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 *

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?

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????

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.

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

Hatunen wrote:
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.

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.

The explain your remark.

But I hope you aren't going to argue that you can know the USA by visiting
the city of new York.

No. But you can't know the US *without* visiting places like New York.
The "hinterlands" is no more an accurate representation of the US than
New York is.

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.

Then why the remarks? Especially those belittling successful people
(like your second sentence about GM execs).

Hatunen wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 18:07:48 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:

No. But the root cause of all wars are about the same.

Are they now?

Yes.

Conquest or religion are the excuses. Hatred and bigotry are the true
reasons.
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".

Nor did I say "all".

Back to your comprehension abilities.

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

Except that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the US was
finally a unified country. Nothing at all.

OK. I showed you mine. now you show me yours.

Try again.

Hatunen wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 18:37:58 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 08:09:52 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:

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?

It's the commonly used term these days.

Dictionary describes Fascism as "A system of government marked by
centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic
controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,
and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." And
that's pretty much what the Islamic terrorists are trying to create.

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.

But no one is doing that and no one is suggesting it. And no one,
including me, is implying that they are "guilty" of anything.

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?

No. The question is whether the are prisoners of war or Prisoners Of
War. The second being the very specific term as defined by the Geneva
Conventions. They are not. But they are prisoners of war.

An that requries another answer: Is it a war in teh meaning of that
term?

Yes.

Following up to Hatunen

but all
attempts to find out from the conductor what the problem was
failed because the conductor simply didn't know any English

this is the real world we all know, if the conductor had been a
uni professor you would have been OK.
--
Mike Reid
I will agree bendybuses are a good idea when they build bungalows on Mayfair
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"

On 17 Aug 2006 18:49:47 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Dave Frightens Me 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?

No, I want you to demonstrate the bias you claimed existed in the
article I posted. You have misread. Again.

Misread? I said "An editorial from a biased source quoting a defense
attorney????" and that was the only reference to bias. You responded to
that line asking me to demonstrate the bias. Since the reference you
responded to was biased *source* I responded appropriately.

As far as bias in the article I did in fact show you the bias. It was
an editorial (not a news source) from a biased source (BBC on Iraq)
quoting a defense attorney (clearly biased as all lawyers representing
their clients) claiming an analysis on some alleged government data.

Bias by definition. No where in that article did anyone post any actual
government figures as you claimed they did.

All you are saying is that the BBC and the attorney would have to be
biased. I am waiting for you to demonstrate what that bias is in this
case.

you still conclude that all of them are guilty,

Learn to read. I never said anyone was "guilty" of anything.

You most certainly concluded that.

Out and out lie. Show me where I said that.

You said:
"As it always is with prisoners of war. The fact that they were
captured on a battleground is all that it takes."

I have read that sentence 3 more times, played it backwards, rearranged
the letters, translated it into about 47 languages. Can't find anywhere
where I said anyone was *guilty* of anything.

Oh, so you still stand by this statement, even after it has been
demonstrated wrong?

Which wasn't correct, was it?

Not according to your biased source that you refuse to challenge.

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.

A shooting war? What war are you talking about?

????? 9/11? Madrid? London? Any of this ring a bell?

Yeah, none involved shooting IIRC.

Terrorism is what happens when people are slapped about so much, that
they resort to extreme methods to get some semblance of justice.

I see. So bin Ladin, a millionaire son of a billionaire, was slapped
about so much that he had to resort to terrorism?

Wake up. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were wealthy or middle class and
well educated.

I don't condone that,

Actually you just did.

When you (or anyone) uses a sentence that starts something like "I
oppose terrorism" there is one and only one proper way to punctuate it.
That is with a period, dot, full stop ".". As in "I oppose terrorism."
But if you punctuate it with "but...." then you are actually condoning
it.

What rubbish. You are merely saying that if I question the modes of
dealing with it, I condone the terrorists.

Mungbean logic.

You've obviously made up your mind on this one, so there's not much
point in trying to get any sense out of, or into you. That brain of
yours is in lockdown denial mode.

Pots and kettles. You clearly don't understand any of the issues but
you're not going to let that get in the way of your prejudices.

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.

The war on terrorism is over, in case you hadn't noticed.

????? So the BBC lied when they reported the interrupted plan to bomb
the airliners last week?

It's been renamed "The Long War" now.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--