OT- the state of the union

Jochem Huhmann wrote:

I have no high hopes for sanity in this world...

Try to understand that befere the last few years, most of these
wingnuts had paid about as much attention to immigration to Europe
(Islamic or any other kind) as most Europeans paid to immigration
into the US -- that is, almost none.

It's only since late 2002-early 2003 that they've become experts.
Wasn't it helpful to be informed that Germany has more Turks rather
than Algerians and other North Africans? I'll bet you hadn't known
that :-)

You can trace a direct line from their view of the disagreements at
the UN then -- "France and Germany aren't with us on Iraq, they're
being paid off by Saddam" -- to their new (but oh so profound) concern
over "Eurabia." This lets them maintain the stance of "we brave few
who see the menace that others do not." That's important to them,
since the menace in Iraq proved kinda hard to find once we got there.

Believe me, most of us know the difference between rioting in the
_banlieues_ and Suleiman I besieging Vienna. That some of us
apparently don't has a lot to do with ideology and politics in
America, and very little to do with realities in Europe.

Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:34:04 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in
message .com...
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:08:39 -0500, Monte Davis wrote
(in article ):

I think your statements add up to precisely the claim you deny making.
But I
could be mistaken; if the majority believes they add up to incoherent
nonsense instead, I'll go along with that.

I vote with Monte. Not that Rand cares what I think, I'm sure.

And let's see. Rand sitting comfortably in Florida quotes one website that
somehow makes him more knowledgable then someone living in Europe.

That's not the only website I read. I didn't realize that I was
supposed to provide a complete bibliography.

Oh but
wait, it's a big place, I forget. Obviously Jochem hangs around with the
wrong crowds.

I said that Europe is a large place. Are you disputing that?

And of course Rand will complain "I meant X, you're all misconstruing what
I'm saying."

Generally when person after person says the same thing about you, you might
want to listen.

?

Person after person?

You make it sound like a crowd. It's a few.

Oh and for the record, given the choice between you and Eric, I'll take Eric
any day of the week.

I find that disappointing. You should really think about that.

At least him I find entertaining. So consider that one negative vote.

I find him entertaining, too. That's why I don't killfile him.

But if you really mean that "you'll take Eric" in terms of who's more
credible, you should really reevaluate what you find credible.
"You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you
down." - Johnny Cash
http://www.angryherb.net

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:04:17 GMT, in a place far, far away, Monte
Davis made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Jochem Huhmann wrote:

I have no high hopes for sanity in this world...

Try to understand that befere the last few years, most of these
wingnuts had paid about as much attention to immigration to Europe
(Islamic or any other kind) as most Europeans paid to immigration
into the US -- that is, almost none.

It's only since late 2002-early 2003 that they've become experts.

Prior to that, people (not "wingnuts") had no obvious reason to.

Wasn't it helpful to be informed that Germany has more Turks rather
than Algerians and other North Africans? I'll bet you hadn't known
that :-)

You can trace a direct line from their view of the disagreements at
the UN then -- "France and Germany aren't with us on Iraq, they're
being paid off by Saddam" -- to their new (but oh so profound) concern
over "Eurabia."

One can, if one wants to continue to deny reality.

This lets them maintain the stance of "we brave few
who see the menace that others do not." That's important to them,
since the menace in Iraq proved kinda hard to find once we got there.

Believe me, most of us know the difference between rioting in the
_banlieues_ and Suleiman I besieging Vienna.

And who disputes that?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

Oh and for the record, given the choice between you and Eric, I'll take
Eric
any day of the week.

I find that disappointing. You should really think about that.


What makes you think I haven't?

At least him I find entertaining. So consider that one negative vote.

I find him entertaining, too. That's why I don't killfile him.

But if you really mean that "you'll take Eric" in terms of who's more
credible, you should really reevaluate what you find credible.

Either your reading comprehension continues to fail you or you're getting
worse at strawmen.

I never claimed to find him more credible.


"You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you
down." - Johnny Cash
http://www.angryherb.net

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:38:47 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

Oh and for the record, given the choice between you and Eric, I'll take
Eric
any day of the week.

I find that disappointing. You should really think about that.


What makes you think I haven't?

The fact that Eric is an demonstrated idiot, over many years. I'd like
to think that you're not.

At least him I find entertaining. So consider that one negative vote.

I find him entertaining, too. That's why I don't killfile him.

But if you really mean that "you'll take Eric" in terms of who's more
credible, you should really reevaluate what you find credible.

Either your reading comprehension continues to fail you or you're getting
worse at strawmen.

I never claimed to find him more credible.

Then what does "I'll take Eric any day of the week" usefully mean?

Dave Michelson wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:

Not brainwashing, just news reporting.

Where's the difference?

If you don't understand the difference, I'm not sure I know how to
explain it to you. They're really dramatically different concepts.

