And/or actual >>>>>>>> science. So far, the best "idea" ("M-theory") is that there are 11 >>>>>>>> dimensions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I guess you don't even know what a "dimension" is? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Used in the sci-fi-sense, it is a different place. Which is bullshit, of >>>>>>>> course. Scientifically or better yet, mathematically, it is rather >>>>>>>> easy (for mathematicians at least. Not for me) to calculate many >>>>>>>> dimensions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok, lets say, we mix up the dimensions of M-theory with the >>>>>>>> sci-fi-dimensions. You have 7 to choose from (four are already taken). >>>>>>>> Which one? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tokay >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Time isn't REALLY a dimension. >>>>>>> Not a spatial one, >>>>>> Of course it is not spatial. There are only 3 spatial dimensions. >>>>> Maybe...... >>>>> >>>>>> like you guys are referring to. >>>>>>> Calling it the 4th dimension was just a mental crutch to make things >>>>>>> easier to explain. >>>>>> It works out quite well in spacetime of Einstein... >>>>> Yep, and he admitted that the usage was playing a bit fast and loose >>>>> with terminology. >>>>> >>>>>> But ok. He can chose from eight, if he likes, because three are taken. >>>>>> And ignore time as a dimension. >>>>> Well, if he chooses the 11th, he better lose some weight. >>>>> According to one of the brane theorists, the 11th is where gravity leaks >>>>> to us from. In that dimension, gravity would be the dominant force and >>>>> over ride electrical forces. >>>> I stand corrected. You obviously know more about it than I do. I watched >>>> a BBC-documentary about M-theory, but that is about my knowledge or it. >>>> >>>> (I NEED more time to read all the stuff I want to read and learn all the >>>> stuff I want to learn...) >>>> >>>>>> (I rather think that time works as a dimension. Well, in theory of >>>>>> spacetime. Maybe you are correct and it just makes things easier to >>>>>> explain. But I don't see any other way to explain the phenomena we see >>>>>> regarding light. But well, I am no astrophysicist) >>>>>> >>>>>> Tokay >>>>> If time is occurring in quanta then the speed of light is just because >>>>> you can only travel a maximum of one Planck length per tick....hmmmmmm >>>>> crazy idea number 335. Maybe we are in "The Matrix"......... >>>> I am a certified SciFi-nut. And a sometime (though nothing published) >>>> writer. This could actually be used in a novel... hm. Time in quanta... >>>> hm. That would mean that there is a "smallest, indivisible part of >>>> time"... which COULD mean, that there is another world slightly >>>> offset... which could open up an nice background piece... have to think >>>> about it... >>>> >>>> Like in this TV-series "sliders" or in "The Number of the Beast" from >>>> Heinlein or even .... Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 James Beck wrote: > In article <fga0li$ir$1@news04.infoave.net>, prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com > says... >> James Beck wrote: >>> Time isn't REALLY a dimension. >>> Not a spatial one, like you guys are referring to. >>> Calling it the 4th dimension was just a mental crutch to make things >>> easier to explain. >> Time IS a dimension that is indistinguishable, in most, if not all, >> ways, from the other 3. There's no "mental crutch" here. >> >> > If it isn't the same IN ALL WAYS as other dimensions, then it isn't one. > When you can go backwards in time as easily as I can reverse my > direction on a road, I'll buy into it. Time is not a spatial dimension. No, of course not "spatial". And probably not "like" the other three... Speculation speculation.... Hm.. Tokay -- "Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets" The Brigader, "Dr. Who" Quote
Guest Mike Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Cj wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > > stuff snipped for bandwidth > >> I am not talking in circles. I have stated in various posts that the >> reason people (or even children) develop HIV--it's because they came into >> contact with blood. The reason the nurse developed HIV is because she >> came >> into contact with blood. Most all dentists, doctors and nurses now wear >> rubber gloves to keep from coming into contact with blood. I always make >> sure I see the doctor, nurse or dentist put on new rubber gloves before I >> let them touch me. My dentist not only wears gloves but also wears a mask >> to cover his mouth and nose while working on patients. The reason that is >> much safer to have normal sex with a woman instead of anal sex--is >> because >> during normal sex--blood usually does not transfer from one person to the >> other person. I posted a report indicating that one of the main reasons >> that so many woman in Africa have developed AIDS is because lots of >> people >> in Africa have anal sex. >> Jason > > Lots of people in Africa have anal sex? Is this your sole purpose in > life? Please repeat your citation, I missed it. > Cj His citation was ass://jason.is.a Quote
