| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"reeder" |
| Date: |
15 Dec 2004 03:13:26 PM |
| Object: |
Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush
AUSTIN - A legislator from McKinney has introduced a bill that takes
pride in the place President Bush calls home.
Representative Ken Paxton wants all "Welcome to Texas" signs erected
along interstates, U.S. and state highways to also say: "Proud to be
the Home of President George W. Bush."
Paxton and Bush are Republicans.
.....
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
15 Dec 2004 04:36:55 PM |
|
|
On 15 Dec 2004 22:29:04 GMT, forlornh@aol.compost (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush
AUSTIN - A legislator from McKinney has introduced a bill that takes
pride in the place President Bush calls home.
Representative Ken Paxton wants all "Welcome to Texas" signs erected
along interstates, U.S. and state highways to also say: "Proud to be
the Home of President George W. Bush."
Paxton and Bush are Republicans.
And this is from the party which is allegedly the party for "small government"
and fiscal responsibility. This sounds like a big-government liberal spending
spree to me.
Sigh.
Why do you imagine that liberal = big spending?
Liberal = not telling you what god to pray to.
Liberal = everybody has the same rights.
Liberal = accepting people's differences.
Liberal = concern for your fellow human beings.
etc.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Those who have loved God most have loved men least." -- Colonel Robert Green
Ingersoll, 1881
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
15 Dec 2004 05:30:50 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:n1f1s0l3tsnregkfl9bns847uu89ckqkjq@4ax.com:
On 15 Dec 2004 22:29:04 GMT, forlornh@aol.compost (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush
AUSTIN - A legislator from McKinney has introduced a bill that takes
pride in the place President Bush calls home.
Representative Ken Paxton wants all "Welcome to Texas" signs erected
along interstates, U.S. and state highways to also say: "Proud to be
the Home of President George W. Bush."
Paxton and Bush are Republicans.
And this is from the party which is allegedly the party for "small
government" and fiscal responsibility. This sounds like a
big-government liberal spending spree to me.
Sigh.
Why do you imagine that liberal = big spending?
Liberal = not telling you what god to pray to.
But make apologetics for the worst theocrats in the world.
Liberal = everybody has the same rights.
Unless they're white males.
Liberal = accepting people's differences.
As long as they agree with liberals.
Liberal = concern for your fellow human beings.
Just don't ask them to actually *do* anything about it, like getting rid
of some evil dictator.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
15 Dec 2004 07:53:04 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95C0BC59DB5DBfstone69@205.188.138.161...
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:n1f1s0l3tsnregkfl9bns847uu89ckqkjq@4ax.com:
On 15 Dec 2004 22:29:04 GMT, forlornh@aol.compost (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush
AUSTIN - A legislator from McKinney has introduced a bill that takes
pride in the place President Bush calls home.
Representative Ken Paxton wants all "Welcome to Texas" signs erected
along interstates, U.S. and state highways to also say: "Proud to be
the Home of President George W. Bush."
Paxton and Bush are Republicans.
And this is from the party which is allegedly the party for "small
government" and fiscal responsibility. This sounds like a
big-government liberal spending spree to me.
Sigh.
Why do you imagine that liberal = big spending?
Liberal = not telling you what god to pray to.
But make apologetics for the worst theocrats in the world.
Liberal = everybody has the same rights.
Unless they're white males.
Liberal = accepting people's differences.
As long as they agree with liberals.
Liberal = concern for your fellow human beings.
Just don't ask them to actually *do* anything about it, like getting rid
of some evil dictator.
Hey, we tried and almost did it!
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
15 Dec 2004 08:06:17 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:nr6dnR4Yi_Qzd13cRVn-qw@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95C0BC59DB5DBfstone69@205.188.138.161...
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:n1f1s0l3tsnregkfl9bns847uu89ckqkjq@4ax.com:
On 15 Dec 2004 22:29:04 GMT, forlornh@aol.compost (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush
AUSTIN - A legislator from McKinney has introduced a bill that
takes pride in the place President Bush calls home.
Representative Ken Paxton wants all "Welcome to Texas" signs
erected along interstates, U.S. and state highways to also say:
"Proud to be the Home of President George W. Bush."
Paxton and Bush are Republicans.
And this is from the party which is allegedly the party for "small
government" and fiscal responsibility. This sounds like a
big-government liberal spending spree to me.
Sigh.
Why do you imagine that liberal = big spending?
Liberal = not telling you what god to pray to.
But make apologetics for the worst theocrats in the world.
Liberal = everybody has the same rights.
Unless they're white males.
Liberal = accepting people's differences.
As long as they agree with liberals.
Liberal = concern for your fellow human beings.
Just don't ask them to actually *do* anything about it, like getting
rid of some evil dictator.
Hey, we tried and almost did it!
