I'm sure we can thnk of few more...let me consult with my friend deputy fife.......
I've traveled the U.S. and was astonished at how many areas are still living in the centuries past. Just goes to show that using technology others invent doesn't have much to do with how progressive a segment of the population may think they are. Ever see an Amish with a cel phone?
blatham wrote:Bill isn't very bright and he's poorly educated (evidence his misunderstanding of what the term 'prehistory' actually means). What comes out of his mouth is commonly marked by those deficiencies - over-simplification, incorrect facts, etc. He doesn't, I'm sure, want to be a buffoon or to appear stupid, but I suspect he knows he's in danger of both and does the angry, shouting, 'shut up! thing to try and convince us and him that he really is smart and wise.
Actually, I never followed him up ... until now.
On the Fox-News
website he said:
Quote:The Chirac government is not our friend.
In France they have a Raffarin government - since 7 May 2002.
(France had a Chirac government 1974 - 76 and 1986 - 88.)
Quote:Yes, but his ancestors civilization evolved. Iraq is still in the same pre-historic state is was then.
That wasn't pointy sticks and arrowheads the Reagan/Bush Junta was supplying them with a few years back, it was sophisticated military equipment. And how could this nation
simultaneously manage to be in the Stone Age
AND be developing a nuclear capability??
Woow, I've never seen a point go over so many heads before.
Could it be you are not explaining your point clearly?
That's a fair question. I did a thorough search with my Acme Pointometer and came up with only null readings.
My amish neighbors do use cell phones. the poblem is, in order to charge em up and still remain 'separate" thhey have to fire up their diesel generators to charge a bank of auto batteries which are then used to charge the cell phones.
However, back on point, did I miss some major opinion shift from finn and others that herein after abrogates the beleif that Iraq was capable, by virtue of their now neolithic sATs, to have developed a WMD program? Its either one or the other boys.
Quote:That wasn't pointy sticks and arrowheads the Reagan/Bush Junta was supplying them with a few years back, it was sophisticated military equipment. And how could this nation simultaneously manage to be in the Stone Age AND be developing a nuclear capability??
That hit the nail on the head.
As for underdeveloped places. just take a journey through some parts of Kentucky where some people still don't have running water and they are shacked up in trailers with incest running wild. I live here and know that is not a myth.
Of course there are other parts of Kentucky that are just as "up town" as any part of the United States.
I wonder if riley realizes that people have their own ways and they don't appreciate people coming and forcing them to change? What does he expect?
Influence is best done by showing a good example rather than force.
Besides the only thing that I would wish would change in their world and our world is people wanting to go to war and kill people all the time. I don't see anything wrong in preferring a simpler life rather than a rat race tension filled life like we have here in the US.
Of course I don't know if I could trade. I kind of like my air conditioners and TV's--don't they have those things too? I wonder what qualifies them to be "pre-historic?"
It doesn't take an advanced civilization to sell oil and use the money to buy weapons, now does it? Isn't it the liberal idea that the US armed Saddam? Doesn't take a great, modern civiliazation at all. So, I guess it CAN be both.
Mr Stillwater wrote:Quote:Yes, but his ancestors civilization evolved. Iraq is still in the same pre-historic state is was then.
That wasn't pointy sticks and arrowheads the Reagan/Bush Junta was supplying them with a few years back, it was sophisticated military equipment. And how could this nation
simultaneously manage to be in the Stone Age
AND be developing a nuclear capability??
That's a head scratcher all right. Sayyyyyy........you don't suppose the Adirondacks are developing a secret nuclear program based on that same theory do you?
You really mean seriously, they had money and knew about oil in pre-historic times?
sort of...maybe...only then the oil was called dinosaurs :wink:
There's some dinosaurs right here on good ole A2K!
At least their reptilian brain works better than their cerebral cortex.