Guest The Chief Instigator Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes: >In article <szkbqae8zbm.fsf@eris.io.com>, The Chief Instigator ><patrick@eris.io.com> wrote: >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes: >> >In article <5orgquFoc38tU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> >> snip >> >> > The problem in that case was that Terry Shiavo did NOT have a living >> >> > will and also failed to tell the many members of her family what she >> >> > wanted the members of her family to do if she was ever in a comma. >> >> First of all, the word you're looking for is "coma". Second of all, she >> >> apparently made her wishes clear to her husband and that's all that >> >> matters. >> >He was probably lying. >> How the hell would YOU know? >The members of her family stated that he was lying. I believed them. He >had a motive for lying. He wanted to marry another woman and could not >marry her until Terry died. And you wonder why I think that aggressive simpletons like you should be banned from public office... -- Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2007-08 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: Syracuse 3, Houston 2 (October 30) NEXT GAME: Friday, November 2 vs. Lake Erie, 7:35 Quote
Guest Mike Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > I did not save that report. I found it by conducting a google search for > "Anal Sex Africa" and got lots of hits. The report indicated that it's > common for African men to have anal sex with women. No, it didn't, Jason. Please don't lie. It said that they MIGHT have more anal sex and that MIGHT be why they have a higher rate of AIDS. The report, like you, offered nothing in the way of evidence to support this, how-ever. That is one of the > many reasons that just as many women as men have AIDS. That is not the > case in American and many other countries--other than Africa. > > Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:18:17 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >Jason wrote: >> I did not save that report. I found it by conducting a google search for >> "Anal Sex Africa" and got lots of hits. The report indicated that it's >> common for African men to have anal sex with women. > >No, it didn't, Jason. Please don't lie. It said that they MIGHT have >more anal sex and that MIGHT be why they have a higher rate of AIDS. The >report, like you, offered nothing in the way of evidence to support >this, how-ever. Heterosexual anal sex is a form of birth control that was used before more modern methods like condoms, IUDs, the pill etc became available. It wouldn't surprise me if it is still used that way in many third world countries. >That is one of the >> many reasons that just as many women as men have AIDS. That is not the >> case in American and many other countries--other than Africa. >> >> Quote
Guest Mike Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fgabm7$cfl$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Al Klein wrote: >>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:10:46 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> [snips] >>>> >>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:48:12 -0800, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>>> So, why would you choose to let NYC be nuked? Are you really persuaded >>>>>> that NYC is a den of iniquity and that God wants it nuked? >>>>> Of the options you provided, it was my favorite. >>>> Of course it would; you're a member of a death cult and this is the only >>>> option that allows the death of 8+ million people, rather than one or a >>>> few. >>> And Jason believes that only COMISSIONS are sins - that doing nothing >>> can't be a sin. >> And, in that case, he should be willing to sit back and watch Iran bomb >> Israel. "Hypocrisy, thy name is 'Jason.'" >> >> Unless - IN HIS SOLE OPINION - his god would want him >>> to kill millions. Then that's not a sin either. >>> >>> The kind of "Christian" that should be locked in a rubber room with >>> the door welded shut. Like Shrub. > > Was one of the choices to destroy the nuclear facilites? You don't destroy infrastructure without killing people, Jason. Quote
Guest Mike Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fg9u50$uav$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <fg7db2$d3d$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> The 10 commandments are the only laws from the Old Testament that most >>>>> Christians pay any attention to. Most of those laws are unrelated to life >>>>> in America. For example, many of the laws are related to animals. Imagine >>>>> the trouble that Christians could get into if we stoned someone to death >>>>> for committing adultery. >>>> Ok, Jason, let's see how much attention you pay to the 10 commandments >>>> (and possibly get you to finally understand that there is no "one right >>>> answer" in all circumstances.) >>>> >>>> There is a religious group (doesn't matter who other than they aren't >>>> xians) who have become convinced that a 2 year old living in NY is the >>>> "antichrist" of their religion. They are desperate to kill this child or >>>> have it killed. They don't care about what penalty they'd pay and, other >>>> than this, they are a very peaceful group. They have repeatly tried, at >>>> great expense of money and life, to kill this child. >>>> >>>> They have taken control of a nuclear sub and have several children as >>>> hostages in the sub. The sub is in 300' of water off the coast of NY. >>>> They know the launch codes for the nukes. There is no way possible to >>>> get the children out of the sub and dropping depth charges will kill all >>>> on board. You are in charge of the naval ships that could drop such > charges. >>>> They have sent a demand to you: Personally kill the child on live TV by >>>> 5:00pm, at which time we will surface the sub and surrender, or we >>>> launch a nuke on NYC which will kill the child and then we will surface >>>> and surrender. Based on your knowledge of the religion, etc. you know >>>> that they will keep their word on the surrender. >>>> >>>> Now your only options are: >>>> >>>> 1: Kill the child yourself. >>>> >>>> 2: Drop depth charges on the sub, killing them but also killing several >>>> children on board. >>>> >>>> 3: Do nothing and let them nuke NYC, thus killing the child as well as >>>> many others. >>>> >>>> NO other options (such as "we won't vote at all and just pray that a >>>> rescue ship comes by and gets us before we all die of thirst." or "I'll >>>> wait to see if I can get a clear shot.") are available. >>>> >>>> What are you going to do? >>>> >>>> Personally, I'd kill the child. I wouldn't be happy at all about it and >>>> would probably need therapy for the rest of my life, but I'd see no >>>> other choice. >>>> >>>> Occasionally, you have no other choice but to kill an innocent person. >>> I would do nothing. >> So you would allow millions of people to die because you're too scared >> to do anything. But yet you'd take deliberate action and kill thousands >> of innocents in Iran by bombing them even when there's not as imminent >> of a threat to Israel. How hypocritical of you. > > You should have provided better options. Life doesn't always give "better options." > For example, I could ask you: > > Would you choose to kill your wife or your son? > > Either one of those choices is a bad choice. And I don't really know which I would do if forced to do it. But I do understand, unlike you, that there's a possibility, however remote, that I might have to face that choice. Quote
Guest Mike Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > [snips] > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:21:24 -0800, Jason wrote: > >> You should have provided better options. >> >> For example, I could ask you: >> >> Would you choose to kill your wife or your son? >> >> Either one of those choices is a bad choice. > > Yes, and that was kinda the point: sometimes all the choices suck, but > generally some suck worse than others. > > In the exemplar, you could cave in to the terrorist demands and kill the > one kid, but risk repeat performances since they know this sort of thing > will work. > > Or you could blow up the (boat, I think it was), killing the threat, but > also killing several kids. Actually, it was a sub in a few hundred feet of water (makes it harder to board it with storm-troopers.) I intentionally removed the option of "send in the Navy Seals and let them kill the terrorists and rescue the kids." You do NOT try opening a sub in 300' of water. You either wait for it to surface (and that wasn't an option here) or you depth-charge bomb it and kill all aboard (depth charges work well for the same reason trying to open the sub is useless. They don't have to hit directly, they just have to give a hard enough jolt to break open the seams on the sub. > Or you could do nothing, thus killing millions. > > Your choice? Maximum possible harm to the maximum number of people. As > choices go, that's about as bad as it gets. Let's hope you're never in a > position to make serious decisions affecting others, because you suck at > it. > Quote
Guest Mike Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <qdbnv4-2sk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:21:24 -0800, Jason wrote: >> >>> You should have provided better options. >>> >>> For example, I could ask you: >>> >>> Would you choose to kill your wife or your son? >>> >>> Either one of those choices is a bad choice. >> Yes, and that was kinda the point: sometimes all the choices suck, but >> generally some suck worse than others. >> >> In the exemplar, you could cave in to the terrorist demands and kill the >> one kid, but risk repeat performances since they know this sort of thing >> will work. >> >> Or you could blow up the (boat, I think it was), killing the threat, but >> also killing several kids. >> >> Or you could do nothing, thus killing millions. >> >> Your choice? Maximum possible harm to the maximum number of people. As >> choices go, that's about as bad as it gets. Let's hope you're never in a >> position to make serious decisions affecting others, because you suck at >> it. > > Let's say that you were president of America. The president of Iran > clearly states: "Israel must be wiped off from the map of the world". Let's also say he has no authority to carry out such statements. You > know that he already has missiles. Let's say that's a bunch of conjecture with no evidence. You also know that he is in the process > of making nuclear materials that can later be used to make nuclear > warheads that are designed to be placed on his missiles. Let's say that's a bunch of conjecture with no evidence. > The head of the CIA shows you satellite photos of people in Iran mounting > warheads on several missiles. Let's say the CIA was already wrong once about the existence of WMD's. > The head of the CIA advises you to destroy those missiles and the nuclear > facilites in Iran. Who cares what someone advises? What we care about are facts. > Would you give the order to destroy the missiles and the nuclear > facilities in Iran? Based on the above? No. