If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1191
|
|||
|
|||
Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
On 17 Aug 2006 17:23:13 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote: Hatunen wrote: On 17 Aug 2006 07:46:34 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote: Hatunen wrote: On 16 Aug 2006 17:52:39 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote: Hatunen wrote: On 15 Aug 2006 22:45:11 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote: Europeans possession of passports is a result of hatred and bigotry that has kept the continent at war with itself for centuries. Not something to be proud of. and Europeans can travel between most countries without going through any kind of passport control. These days, yes. But that's a recent development. The reason a lot of Euros have passports was because that wasn't the case until recently. Try to keep up. As I pointed out elsewhere, there were no passports until after WW1. The fact that they are no longer needed for much intra-European travel means that they really only served their purpose for about 80 years out of two millenia of European history. You make a pretty weak case with the passport business, espcially since you don't explain *why* passports are an indication of bigotry and hatred. Passports are not an indication of bigotry and hatred. I never said that. I could swear it was you who said: "Europeans possession of passports is a result of hatred and bigotry that has kept the continent at war with itself for centuries." I think I did. But, as I pointed out repeatedly, it's not the passport, it's the need for the passport. It's the international boundaries. OK. A. Passports are not an indications of bigotry and hatred. B. Europeans possession of passports is a result of hatred and bigotry So you claim that those two statements are not contradictory? Yes. Let's try another one, should we? A. Bed sheets are not an indication of bigotry and hatred. B. Wearing a bedsheet in some circumstances *is* (think KKK). There you go again (to quote Ronald Reagan). A. You make the blanket statement that possession of passports is result of hatred and bigotry B. Then you say passports are not an indication of hatred and bigotry. C. Then you make an anology that in *some circumstances* passports are an indcations of hatred and bigotry. You're a slippery fellow, your are. In the real world. Let's say a building burns down. What caused the building to catch fire? Turns out a generator caught fire. What caused the generator to catch fire? Turned out a water pump bearing froze up and sparks from the spinning shaft ignited the crankcase oil. What cause the water pump bearing to fail? The system operator used cheap antifreeze and didn't change it often. Why did the operator fail to maintain the system and use cheap products? Greed. Root cause of the fi Greed. Now let's look at passports. Why do so many Europeans have passports? Because they need them to travel more than a few hours? Why do they need them to travel more than a few hours? Because there are so many international borders in Europe. Why are there so many international borders in Europe? Because Europe is chopped up into a large assortment of small countries. Why is Europe chopped up into a large assortment of small countries? Because of the various wars over the centuries. What are the root causes of war? Hatred, bigotry, greed, etc. Ah. Begging your own conclusion still again. Except you now add "greed" to your list. When are you going to add "power"? Root cause of so many Europeans having passports? The hatred, bigotry and greed that caused the wars that created the countries that created the borders that require the passports that they need. Ditto. What do you think caused the war? Stale wine? Well, now. That seems to be the point we largely disagree on, doesn't it? I say that some wars may have resulted from bigotry and/or hatred but many wars have not; you say all wars have resulted from bigotry and hatred. All? Probably not. Ah, slippery again. Your precviosu statements have been unqualified. But the vast majority? Yes. Bigotry and hatred are at the root of almost any war. Please provide examples. As posted elsewhere I've spent a lot of time in war zones. Including "hot shooting wars", "local insurgencies", "cold conflicts". At the root of all of them is a bigotry and hatred. It's difficult to make war on someone you like and respect and consider as an equal. In many war zones the hatred and bigotry are a result of the war, not the cause. ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#1192
|
|||
|
|||
Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
On 17 Aug 2006 17:28:14 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote: Hatunen wrote: We were on a train in Finland from Oulu to Tampere with an hour or so to change to the train to Turku Harbor where we were to take a ferry to Stockholm. North of Tampere the train came to a dead standstill in the middle of nowhere and sat, and sat, and sat. We were getting worried aobut our connections, but all attempts to find out from the conductor what the problem was failed because the conductor simply didn't know any English and my Finn is very, very skimpy. I took the ferry from Stockholm to Helsinki. Had no problem communicating in English with the ticket staff, crew, or people at the arrival area. Nor have I had any problem on the ferries between Turku and Stockholm, Helsinki and Stockholm, Stockholm and Tallinn. You think that might be because the job selects for those who can handle several languages? I have minor problems on the ferries between Helsinki and Tallinn. Even had no problem getting someone to explain to me in English about Ankracet (I'm sure I misspelled that). What is it? ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#1193