Oh, yeah, that reminds me. Liberal = lie through your teeth about the
leaders of real democracies while making excuses for all sorts of actual
dictatorships.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
19 Dec 2004 07:41:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:06:17 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:nr6dnR4Yi_Qzd13cRVn-qw@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95C0BC59DB5DBfstone69@205.188.138.161...
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:n1f1s0l3tsnregkfl9bns847uu89ckqkjq@4ax.com:
On 15 Dec 2004 22:29:04 GMT, forlornh@aol.compost (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush
AUSTIN - A legislator from McKinney has introduced a bill that
takes pride in the place President Bush calls home.
Representative Ken Paxton wants all "Welcome to Texas" signs
erected along interstates, U.S. and state highways to also say:
"Proud to be the Home of President George W. Bush."
Paxton and Bush are Republicans.
And this is from the party which is allegedly the party for "small
government" and fiscal responsibility. This sounds like a
big-government liberal spending spree to me.
Sigh.
Why do you imagine that liberal = big spending?
Liberal = not telling you what god to pray to.
But make apologetics for the worst theocrats in the world.
Liberal = everybody has the same rights.
Unless they're white males.
Liberal = accepting people's differences.
As long as they agree with liberals.
Liberal = concern for your fellow human beings.
Just don't ask them to actually *do* anything about it, like getting
rid of some evil dictator.
Hey, we tried and almost did it!
Oh, yeah, that reminds me. Liberal = lie through your teeth about the
leaders of real democracies while making excuses for all sorts of actual
dictatorships.
Amazing how Rethugnican administrtions had that tendency and supplied
those dictatorships with money and weapons.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
16 Dec 2004 12:03:36 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:53:04 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
said in alt.atheism:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95C0BC59DB5DBfstone69@205.188.138.161...
Just don't ask them to actually *do* anything about it, like getting rid
of some evil dictator.
Hey, we tried and almost did it!
Only Texans actually did it. Thanks a heap, guys.
--
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
15 Dec 2004 08:07:54 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:53:04 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Just don't ask them to actually *do* anything about it, like getting rid
of some evil dictator.
Hey, we tried and almost did it!
An (Italian) colleague described the US Presidential process as
electing a dictator every four years.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
15 Dec 2004 08:25:45 PM |
|
|
In our last thrilling episode, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> was
pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:30:50
+0000 (UTC) by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
Liberal = not telling you what god to pray to.
But make apologetics for the worst theocrats in the world.
Like when Bush met with the Taliban, and gave them our tax money? Or
Reagan trading arms to Iran, and later making arms deals with the
Saudis?
Liberal = everybody has the same rights.
Unless they're white males.
OK, what rights do you lack? List them.
Liberal = accepting people's differences.
As long as they agree with liberals.
Fred, I may not understand some people's choices, but they are their
choices to make. Take Dodgers fans. Poor, misguided souls. But they
are free to make that choice.
Liberal = concern for your fellow human beings.
Just don't ask them to actually *do* anything about it, like getting rid
of some evil dictator.
Yeah, the rat ***** Roosevelt did absolutely nothing about Hitler
and Tojo! And Truman just let Kim Il Sung roll over South Korea,
right?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
16 Dec 2004 08:50:16 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:5bs1s0lhtp0shjl8a4s5nk4nncanao13i4@4ax.com:
In our last thrilling episode, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> was
pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:30:50
+0000 (UTC) by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
Liberal = not telling you what god to pray to.
But make apologetics for the worst theocrats in the world.
Like when Bush met with the Taliban, and gave them our tax money? Or
Reagan trading arms to Iran, and later making arms deals with the
Saudis?
There's a difference between choosing the lesser of two evils and making
excuses for evil in the first place.
The House of Saud were our allies against the USSR. Oh, but that's
another one: Liberal = forget all about the USSR and *why* the US
conducted it's foreign policy the way it did during the Cold War.
Liberal = everybody has the same rights.
Unless they're white males.
OK, what rights do you lack? List them.
Liberals want to take away my right to vote on social issues.
Liberal = accepting people's differences.
As long as they agree with liberals.
Fred, I may not understand some people's choices, but they are their
choices to make. Take Dodgers fans. Poor, misguided souls. But they
are free to make that choice.
You must not pay much attention to the "liberals" on alt.atheism.
Liberal = concern for your fellow human beings.
Just don't ask them to actually *do* anything about it, like getting
rid of some evil dictator.
Yeah, the rat ***** Roosevelt did absolutely nothing about Hitler
and Tojo! And Truman just let Kim Il Sung roll over South Korea,
right?
And there has been how much handwringing from *modern* liberals about
doing the same for Saddam or Kim Jong-Il?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
17 Dec 2004 03:37:50 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:5bs1s0lhtp0shjl8a4s5nk4nncanao13i4@4ax.com:
In our last thrilling episode, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> was
pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:30:50
+0000 (UTC) by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
Liberal = not telling you what god to pray to.