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:59:35 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <2scii3tknfkidvg4jcq8au3ak4v15d4ssu@4ax.com>, Al Klein ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:05:34 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >In article <MPG.2192bf729011ee7498a297@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >> >Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: >> > >> >> In article <Jason-3110071313440001@67-150-123-199.lsan.mdsg- >> >> pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... >> >> > In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein >> >> > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > >If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear >materials to >> >> > > >be used for peaceful purposes >> >> > > >> >> > > The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. >> >> > >> >> > Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Ah, but it has to be CERTAIN materials. >> > >> >Iran either already has those CERTAIN materials >> >> Not at all. >> >> > or can easily buy those CERTAIN materials. >> >> Which they could still do if you bombed their nuclear facilities. > > We should bomb them again after they start rebuilding the facilities. > They can still buy nukes, and use them on Israel, even if we bombed Iran into slag. Anyone willing to sell them nukes would also be willing to sell them the delivery vehicles and the launch. So now you want to nuke North Korea, Pakistan and most of the former Soviet Union. I do hope you have your home on the moon fully furnished, because you're going to sterilize THIS planet. -- Al at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:50:11 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >Jason wrote: >> In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein >> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> >>>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to >>>> be used for peaceful purposes >>> The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. >> >> Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. >> >> > >weeeell. No, not that easy. Plutonium can. Uranium 295 can. Uranium 298 >can't. Well, not fission bombs anyway. > >Plutonium has to be created. In a special reactor. Uranium 295 has to be >collected.... rather tedious process.... None of which Iran is even working toward today. But, what the hell, let's nuke them anyway, just to make sure that they don't get any ideas. It's better that Christians kill everyone than that Moslems kill anyone. (And for his next act in the Rubber Room, Jason will ...) -- Al at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln Quote
Guest Mike Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fs8hi3p9uicde8hc9npmclr6r0cr3o7424@4ax.com>, Al Klein > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:00:34 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> I disagree. Roy Mooore worships God. >> Then why did he violate the law in an attempt to place a rock in a >> court house? You usually make no sense, Jason, but this is stupid >> even for you. > > I have heard Roy Moore preach a sermon and he mentioned in that sermon > that he worships God. He can't worship more than one thing? Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:20:14 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <61eii3he08kkrhtt4c3m18r482hi18lbet@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:06:34 -0800, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3110071706350001@67-150-175-249.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >I believe it was the USS Cole (spelling ??) >> Please point to anywhere that claims that Iran attacked the USS Cole. As >> far as I was aware, the concensus was that al Qaeda did it. >http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/01/cole.investigation/index.html And the claim (let alone evidence) that Iran was responsible for the attack? Some day you might actually learn to understand what you post before you post it. It was THOUGHT that al Qaeda was responsible, but no one really knows WHO was. How does "doesn't have a clue" become "Iran"? Because you want it to be? -- Al at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln Quote
Guest James Beck Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <Jason-3110071618580001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... > > Let's say that you were president of America. The president of Iran > clearly states: "Israel must be wiped off from the map of the world". You > know that he already has missiles. You also know that he is in the process > of making nuclear materials that can later be used to make nuclear > warheads that are designed to be placed on his missiles. > > The head of the CIA shows you satellite photos of people in Iran mounting > warheads on several missiles. > > The head of the CIA advises you to destroy those missiles and the nuclear > facilites in Iran. > > Would you give the order to destroy the missiles and the nuclear > facilities in Iran? > No, but if Israel was/is an ally I would call them and give them the info. We do not have to play cop for everybody. In fact, I would be surprised if Israel didn't already know about any threat already. Jim Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.