|
|||
|
|||
Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:10:09 GMT, mrtravel
wrote: Tchiowa wrote: Hatunen wrote: We were on a train in Finland from Oulu to Tampere with an hour or so to change to the train to Turku Harbor where we were to take a ferry to Stockholm. North of Tampere the train came to a dead standstill in the middle of nowhere and sat, and sat, and sat. We were getting worried aobut our connections, but all attempts to find out from the conductor what the problem was failed because the conductor simply didn't know any English and my Finn is very, very skimpy. I took the ferry from Stockholm to Helsinki. Had no problem communicating in English with the ticket staff, crew, or people at the arrival area. Even had no problem getting someone to explain to me in English about Ankracet (I'm sure I misspelled that). It is also difficult to believe that nobody else on his train spoke English. Oh. I left that out. I found a passenger who did. ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#1194
|
|||
|
|||
Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
On 17 Aug 2006 17:39:57 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote: Hatunen wrote: On 17 Aug 2006 07:54:52 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote: Hatunen wrote: On 16 Aug 2006 17:57:36 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote: As compared to what it used to be like, maybe? Which has been my experience in 2 decades travelling to Europe fairly regularly. Try traveling into the hinterlands a little more. Like where? Atyrau, Kazakhstan? Riga, Latvia? Oporto, Portugal? Is Kazakhstan in Europe? Part of it is, yes. Atyrau is in Europe. So, exactly what did you doin Riga and Oporto. Riga to spend time with friends. Oporto just to spend time in Portugal. One of my favorite countries. And what does that have to do with the question? You tried to make a point. Now you're switching gears. Or are you starting like a couple of other people I've seen posting that unless you hang out with the poor and uneducated you can't possibly understand the culture? Why do you assume that was my meaning? Reference to the "hinterlands" and implication that people in the cities somehow aren't truly part of the culture. There you go again. I didn't say that. But I hope you aren't going to argue that you can know the USA by visiting the city of new York. (Paris does not equal France but Paris is part of France and you can't understand France without understanding Paris.) True. But the converse is also true. By the by, my realtives are hardly poor and uneducated (hardly anyone in Finland is uneducaated) but many of them don't speak English. Most of my relatives in Sweden speak English just fine. I'm so happy for you. But I do know that hanging out with General Motors executives isn't the best way to understand the culture of America. Especially since they show little grasp of it themselves. Ah, back to the "if you're educated and successful you're not part of the culture". You ar e a twit, aren't you. That's not what I said. There are many educated people in Kansas and Iowa. Now do you want to ask the question again from above "Why do assume that was my meaning?"? YOu're very much like those Europeans who come to the USA, visit New York and Los Angeles, and proceed to tell us what all Americans are like, even those in Kansas and Texas and Oregon. How about the Europeans that come to the USA over 100 times and spend several years total in 50 cities in 1/3 of the states. Would that help? That's pretty much what I've done in Europe. So you say. Do you doubt it? I neither doubt it nor accept it; I have no basis for either. But your writings indicate you learned very little. It's one thing to have several years experience, it's another to have a week's experience a hundred or so times. That's true. (As an example, I checked my Frequent Flyer data base. I've landed in Paris 83 times. Yes, I got so tired of the place that the last 40 or so I spent very little time there. Took the train to Amsterdam or Lisbon or anywhere else I could find other than Paris.) Well, your certainly seem to have a lot of expeerience with CDG. Yes. And in Paris. ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#1195
|
|||
|
|||
Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
On 17 Aug 2006 18:07:48 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote: Hatunen wrote: On 17 Aug 2006 08:00:38 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote: Hatunen wrote: On 16 Aug 2006 18:12:23 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote: And considering the people Serbia as some kind of "lesser people" didn't figure into that calculation? I have no evidence of that; do you? Yes. It's called "experience". I've spent many years of my adult life living in war zones. Wow. Awesome. Yes. Learning can be "awesome". You should try it. I learned what it takes to make war. First thing is to de-personalize your enemy. That happesn precisely because the hatred and bigotry is too low. It is a result of the war, not the cause. Wrong. It is at the very root. So you keep saying. To start a war of conquest like that you first must consider your target to be unworthy of protection and independence. Not necessarily. That's a wild leap of logic. Not all wars were Hitlerian, and certainly the Great War was not. See