But make apologetics for the worst theocrats in the world.
Like when Bush met with the Taliban, and gave them our tax money? Or
Reagan trading arms to Iran, and later making arms deals with the
Saudis?
There's a difference between choosing the lesser of two evils and making
excuses for evil in the first place.
The House of Saud were our allies against the USSR. Oh, but that's
another one: Liberal = forget all about the USSR and *why* the US
conducted it's foreign policy the way it did during the Cold War.
Liberal = everybody has the same rights.
Unless they're white males.
OK, what rights do you lack? List them.
Liberals want to take away my right to vote on social issues.
Liberal = accepting people's differences.
As long as they agree with liberals.
Fred, I may not understand some people's choices, but they are their
choices to make. Take Dodgers fans. Poor, misguided souls. But they
are free to make that choice.
You must not pay much attention to the "liberals" on alt.atheism.
Liberal = concern for your fellow human beings.
Just don't ask them to actually *do* anything about it, like getting
rid of some evil dictator.
Yeah, the rat ***** Roosevelt did absolutely nothing about Hitler
and Tojo! And Truman just let Kim Il Sung roll over South Korea,
right?
And there has been how much handwringing from *modern* liberals about
doing the same for Saddam or Kim Jong-Il?
Knocking over Kim Jong-Il? Not a problem. The fucker is building nukes.
PROVEN. There's just this teency problem of how to prevent him from
using them when we invade to oust his *****. Your heroes in Washington
appear to be stumped by this, not to mention tied down by a totally
unnecessary and strategically irrelevant effort in Iraq, and haven't
done a fucking thing with him. Saddam didn't have nukes, wasn't actively
working on them, and unlike Hitler, was in no position to pursue a
policy of reckless expansionism. So your analogy falls down on both counts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
17 Dec 2004 09:20:34 PM |
|
|
Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote in news:41C351AE.6060704@svn.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:5bs1s0lhtp0shjl8a4s5nk4nncanao13i4@4ax.com:
In our last thrilling episode, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
was pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Wed, 15 Dec 2004
23:30:50 +0000 (UTC) by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he
screamed:
Liberal = not telling you what god to pray to.
But make apologetics for the worst theocrats in the world.
Like when Bush met with the Taliban, and gave them our tax money? Or
Reagan trading arms to Iran, and later making arms deals with the
Saudis?
There's a difference between choosing the lesser of two evils and
making excuses for evil in the first place.
The House of Saud were our allies against the USSR. Oh, but that's
another one: Liberal = forget all about the USSR and *why* the US
conducted it's foreign policy the way it did during the Cold War.
Liberal = everybody has the same rights.
Unless they're white males.
OK, what rights do you lack? List them.
Liberals want to take away my right to vote on social issues.
Liberal = accepting people's differences.
As long as they agree with liberals.
Fred, I may not understand some people's choices, but they are their
choices to make. Take Dodgers fans. Poor, misguided souls. But
they are free to make that choice.
You must not pay much attention to the "liberals" on alt.atheism.
Liberal = concern for your fellow human beings.
Just don't ask them to actually *do* anything about it, like getting
rid of some evil dictator.
Yeah, the rat ***** Roosevelt did absolutely nothing about Hitler
and Tojo! And Truman just let Kim Il Sung roll over South Korea,
right?
And there has been how much handwringing from *modern* liberals about
doing the same for Saddam or Kim Jong-Il?
Knocking over Kim Jong-Il? Not a problem. The fucker is building
nukes. PROVEN. There's just this teency problem of how to prevent him
from using them when we invade to oust his *****.
Who says we have to invade N. Korea to "oust his *****"?
Your heroes in
Washington appear to be stumped by this, not to mention tied down by a
totally unnecessary and strategically irrelevant effort in Iraq, and
haven't done a fucking thing with him.
My "heroes" in Washington are obviously smarter than you are, since they
can think of other ways to deal with him than invading. Saddam, on the
other hand, had already corrupted the UN sanctions "containment" regime
and was actively pursuing a strategy of international terrorism.
Saddam didn't have nukes,
wasn't actively working on them, and unlike Hitler, was in no position
to pursue a policy of reckless expansionism. So your analogy falls
down on both counts.
My analogy is just fine, thank you. Too bad you're too singleminded to
understand the counts.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
19 Dec 2004 06:18:49 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote in news:41C351AE.6060704@svn.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:5bs1s0lhtp0shjl8a4s5nk4nncanao13i4@4ax.com:
In our last thrilling episode, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
was pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Wed, 15 Dec 2004
23:30:50 +0000 (UTC) by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he
screamed:
Liberal = not telling you what god to pray to.
But make apologetics for the worst theocrats in the world.
Like when Bush met with the Taliban, and gave them our tax money? Or
Reagan trading arms to Iran, and later making arms deals with the
Saudis?
There's a difference between choosing the lesser of two evils and
making excuses for evil in the first place.
