Blatham wrote:
"Perhaps you might want to actually read more than the bitty quotes I put in as teasers".
What ----and get confused by all those NON-facts.
perception...well, all I can do is try. By the by, I'm guessing you are likely a fan of GM products. The present Motor Trend has a little Chevy on the front cover that is the prettiest little thing to come out of Detroit in a long while. Take a peek when you get a chance.
Blatham
As far as American car manufacturers go---GM is by far the best
but-----I drive a Volvo with 150K and it should be good for another 150K----is that dull or what? Thanks for the tip though--I can still look----I'm not completely dead.
BTW----IMO---Fords are designed to Fail anywhere from 80K to 120K.
I have a Ford albeit Euopean thats done 200K and no problems so far
Quote:My sense, from here in Canada, is that the Democrats have been both out-maneuvered and cowardly (in the main). My respect for governance in the US is not going up.
Perhaps you could keep an open mind and may come to recognize that the failing you see in them is complimented by a strength on the other side of the aisle, both of which--one pushing, another simultaneously pulling--are resulting in a sea change of political opinion in this country. As they stand, your comments seem to suggest that you can not find it in yourself to respect that with which you disagree. (You want to see Democrats win, and when they lose, you consider it a failing of our government, rather than a failing of Democrats and liberal principles.)
Percep
Ah
Nuggets from the chief non inspector not in chief?
Well he has some very nice bits of nuggart with almonds, and some turkish delight avec cholcolat.
Held in reserve are VX crunch and sarin sans sucre.
As for osama (pbum) bin (piuy) laden (piss on him)'s message to the holy father, I'm afraid I am far too intoxicated to spill the beans. But watch this space.
Whilest Steve did his job, others did theirs. And since I neither could find anything of Stev's mission online - but he reports here -, I copy and paste the other one:
Quote:Former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeni Primakov was in Baghdad for talks with Iraqi leaders on Sunday. There have been reports that Primakov used the visit to deliver a letter from Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Iraqi leadership. There has been no comment from Baghdad on the visit. Russia, like Germany and France, favours giving United Nations weapons inspectors more time, as a way of avoiding military conflict. Last week Baghdad cancelled its contract with the Russian oil company Lukoil.
source: dw-world.de, spiegel-online et.al.
Walter, Do you think Putin will change his mind about a preemptive attack on Iraq before another UN Resolution? c.i.
c.i.
I'm sure, Putin knows German thoughts better (due to his long career as secret police officer here) than I have an idea about what he intends.
No, I really have no idea, what's in his mind.
blatham wrote:george and perception
Perhaps you might want to actually read more than the bitty quotes I put in as teasers.
Blatham,
These rather childish attempts at put downs directed at the authors of posts whith which you don't agree are not in accord with either the spirit of A2K or even its rules - of which you are a self-proclaimed enforcer.
hiama, I have hired many European-made Fords in Ireland and have been impressed by their quality, especially the Ford Focus Ghia which has the best straight shift transmission I've ever driven.
Ul, thank you for the post on International Humanitarian Law and your earlier one on the Robert Byrd statement. I have never been overly fond of the man but was behind him all the way on this one.
Quote:"Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, told reporters in Tehran he had seen a pilot facility, which he indicated was complete, and a large centrifuge enrichment plant still under construction. He described the facilities as sophisticated and comprehensive.
A centrifuge facility can be used to enrich uranium to power a nuclear plant and to provide the fissile material needed to build a nuclear bomb." from:
FT.com
Pakistan, North Korea, and now Iran: they can have nuclear power as they want, the war is on Iraq.
Whew -- There's a tremendous problem with defining facts and opinion here. Maybe we could start a system in which we assume pretty much everything posted here is an opinion. However, those with facts can add a * to them if he/she can give (or is giving) two verifiable sources:
Bush looks kinda dumb (opinion).
Bush is kinda dumb*. *Post Yale transcripts, data of Arbusto career, any one of endless public statements....:
Note: Use of ))))))))) means "I don't know all that much, but I like to post." This is permissable, but lame.
Note to newcomers from a learner: There are two kinds of questions in A2K posts: Genuine questions seeking answers, such as "What happened to the wings on that plane which hit the Pentagon?"; and a debate question, such as, "What is international humanitarian law?" which is not necessarily intended to elicit a hard answer (most know the answer) but may simply be what is known as a "goad" in A2K terms.
Hey, just trying to get the hang of this and pass on my growing fund of experience to our newest members.
Heh! I didn't do that! :wink:
You did too!! You said: "Pakistan, North Korea, and now Iran: they can have nuclear power as they want, the war is on Iraq." To which I say, well done!
Walter,
It isn't all right for North Korea to have nuclear weapons, and that issue is going to have to be dealt with soon. The DPRK MUST abandon its efforts to increase the size of its nuclear arsenal, and if at all possible it should be divested of the weapons it already possesses.
Iran's nuclear program is only slightly less of a problem. Iran can claim with some justification that it needs a nuclear option to protect itself against an Iraqi attack. If Iraq is rendered harmless, that justification can no longer be made. Recent developments in Iran are disturbing, but the development of an Iranian Bomb has been expected for some time.
Tres
To respond to your earlier post...you must be assuming that I forward certain philosophical/political positions because I hold membership with some party, but I don't. I really don't care much for party politics. I'm big on liberty (in the JS Mill or Rawlsian fashion), I'm for some reasoned redistribution of wealth, and I assume corporate entities are not taking note of my best interests.
As regards Democrats and Republicans, I'm really far more interested in the individual than party. I really like John McCain. I really despise the group that shafted him to place a frighteningly incompetent fellow into the presidential run in the same manner I hate a Democrat who might be corrupt and deceitful. I think the Christian Right are an extremist influence and very dangerous to liberty, but it's not because they are Christians, it's because of their extremism and the shape it takes. I think Carl Rove is Machiavelli, but fatter. Rumsfelt, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and crowd I think are vulgar in their ambitions and may end up being tried for war crimes. If they were part of a Democratic administration doing WHAT THEY ARE DOING, I hate the bastards just as much.
george old fella
If you read those pieces, and read them with care, then I take back the suggestion that you didn't. If you didn't, yet still made comment, then obviously the suggestion would be true. My post wasn't meant as an insult, it was meant as a 'if you are going to sit at the table, bring something of substance'.
I'm with you blatham. Would have voted for either John McCain or Bill Bradley over any other candidate. I vote for the individual, and not party line. Haven't voted party line in over a decade. I voted for Clinton, so I can't be tagged a conservative or Repub. Maybe, middle-of-the-roader, but there's no such party. c.i.