BBB found text of Bill O'Reilly's Final Solution
Bill O'Reilly's Final Solution
Posted by: APR on Jun 21, 2004 - 10:13 AM
Media
Bill O'Reilly's Final Solution
Bomb the living daylights out of them
By Thomas Wheeler
There he goes again. Here's what Bill O'Reilly had to say on his June 17 broadcast of The Radio Factor:
O'REILLY: Because look ... when 2 percent of the population feels that you're doing them a favor, just forget it, you're not going to win. You're not going to win. And I don't have any respect by and large for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group that is -- yeah, there's excuses.
Sure, they're terrorized, they've never known freedom, all of that. There's excuses. I understand. But I don't have to respect them because you know when you have Americans dying trying to you know institute some kind of democracy there, and 2 percent of the people appreciate it, you know, it's time to -- time to wise up.
And this teaches us a big lesson, that we cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again. What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them, just like we did in the Balkans. Just as we did in the Balkans. Bomb the living daylights out of them. But no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain't going to work.
O'Reilly also declared the Iraqis are "just people who are primitive."
The Fox news host has a history of making racist remarks and advocating the mass murder of civilians. When four armed US mercenaries were killed in Fallujah, O'Reilly commented: "Problems continue for the U.S. Military in Fallujah. Why doesn't the U.S. Military just go ahead and level it?" He made it clear he doesn't "care about the people of Fallujah" and that "we know what the final solution should be." Apparently, the mass slaughter of hundreds of civilians in Fallujah by the US military just didn't do it for O'Reilly.
O'Reilly's bloodlust also extended to Afghanistan. A few days after 9/11 he declared "the U.S. should bomb the Afghan infrastructure to rubble?-the airport, the power plants, their water facilities, and the roads" if the Afghan government did not extradite Osama bin Laden. O'Reilly continued: "This is a very primitive country. And taking out their ability to exist day to day will not be hard. Remember, the people of any country are ultimately responsible for the government they have. The Germans were responsible for Hitler. The Afghans are responsible for the Taliban. We should not target civilians. But if they don't rise up against this criminal government, they starve, period."
The Geneva Convention states that destroying infrastructure essential to the survival of civilian populations is a war crime and the "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited." Besides being an obvious racist, O'Reilly is an advocate of targeting and killing civilians (non-white folks, of course) that clearly constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.
When the United States deliberately targeted and systematically destroyed Iraq's water treatment facilities during the first Gulf War in order to create "favorable conditions for disease outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas" (according to a 1991 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency document) and followed that with a deliberate policy of blocking humanitarian supplies to deny necessary repairs, medicines and medical equipment, Denis Halliday, former Deputy Under Secretary of the UN, declared the policy as "genocidal." O'Reilly is openly advocating genocidal tactics to be used against civilians - proposals that would kill millions of civilians if they were carried out.
The virulent racism and fascist mindset of O'Reilly is also pervasive within the US military. The racist contempt of the Iraqis and blatant disregard for civilian lives by US troops in that country is disturbingly common. One need only look at the systematic torture at Abu Ghraib for confirmation, not to mention US troops murdering Iraqis by deliberately firing into crowds of unarmed protesters, dropping large bombs in urban neighborhoods, slaughtering wedding parties, engaging in collective punishment, house demolitions, kidnapping, torture, and firing into vehicles filled with civilians at military checkpoints. A number of American troops perceive Iraqis as "untermenschen" - the Nazi expression for "sub-humans".
To those who object and protest such actions, O'Reilly suggests you just "shut up" or you will be declared an "enemy of the state." He made his feelings about dissent pretty clear shortly before the war started. On February 26, 2003 he said:
"Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if you can't do that, just shut up. Americans, and indeed our foreign allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway, will be considered enemies of the state by me. Just fair warning to you, Barbara Streisand and others who see the world as you do. I don't want to demonize anyone, but anyone who hurts this country in a time like this, well. Let's just say you will be spotlighted."
You are either with us or against us. America über alles. Sound familiar?
He's gradually turned from a fuss case to a nut case.