The House of Saud were our allies against the USSR. Oh, but that's
another one: Liberal = forget all about the USSR and *why* the US
conducted it's foreign policy the way it did during the Cold War.
Liberal = everybody has the same rights.
Unless they're white males.
OK, what rights do you lack? List them.
Liberals want to take away my right to vote on social issues.
Liberal = accepting people's differences.
As long as they agree with liberals.
Fred, I may not understand some people's choices, but they are their
choices to make. Take Dodgers fans. Poor, misguided souls. But
they are free to make that choice.
You must not pay much attention to the "liberals" on alt.atheism.
Liberal = concern for your fellow human beings.
Just don't ask them to actually *do* anything about it, like getting
rid of some evil dictator.
Yeah, the rat ***** Roosevelt did absolutely nothing about Hitler
and Tojo! And Truman just let Kim Il Sung roll over South Korea,
right?
And there has been how much handwringing from *modern* liberals about
doing the same for Saddam or Kim Jong-Il?
Knocking over Kim Jong-Il? Not a problem. The fucker is building
nukes. PROVEN. There's just this teency problem of how to prevent him
from using them when we invade to oust his *****.
Who says we have to invade N. Korea to "oust his *****"?
Your heroes in
Washington appear to be stumped by this, not to mention tied down by a
totally unnecessary and strategically irrelevant effort in Iraq, and
haven't done a fucking thing with him.
My "heroes" in Washington are obviously smarter than you are, since they
can think of other ways to deal with him than invading. Saddam, on the
other hand, had already corrupted the UN sanctions "containment" regime
and was actively pursuing a strategy of international terrorism.
Look. The North Koreans have a much more developed weapons program
than Saddam did. There's no effective opposition in the country. It's
a police state with a pretty pervasive and spectacularly effective
indoctrination system. Stalin might have been envious. The only way
Kim Jong-Il is leaving is if we do get rid opf him militarily, and I
don't think he's to be trusted in negotiations. You'd like to have it
both ways here. Getting rid of Saddam good. Containment measures in
N. Korea good. *****. There's even less evidence that they have
done any good in North Korea. There's also no evidence that Saddam
was sponsoring anything beyond some payments to relatives of
Palestinian suicide bombers. This is Isreal's problem, and we've no
business doing their dirty work for them, any more than Germany's Red
Brigades problem was ours to solve in the 70's.
Saddam didn't have nukes,
wasn't actively working on them, and unlike Hitler, was in no position
to pursue a policy of reckless expansionism. So your analogy falls
down on both counts.
My analogy is just fine, thank you. Too bad you're too singleminded to
understand the counts.
No, I understand just fine. You just like the American version of Fascist
ideology embodied in the modern Republican Party, to the exclusion of all
known forms of logic. It's a shame, really.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
19 Dec 2004 07:33:31 PM |
|
|
Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote in news:41C61A69.5070206@svn.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote in news:41C351AE.6060704@svn.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:5bs1s0lhtp0shjl8a4s5nk4nncanao13i4@4ax.com:
In our last thrilling episode, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
was pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Wed, 15 Dec 2004
23:30:50 +0000 (UTC) by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he
screamed:
Liberal = not telling you what god to pray to.
But make apologetics for the worst theocrats in the world.
Like when Bush met with the Taliban, and gave them our tax money?
Or Reagan trading arms to Iran, and later making arms deals with
the Saudis?
There's a difference between choosing the lesser of two evils and
making excuses for evil in the first place.
The House of Saud were our allies against the USSR. Oh, but that's
another one: Liberal = forget all about the USSR and *why* the US
conducted it's foreign policy the way it did during the Cold War.
Liberal = everybody has the same rights.
Unless they're white males.
OK, what rights do you lack? List them.
Liberals want to take away my right to vote on social issues.
Liberal = accepting people's differences.
As long as they agree with liberals.
Fred, I may not understand some people's choices, but they are
their choices to make. Take Dodgers fans. Poor, misguided souls.
But they are free to make that choice.
You must not pay much attention to the "liberals" on alt.atheism.
Liberal = concern for your fellow human beings.
Just don't ask them to actually *do* anything about it, like
getting rid of some evil dictator.
Yeah, the rat ***** Roosevelt did absolutely nothing about Hitler
and Tojo! And Truman just let Kim Il Sung roll over South Korea,
right?
And there has been how much handwringing from *modern* liberals
about doing the same for Saddam or Kim Jong-Il?
Knocking over Kim Jong-Il? Not a problem. The fucker is building
nukes. PROVEN. There's just this teency problem of how to prevent him
from using them when we invade to oust his *****.
Who says we have to invade N. Korea to "oust his *****"?
Your heroes in
Washington appear to be stumped by this, not to mention tied down by
a totally unnecessary and strategically irrelevant effort in Iraq,
and haven't done a fucking thing with him.