In all fairness, just about all of us have had the unpleasant experience
of seeing a news account of something with which we're very familiar and
being left wondering how the reporter could have got things so confused
or inaccurate.

Many of us have attended media preparedness briefings where we're warned
that the media will usually spin a story in such a way as to cause the
reader or viewer to react to it in an emotional rather than an objective
manner. It's all part of the business of selling newspapers, I suppose,
but it certainly has serious implications for the democratic process.

I rarely see news stories about myself, my local neighbourhood or
fields I know well, but when I do, I _always_ see something not quite
right. Some spaceflight stories in the popular press contain real
howlers. Yet so many believe much so much of what they see on TV about
political issues, when these are the issues which are the most
emotional and most likely to be spun by whoever has an agenda.

Sometimes competing media have different viewpoints. However, most news
stories are derivatives from a very small number of original sources,
and reading many copies of the same story doesn't make it right. Worse,
most internet links are to sites with similar outlooks, so once you
have developped a particular mindset there are literally millions of
sources that can reinforce your view and attack anyone who opposes it.

Yes, there is information out there. Yes, you can find it if you are
open minded enough. No, you will not get anything useful from someone
who rehashes the same arguments in hundreds of repetitive posts, while
ignoring the many people who point out the flaws.

John Halpenny

wrote:

The flag of Islam should be flown over Leinster House, an Islamic
extremist said tonight.

Speaking in Dublin before addressing a Trinity College debate, Anjem
Choudray also reiterated controversial views that Muslim violence is
justified in certain circumstances.

The British-born lawyer, 39, angered the Irish Government last year
when he said that Ireland risked becoming a target for a 9/11 style
attack because it allowed US war planes to refuel at Shannon Airport.

Mr Choudray said: "As a Muslim, I believe Islam is superior to every
other way of life and that it can resolve all the social and economic
problems that Ireland suffers from.

"And as a symbol of that, the flag of Islam should be flown over the
Dáil.

"This is symbolic of the fact that all societies will be run better
according to God's law."




These are the words of an Islamic Orangeman, make no mistake about it.
On the other hand, you just want to see Northmen and Southmen being
comrades all, try to take their stout and spirits away.
There'll be an Aer Lingus airliner running into the Kabah in no time flat.
Clancy, dig out the old bomb plans... this could mean war.
You get the IRA rounded up, I'll gather the Black and Tans.
We ain't bowin' to London, and we both ain't bowin' to Mecca neither.
They can take away the Irishman's Guinness when they pry it from his
cold dead fingers.
Seriously; if one religious loon can topple Ireland into destruction,
the place would have pulled an Atlantis around 3,000 years ago, when
some drunken Druid suggested that they cut down all the trees rather
than worship them.
You know what's going to happen to this guy?
Same thing that happened to that Druid.
Someone's going to beat the living **** out of him one night on their
way back home from the pub, that's what's going to happen to him. :-D

Paddy

Monte Davis wrote:

Reasonable inference: Rand believes Muslim rioters in France want to
restore a Caliphate, and force others to convert or die.



I'm still trying to figure out what "Caliphate" would look like spelled
phonetically in French; and I'm getting an image of a word around 30
letters long. :-)

Pat

Rand Simberg wrote:

But please, continue with your apparently fascinating hobby of
assembling strawmen.



Oh, thank you!

"I could wile away the hours, describing Allah's powers.
If I only had a Jihad.
I'd be Sultan of all France, and hold people in a trance.
If I only had a Jihad.
There wouldn't be no wine, and with the Prophet that'd be fine.
If I only had a Jihad.
The Strippers at The Crazy Horse...would have to go, of course.
If I only had a Jihad.
Atop the Eiffel Tower, a crescent moon would declare Islamic Power.
If I only had a Jihad.
And every Airbus built...an American skyscraper would tilt.
If I only had a Jihad.
And there would be Minarets at Versailles, I'd give it a try.
If I only had a Jihad.
I'd paint a burqa on Mona Lisa, I think that would please her.
If I only had a Jihad.
I'd grab all the North Sea oil, and in it Christians boil.
If I only had a Jihad.
Just think, of all the fun, if Islam were number one...from Calais to
Italy...there'd be no place...for the Pope to flee.
I'd march right on Rome, and burn down St. Peter's dome, and make the
leaning tower of Pisa bend toward Mecca.
Sound crazy? What the hecka?
Then, in my Renault, on Holy Pilgrimage I'd go, and pray upon the way.
Then those Israelis would surely pay, in Palestine they cannot stay.
I'd rob all the Jewish banks with my LeClerc tanks, and to Allah then
give thanks.
I'd build a Mosque at the Wailing Wall, I'd surely have a ball...it's
time for Prayer Call!
I'd be a man with a mission, to see that every Frenchman's had a
circumcision.
If I only had a Jihad." :-)

Pat

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


At least him I find entertaining. So consider that one negative vote.




So... if we get nine more negative votes...
Oh, I like this already. :-)

Pat