above. What? The great War was oneof those wars you experienced? No. But the root cause of all wars are about the same. Are they now? You really have a hard time with logical thinking, don't you? I said absolutely nothing that even resembled what you thought you understood. We both seem to have that problem. So you calim that in 1860 Virginai didn't much like North Carolina? Nope. But they weren't fond of New York at all. Quote: "The US was once a group of small political entities that didn't much like each other." This says that they all disliked all the others. No it doesn't. Where's the qualification? You don't say "many of which disliked some of the others". It's commonly said that prior to the Civil War we said "The United States *are*" but after the war we said "The United States *is*" (indicating a finally unified country). It's commonly said, all right. But attemtps to document it have demonstrated it to be untrue. Whose attempts? When you cited an EU law you rfused to tell me what it said oin an apparent attempt to make me do my own homework; well, back to you. Fine. Tell me who made the attempt and I'll try to find it. I told you who had the law, you tell me who made the "attempt" you referred to. Check out the discussion at http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langu...es/002663.html OK. I showed you mine. now you show me yours. ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#1196
|
|||
|
|||
Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
On 17 Aug 2006 18:37:58 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote: Hatunen wrote: On 17 Aug 2006 08:09:52 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote: Dave Frightens Me wrote: On 16 Aug 2006 17:10:14 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote: After all *what*????? An editorial from a biased source quoting a defense attorney???? I am still waiting for you to demonstrate that bias. Let me get this straight. You're waiting for me to document the fact that the BBC has been caught deliberately falsifying evidence to try to discredit Blair and Bush as to the conduct of the war? You expect others to do the homewoerk, so why shouldn't we expect you to? (and no, merely trying to broadly discredit the BBC doesn't count) I don't need to try. They did that to themselves. Cite, please? ????? Have you been sleeping the past few years? (I guess given some of your other comments that might have actually happened.) Andrew Gilligan? David Kelly? "Sexed up dossier"? Lord Hutton's inquiry? You missed all that? Here's one of probably 10,000 articles about what they pulled. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...air/index.html If you don't think we're at war with Islamic Fascists then you need to wake up. The fact is that the politicians refuse to label them as Islamic so they just say "Terrorists". But that doesn't alter the fact that we are in a shooting war. Among other things, you apparently have no idea of what "fascism" actually is. The Islamic terrorists are not fascists. For the most part, fascism is antithetical to Islam. Saddam Hussein was close to be a fascist, but he decreed the state to be secular. Excellent tactic. You can't find fault with the argument so you want to debate the use of a particular word. I have very deep feelings about fascism and nazism, and I find usage like yours both an indication of ignorance and watering down of a term that should be kept the way it was. Works real well in High School debates. So you feel you should just throw around terminology willy-nilly whether correctly used or not? And what was your reason for using the term at all if not to make some sort of emotional argument? My predjudice is getting these people on trial (IOW justice). Yours is to avoid seeing that happen. On trial for *what*? Most aren't accused of breaking US law. They are being held as prisoners of war. Nothing "guilty" about that. And no trials to hold. They are indeed being held as prisoners of war. But that begs the question: "Should they be held as prisoners of war?" Good question. I think they should. But it has nothing to do with being "guilty" of anything. Nor can we put them on trial. Nonsense. If they are combatants in a war and are doing combative things while out of uniform they can be summarily shot after a brief military hearing. During WWII, did the UK put captured German soldiers on trial or did they simply hold them until the end of the war then send them home? That was a declared war and both sides wore uniforms. A captured enemy out of uniform is not a prisoner of war; that's why Washington had Major Andre hanged. Very good. A captured enemy out of uniform is not a prisoner of war. Exactly Bush's argument with these people. I know it is. But I'm not arguing either way. The question is whether they are prisoners of war and if not, what are they? An that requries another answer: Is it a war in teh meaning of that term? So now you're a Bush supporter? Amazing. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then, and Bush is sometimes right. But personally, I don't think he is in this one, but I'm not going to make it an absolute the way you do. ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#1197
|
|||
|
|||
Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
Carole Allen wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 08:09:52 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote: That would be the phantoms that knocked down the Twin Towers and killed 3,000 people? The phantoms that bombed the Madrid subway? The phantoms that bombed the UK transit system? The phantoms that were just stopped from bombing 10 trans-Atlantic flights? *Those* phantoms? The guys who did the Twin Towers were not Iraqi and had nothing to do with Iraq. Where were they guys from that invaded Kuwait and when they surrendered promised to do certain things? |