My "heroes" in Washington are obviously smarter than you are, since
they can think of other ways to deal with him than invading. Saddam,
on the other hand, had already corrupted the UN sanctions
"containment" regime and was actively pursuing a strategy of
international terrorism.
Look. The North Koreans have a much more developed weapons program
than Saddam did. There's no effective opposition in the country. It's
a police state with a pretty pervasive and spectacularly effective
indoctrination system. Stalin might have been envious. The only way
Kim Jong-Il is leaving is if we do get rid opf him militarily, and I
don't think he's to be trusted in negotiations.
Of course he's not. He has never negotiated in good faith.
And their "spectacularly effective indoctrination system" is rather full
of holes lately. There have been quite a number of recent high-level
defections, and there's been a steady flow of refugees across the border
into China for years.
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=KOREA.HTM
You'd like to have it
both ways here. Getting rid of Saddam good. Containment measures in
N. Korea good.
Yes, that's called "choosing the strategy that fits the situation". The
world does not respond well to one-size-fits-all solutions.
China holds the leverage over North Korea, which the US lacks. That's
why the six-way conferences are important, and why the NK's want to
limit things to "bilateral talks" between them and the US.
*****. There's even less evidence that they have
done any good in North Korea. There's also no evidence that Saddam
was sponsoring anything beyond some payments to relatives of
Palestinian suicide bombers.
There's plenty of evidence. The lefties simply ignore it or handwave it
away, one bit at a time.
This is Isreal's problem, and we've no
business doing their dirty work for them, any more than Germany's Red
Brigades problem was ours to solve in the 70's.
Thank you for revealing your biases so clearly.
Saddam didn't have nukes,
wasn't actively working on them, and unlike Hitler, was in no
position to pursue a policy of reckless expansionism. So your analogy
falls down on both counts.
My analogy is just fine, thank you. Too bad you're too singleminded
to understand the counts.
No, I understand just fine. You just like the American version of
Fascist ideology embodied in the modern Republican Party, to the
exclusion of all known forms of logic. It's a shame, really.
Sorry, but Fascism is a leftist ideology having nothing to do with
Republicans.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
21 Dec 2004 04:20:48 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote in news:41C61A69.5070206@svn.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote in news:41C351AE.6060704@svn.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:5bs1s0lhtp0shjl8a4s5nk4nncanao13i4@4ax.com:
In our last thrilling episode, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
was pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Wed, 15 Dec 2004
23:30:50 +0000 (UTC) by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he
screamed:
Liberal = not telling you what god to pray to.
But make apologetics for the worst theocrats in the world.
Like when Bush met with the Taliban, and gave them our tax money?
Or Reagan trading arms to Iran, and later making arms deals with
the Saudis?
There's a difference between choosing the lesser of two evils and
making excuses for evil in the first place.
The House of Saud were our allies against the USSR. Oh, but that's
another one: Liberal = forget all about the USSR and *why* the US
conducted it's foreign policy the way it did during the Cold War.
Liberal = everybody has the same rights.
Unless they're white males.
OK, what rights do you lack? List them.
Liberals want to take away my right to vote on social issues.
Liberal = accepting people's differences.
As long as they agree with liberals.
Fred, I may not understand some people's choices, but they are
their choices to make. Take Dodgers fans. Poor, misguided souls.
But they are free to make that choice.
You must not pay much attention to the "liberals" on alt.atheism.
Liberal = concern for your fellow human beings.
Just don't ask them to actually *do* anything about it, like
getting rid of some evil dictator.
Yeah, the rat ***** Roosevelt did absolutely nothing about Hitler
and Tojo! And Truman just let Kim Il Sung roll over South Korea,
right?
And there has been how much handwringing from *modern* liberals
about doing the same for Saddam or Kim Jong-Il?
Knocking over Kim Jong-Il? Not a problem. The fucker is building
nukes. PROVEN. There's just this teency problem of how to prevent him
from using them when we invade to oust his *****.
Who says we have to invade N. Korea to "oust his *****"?
Your heroes in
Washington appear to be stumped by this, not to mention tied down by
a totally unnecessary and strategically irrelevant effort in Iraq,
and haven't done a fucking thing with him.
My "heroes" in Washington are obviously smarter than you are, since
they can think of other ways to deal with him than invading. Saddam,
on the other hand, had already corrupted the UN sanctions
"containment" regime and was actively pursuing a strategy of
international terrorism.
Look. The North Koreans have a much more developed weapons program
than Saddam did. There's no effective opposition in the country. It's
a police state with a pretty pervasive and spectacularly effective
indoctrination system. Stalin might have been envious. The only way
Kim Jong-Il is leaving is if we do get rid opf him militarily, and I
don't think he's to be trusted in negotiations.
Of course he's not. He has never negotiated in good faith.
And their "spectacularly effective indoctrination system" is rather full
of holes lately. There have been quite a number of recent high-level
defections, and there's been a steady flow of refugees across the border
into China for years.
