Re: Why they hate us, was (Re: funny things to do on a bike)



In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...


> >>A lot of the "job growth" over the last two months are positions in
> >>agriculture and construction. In most of the US, these are seasonal
> >>businesses.

> >
> >
> > So let's see if I understand the principle - during the "off season"
> > they were "lost jobs" but then during the "on season" they're not "job
> > growth"....

>
> My point is that a jump in employment due to seasonal factors should not
> be seen as a sign of economic recovery or long-term job growth. One
> needs to factor out regular seasonal variations to determine the true
> employment situation.


They do; all jobs reports use the term "seasonally adjusted" in the
official announcement. Whether or not the news uses that term depends
on whom they want to look good.


--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
> administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
> an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.


Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:

<http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm>

Any comments?
 
Jim West <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
>> administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
>> an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.

>
>Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:
>
><http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm>
>
>Any comments?


"Consistent with". Nuff said, IMHO.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
Mark Hickey wrote:

> Jim West <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>>And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
>>>administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
>>>an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.

>>
>>Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:
>>
>><http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm>
>>
>>Any comments?

>
>
> "Consistent with". Nuff said, IMHO.
>


You're scaring me. Really scaring me.

Greg
--
Destroy your safe and happy lives
Before it is too late
The battles we fought were long and hard
Just not to be consumed by rock'n'roll
 
On 6/9/04 7:28 PM, in article CHPxc.6250$wS2.259@okepread03, "Jim West"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
>> administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
>> an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.

>
> Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:
>
> <http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm>
>
> Any comments?


Yea..............
What part, and I am sure this is the part you are referring to, is not
correct??

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary
actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations,
including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.09/index.html

--
michael
"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BCED3AEF.20B10%[email protected]...
>
>
>
> On 6/9/04 7:28 PM, in article CHPxc.6250$wS2.259@okepread03, "Jim West"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey

wrote:
> >>
> >> And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
> >> administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
> >> an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.

> >
> > Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:
> >
> > <http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm>
> >
> > Any comments?

>
> Yea..............
> What part, and I am sure this is the part you are referring to, is not
> correct??
>
> (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is

consistent
> with the United States and other countries continuing to take the

necessary
> actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations,
> including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned,

authorized,
> committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
> 2001.
>
 
Steve <[email protected]> writes:

> (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is
> consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to
> take the necessary actions against international terrorists and
> terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
> persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
> attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


Acting in self defense is fine. Pre-emptively acting in self-defense
(e.g., killing someone before they can commit a crime) requires
accurate, even unimpeachable, evidence. Engaging in terrorism to
prevent terrorism is just plain nuts. Breaking the law to enforce the
law is always tempting, but ultimately self-defeating. The Bush
Administration, having no rational moral compass and relying instead
on half-understood populist appeals justified by delusions and
paranois, is caught in the quagmire of its errors.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey wrote:
> Jim West <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>> And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
>>> administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
>>> an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.

>>
>>Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:
>>
>><http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm>
>>
>>Any comments?

>
> "Consistent with". Nuff said, IMHO.


I thought it would be. The rest of us might wonder why he felt compelled
to mention 9/11 at all if it was not being used as an excuse for war.

In fact, one might wonder why he needed to write a letter to Congress
at all at that time. A cynical person might speculate that maybe certain
members of Congress were begining to realize that the evidence that
Iraq was an immediate threat to the US was extremely weak, and they
needed a reminder that the conventional wisdom at that time was that
failing to support an invasion would be political suicide since the
majority of US citizens still thought that Iraq was directly involved
in 9/11. I'm sure glad I'm not cyncial enough for that to have occurred
to me, though.