#1198
|
|||
|
|||
Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
Carole Allen wrote: On 17 Aug 2006 08:09:52 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote: That would be the phantoms that knocked down the Twin Towers and killed 3,000 people? The phantoms that bombed the Madrid subway? The phantoms that bombed the UK transit system? The phantoms that were just stopped from bombing 10 trans-Atlantic flights? *Those* phantoms? The guys who did the Twin Towers were not Iraqi and had nothing to do with Iraq. Which has what to do with what I was talking about???? |
#1199
|
|||
|
|||
Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
Hatunen wrote: On 17 Aug 2006 17:23:13 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote: A. Bed sheets are not an indication of bigotry and hatred. B. Wearing a bedsheet in some circumstances *is* (think KKK). There you go again (to quote Ronald Reagan). A. You make the blanket statement that possession of passports is result of hatred and bigotry B. Then you say passports are not an indication of hatred and bigotry. Try to find the word "possession" that exists in one sentence and not the other. And then read where it is the "need" for possession. C. Then you make an anology that in *some circumstances* passports are an indcations of hatred and bigotry. Completely untrue. You're a slippery fellow, your are. And you have a hard time with reading comprehension. In the real world. Let's say a building burns down. What caused the building to catch fire? Turns out a generator caught fire. What caused the generator to catch fire? Turned out a water pump bearing froze up and sparks from the spinning shaft ignited the crankcase oil. What cause the water pump bearing to fail? The system operator used cheap antifreeze and didn't change it often. Why did the operator fail to maintain the system and use cheap products? Greed. Root cause of the fi Greed. Now let's look at passports. Why do so many Europeans have passports? Because they need them to travel more than a few hours? Why do they need them to travel more than a few hours? Because there are so many international borders in Europe. Why are there so many international borders in Europe? Because Europe is chopped up into a large assortment of small countries. Why is Europe chopped up into a large assortment of small countries? Because of the various wars over the centuries. What are the root causes of war? Hatred, bigotry, greed, etc. Ah. Begging your own conclusion still again. Except you now add "greed" to your list. When are you going to add "power"? You still don't understand the cause of war, I see. Root cause of so many Europeans having passports? The hatred, bigotry and greed that caused the wars that created the countries that created the borders that require the passports that they need. Ditto. And for you. Try to understand war. What do you think caused the war? Stale wine? Well, now. That seems to be the point we largely disagree on, doesn't it? I say that some wars may have resulted from bigotry and/or hatred but many wars have not; you say all wars have resulted from bigotry and hatred. All? Probably not. Ah, slippery again. Your precviosu statements have been unqualified. There have been hundreds of wars fought in Europe. The majority are unquestionably bigotry and hatred. There may have been a couple that weren't but that doesn't alter the conclusion one iota. I qualified this because from your question it appeared that you found a list of 461 wars but 2 weren't a result of hatred and bigotry and you planned on using those 2 to negate the conlusions from the other 459. But the vast majority? Yes. Bigotry and hatred are at the root of almost any war. Please provide examples. WWII. Angolan Civil War. Your turn. Provide examples of wars that had nothing to do with bigotry and hatred. As posted elsewhere I've spent a lot of time in war zones. Including "hot shooting wars", "local insurgencies", "cold conflicts". At the root of all of them is a bigotry and hatred. It's difficult to make war on someone you like and respect and consider as an equal. In many war zones the hatred and bigotry are a result of the war, not the cause. Wrong. Hatred and bigotry are often increased to push the war or as a result of the war, but the hatred and bigotry existed before and were integral parts of the reasons for war. |
#1200
|
|||
|
|||
Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
Hatunen wrote: On 17 Aug 2006 17:28:14 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote: Even had no problem getting someone to explain to me in English about Ankracet (I'm sure I misspelled that). What is it? Duck Race |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Delta Insider Articles List in Atlanta Journal-Constitution | Robert Cohen | Air travel | 6 | June 7th, 2006 02:43 PM |
DAL to become World's largest TransAtlantic carrier | A Guy Called Tyketto | Air travel | 14 | October 27th, 2005 02:43 PM |
Airline Biz Crisis: Not Difficult To Predict | Robert Cohen | Air travel | 28 | October 19th, 2005 01:42 PM |
Delta Halfing Their $100 Fee For Ticket Changing | Robert Cohen | Air travel | 1 | December 18th, 2004 09:33 PM |
Many Delta Articles In Major Atlanta Newspaper | Robert Cohen | Air travel | 3 | October 29th, 2004 10:30 PM |