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=KOREA.HTM
You'd like to have it
both ways here. Getting rid of Saddam good. Containment measures in
N. Korea good.
Yes, that's called "choosing the strategy that fits the situation". The
world does not respond well to one-size-fits-all solutions.
China holds the leverage over North Korea, which the US lacks. That's
why the six-way conferences are important, and why the NK's want to
limit things to "bilateral talks" between them and the US.
*****. There's even less evidence that they have
done any good in North Korea. There's also no evidence that Saddam
was sponsoring anything beyond some payments to relatives of
Palestinian suicide bombers.
There's plenty of evidence. The lefties simply ignore it or handwave it
away, one bit at a time.
This is Isreal's problem, and we've no
business doing their dirty work for them, any more than Germany's Red
Brigades problem was ours to solve in the 70's.
Thank you for revealing your biases so clearly.
Saddam didn't have nukes,
wasn't actively working on them, and unlike Hitler, was in no
position to pursue a policy of reckless expansionism. So your analogy
falls down on both counts.
My analogy is just fine, thank you. Too bad you're too singleminded
to understand the counts.
No, I understand just fine. You just like the American version of
Fascist ideology embodied in the modern Republican Party, to the
exclusion of all known forms of logic. It's a shame, really.
Sorry, but Fascism is a leftist ideology having nothing to do with
Republicans.
Most eloquent in its almost total dishonesty. A fine post, Fred. I need
make no
further arguments. Especially this last bit. This one-jeebus, I'm
speechless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
16 Dec 2004 08:15:11 AM |
|
|
In article <5bs1s0lhtp0shjl8a4s5nk4nncanao13i4@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
In our last thrilling episode, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> was
pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:30:50
+0000 (UTC) by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
Liberal = not telling you what god to pray to.
But make apologetics for the worst theocrats in the world.
Like when Bush met with the Taliban, and gave them our tax money? Or
Reagan trading arms to Iran, and later making arms deals with the
Saudis?
Liberal = everybody has the same rights.
Unless they're white males.
OK, what rights do you lack? List them.
He can't marry his boyfriend. :[
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
19 Dec 2004 07:40:08 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:30:50 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:n1f1s0l3tsnregkfl9bns847uu89ckqkjq@4ax.com:
On 15 Dec 2004 22:29:04 GMT, forlornh@aol.compost (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush
AUSTIN - A legislator from McKinney has introduced a bill that takes
pride in the place President Bush calls home.
Representative Ken Paxton wants all "Welcome to Texas" signs erected
along interstates, U.S. and state highways to also say: "Proud to be
the Home of President George W. Bush."
Paxton and Bush are Republicans.
And this is from the party which is allegedly the party for "small
government" and fiscal responsibility. This sounds like a
big-government liberal spending spree to me.
Sigh.
Why do you imagine that liberal = big spending?
Liberal = not telling you what god to pray to.
But make apologetics for the worst theocrats in the world.
Liberal = everybody has the same rights.
Unless they're white males.
Liberal = accepting people's differences.
As long as they agree with liberals.
Liberal = concern for your fellow human beings.
Just don't ask them to actually *do* anything about it, like getting rid
of some evil dictator.
You mean like the Bush misadministration.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
16 Dec 2004 12:00:48 AM |
|
|
On 15 Dec 2004 22:29:04 GMT, forlornh@aol.compost (Lord Calvert) said
in alt.atheism:
And this is from the party which is allegedly the party for "small government"
and fiscal responsibility. This sounds like a big-government liberal spending
spree to me.
Most of them will tell you how "embarrassed" they are at the "need" to
enlarge government.
Sounds a bit like Christianity to me - you should do X - we're
embarrassed that the situation prevents US from doing X.
--
"The study of geology is ok-But not when it contradicts what is laid
out in the Bible that the earth is more than 10,000 years old."
- Doug Lee, Creationi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
16 Dec 2004 08:34:25 AM |
|
|
And this is from the party which is allegedly the party for "small
government"
and fiscal responsibility. This sounds like a big-government liberal
spending
spree to me.
Most of them will tell you how "embarrassed" they are at the "need" to
enlarge government.
Actually, I think Reagan's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig
Roberts, really got a grip on what is happening with the GOP in his recent
article. He said, "Today it is liberals, not conservatives, who endeavor to
defend civil liberties from the state. Conservatives have been won around to
the old liberal view that as long as government power is in their hands, there
is no reason to fear it or to limit it." That's what's happening. When the Dems
enacted big spending programs the Republicans criticized it as "big-government
liberalism." When the GOP enacts big spending programs they laud it as
"Defending America's freedoms." When our opponents do it, it's bad. When we do
it, it's good. That, in a nutshell, is the supremacist ideology.
We as a people have to come to the realization that neither the GOP nor the
Democratic parties truly represent our interests or American principles and the
sooner we get rid of both of them the better off we're going to be.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Those who have loved God most have loved men least." -- Colonel Robert Green
Ingersoll, 1881
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
18 Dec 2004 11:13:18 PM |
|
|
Lord Calvert wrote:
And this is from the party which is allegedly the party for "small
government"
and fiscal responsibility. This sounds like a big-government liberal
spending
spree to me.
Most of them will tell you how "embarrassed" they are at the "need" to
enlarge government.
Actually, I think Reagan's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig
Roberts, really got a grip on what is happening with the GOP in his recent
article. He said, "Today it is liberals, not conservatives, who endeavor to
defend civil liberties from the state. Conservatives have been won around to
the old liberal view that as long as government power is in their hands,
there
is no reason to fear it or to limit it." That's what's happening. When the
Dems
enacted big spending programs the Republicans criticized it as
"big-government
liberalism." When the GOP enacts big spending programs they laud it as
"Defending America's freedoms." When our opponents do it, it's bad. When we
do
it, it's good. That, in a nutshell, is the supremacist ideology.
We as a people have to come to the realization that neither the GOP nor the
Democratic parties truly represent our interests or American principles and
the
sooner we get rid of both of them the better off we're going to be.
That's all well and good, but how exactly are we going to do that? It'll be a
long, long time before either the Libs or the Greens have enough mainstream
credibility to supplant the old parties. I'm all for a change that will end
the creeping fascism that is relentlessly taking over the culture of our
nation, but I just don't see how such a change can be achieved before it's too
late.
*********************************************
"Don't look now, I'm just a friendly reminder!" Homsar from the HR website
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
16 Dec 2004 08:47:16 AM |
|
|
On 16 Dec 2004 14:34:25 GMT, forlornh@aol.compost (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
And this is from the party which is allegedly the party for "small
government"
and fiscal responsibility. This sounds like a big-government liberal
spending
spree to me.
Most of them will tell you how "embarrassed" they are at the "need" to
enlarge government.
Actually, I think Reagan's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig
Roberts, really got a grip on what is happening with the GOP in his recent
article. He said, "Today it is liberals, not conservatives, who endeavor to
defend civil liberties from the state. Conservatives have been won around to
the old liberal view that as long as government power is in their hands, there
is no reason to fear it or to limit it." That's what's happening. When the Dems
enacted big spending programs the Republicans criticized it as "big-government
liberalism." When the GOP enacts big spending programs they laud it as
"Defending America's freedoms." When our opponents do it, it's bad. When we do
it, it's good. That, in a nutshell, is the supremacist ideology.
Paul Craig Roberts does not know what a liberal is.
We as a people have to come to the realization that neither the GOP nor the
Democratic parties truly represent our interests or American principles and the
sooner we get rid of both of them the better off we're going to be.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Those who have loved God most have loved men least." -- Colonel Robert Green
Ingersoll, 1881
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
16 Dec 2004 01:03:24 AM |
|
|
In article <66a1s0p8n0e9t5ne3aevhsk7r0n6sk1t9m@4ax.com>,
reeder <reeder@NS-ades.com> wrote:
Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush
AUSTIN - A legislator from McKinney has introduced a bill that takes
pride in the place President Bush calls home.
Representative Ken Paxton wants all "Welcome to Texas" signs erected
along interstates, U.S. and state highways to also say: "Proud to be
the Home of President George W. Bush."
And then 49 states can put up signs "Proud NOT to be the home of Dubya
Bush".
Paxton and Bush are Republicans.
....
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently
in theVirgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened
nation?-Garry Wills, New York Times 11/04/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
16 Dec 2004 08:38:12 AM |
|
|
AUSTIN - A legislator from McKinney has introduced a bill that takes
pride in the place President Bush calls home.
Representative Ken Paxton wants all "Welcome to Texas" signs erected
along interstates, U.S. and state highways to also say: "Proud to be
the Home of President George W. Bush."
And then 49 states can put up signs "Proud NOT to be the home of Dubya
Bush".
When I was living in Texas, a friend of mine and I frequently drove from San
Angelo, where we were stationed, to Austin to see his brother. During the trip
we passed through a town named Brady, which proclaimed itself as the "Heart of
Texas" because it contained the geographic center of the state. My friend was
always happy to go through Brady because (and I quote), "Going through Brady
means that no matter what direction you go, you're leaving Texas."
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Those who have loved God most have loved men least." -- Colonel Robert Green
Ingersoll, 1881
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
17 Dec 2004 12:28:58 AM |
|
|
In article <20041216093812.12301.00002254@mb-m28.aol.com>,
forlornh@aol.compost (Lord Calvert) wrote:
AUSTIN - A legislator from McKinney has introduced a bill that takes
pride in the place President Bush calls home.
Representative Ken Paxton wants all "Welcome to Texas" signs erected
along interstates, U.S. and state highways to also say: "Proud to be
the Home of President George W. Bush."
And then 49 states can put up signs "Proud NOT to be the home of Dubya
Bush".
When I was living in Texas, a friend of mine and I frequently drove from San
Angelo, where we were stationed, to Austin to see his brother. During the trip
we passed through a town named Brady, which proclaimed itself as the "Heart of
Texas" because it contained the geographic center of the state. My friend was
always happy to go through Brady because (and I quote), "Going through Brady
means that no matter what direction you go, you're leaving Texas."
LOL! Great observation!
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently
in theVirgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened
nation?-Garry Wills, New York Times 11/04/04
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ellen Howie" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
15 Dec 2004 05:06:03 PM |
|
|
Just like the Signs in Arkansas and Tennessee erected during the Clinton
Administration
When you crossed the Mississipi river into Arkansas there was a huge sign
welcoming you to the home state of President William Clinton. Then when
you crossed back into Tennesse there was a huge sign welcoming you to the
home State of Vice-President Albert Gore, Jr.
So in other words you got fucked coming and going
"reeder" <reeder@NS-ades.com> wrote in message
news:66a1s0p8n0e9t5ne3aevhsk7r0n6sk1t9m@4ax.com...
Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush
AUSTIN - A legislator from McKinney has introduced a bill that takes
pride in the place President Bush calls home.
Representative Ken Paxton wants all "Welcome to Texas" signs erected
along interstates, U.S. and state highways to also say: "Proud to be
the Home of President George W. Bush."
Paxton and Bush are Republicans.
....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
15 Dec 2004 08:52:36 PM |
|
|
"Ellen Howie" <howieinc@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:UaqdnQx4A6vKXl3cRVn-vw@giganews.com:
Just like the Signs in Arkansas and Tennessee erected during the
Clinton Administration
When you crossed the Mississipi river into Arkansas there was a huge
sign welcoming you to the home state of President William Clinton.
Then when you crossed back into Tennesse there was a huge sign
welcoming you to the home State of Vice-President Albert Gore, Jr.
So in other words you got fucked coming and going
Yeah, those days sucked. <not>
Full employment, peace, freedom of speech, even the music was better.
--
Enkidu
"Yee-Ha" is not a foreign policy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
16 Dec 2004 12:04:36 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:06:03 -0500, "Ellen Howie" <howieinc@yahoo.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Just like the Signs in Arkansas and Tennessee erected during the Clinton
Administration
When you crossed the Mississipi river into Arkansas there was a huge sign
welcoming you to the home state of President William Clinton. Then when
you crossed back into Tennesse there was a huge sign welcoming you to the
home State of Vice-President Albert Gore, Jr.
So in other words you got fucked coming and going
At least you didn't get sent overseas to die so that the President
could get wealthier.
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
15 Dec 2004 08:51:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:13:26 -0600, reeder <reeder@NS-ades.com> wrote:
Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush
AUSTIN - A legislator from McKinney has introduced a bill that takes
pride in the place President Bush calls home.
Representative Ken Paxton wants all "Welcome to Texas" signs erected
along interstates, U.S. and state highways to also say: "Proud to be
the Home of President George W. Bush."
Paxton and Bush are Republicans.
Oh, that's nothing new at all. I went to Tunisia long time ago. Where
the strong man was Habib Bourgiba. In Monastir practically everything
and then some more was named after him.
We joked:
"How do I get to the Bourgiba Museum?"
"Easy. Arrive at the Bourgiba International Airport, drive over the
Bourgiba Tollway, turn left at the Bourgiba drive, follow the Bourgiba
High street, cross the Bourgiba square on the left of the Bourgiba
Statue. The museum stands next to the Bourgiba High school."
So Bush Street, Bush Avenue, or Bush Ville is not that spectacular.
All great leaders with an inferiority complex need them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
16 Dec 2004 12:05:40 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:51:11 +0700, Jos Flachs
<"wcruise"@ksc15.th.com> said in alt.atheism:
So Bush Street, Bush Avenue, or Bush Ville is not that spectacular.
All great leaders with an inferiority complex need them.
Not so great leaders do too.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
15 Dec 2004 03:48:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:13:26 -0600, reeder <reeder@NS-ades.com> wrote:
Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush
AUSTIN - A legislator from McKinney has introduced a bill that takes
pride in the place President Bush calls home.
Representative Ken Paxton wants all "Welcome to Texas" signs erected
along interstates, U.S. and state highways to also say: "Proud to be
the Home of President George W. Bush."
It's a personality cult - like some of the Eastern European
dictatorships were.
Paxton and Bush are Republicans.
....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Legislator wants highway signs in Texas to mention Bush |
15 Dec 2004 11:58:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:48:04 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
It's a personality cult - like some of the Eastern European
dictatorships were.
Why should an American dictatorship be any different than a European
dictatorship?
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
