A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

EU as joke (modified)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old November 17th 03, 12:39 AM
Bjørnar Bolsøy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:17:56 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:
Alan Minyard wrote in
m:


The religious "insight" of Rabin and
Arafat had nothing to do with it.


So you now say that Arafat and Rabin had no religious
insight whatsoever.

They were not negotiating based on religion, they were
negotiating on secular confrontation.


If that was solely the case, they would probably not
have signed the deal.


You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
Living in your fantasy world again.

If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
administration has failed to show any proof linking
Saddam to 9/11.

There is a plethora of evidence that the money for the
terrorists was transshipped through Iraq, as well as training
camps for terrorists.


Can you site any of that evidence?


Terrorist camps, billions of dollars, and prisoner
statements. And there is quite a bit more to come.

Where does Bush say Iraq was in on 9/11?


The Baathists were celebrating


Well can you cite any of this "plethora" of evidence?



http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03

_Press.pd
f

"Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
Related to Support for War"

"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.

That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
from the fact that PIPA was involved.


That's a typical denialist response, Alan. Do you have
any examples that show how these polls are supposed
to be wrong?

If you do not believe that pollsters can manipulate the
outcome of a pole then you are a fool.


And goverments can not manipulate, in your view?

Has any WMDs been found, like Bush said it would?

You are quick to criticise a "useless" poll on the grounds
that it's biassed, but that the Bush administration is under
heavy scrutiny for alledged manipulation doesn't raise
a few critical questions in your mind?

I think anyone will agree that being deceptive is a game
the US goverment and military knows well, one just has to
look at their absolute control of the media during their
campaigns for that.


In this case, the poll was conducted be a very "left wing"
University with an obvious bias.


But "right winged bias" is acceptable in your view?


The structure of the poll
was such that a "misconception" was anything that did
not agree with the views of said University.


I'd appreciate if you could give quick example of such.



The "Program
for International Policy" is very strongly against anything
conservative. They are definitely NOT considered as
an unbiased observer.


Does the Whitehouse qualify for that in your view?


A gross simplification, and I suggest you read up on it.
Perhaps more than anything, the Scandinavian welfare model
promotes a humane philosophy of fair and equal treatment
for anyone, including those who are in a weak financial
position. It becomes part of the national soule to try to
treat all people with respect, even those who might not
deserve it at first glance, because we believe that every
person has something positive to bring into our society.

It promotes ridiculously high taxation, a loss of freedom,
and supporting people who do not feel the need to work
for a living.


Not at all. Our unemploymentrate is 4%, lower than, say,
the US.

"Loss of freedom"?

I realise it's difficult for a foreigner to understand
the social constructs of small nations on the other
side of the pond.

First of all, our use of the term "welfare" has little
in common with unemployed people raising a paycheck every
two weeks or "living off the system". The system or
society in general doesn't encourage that, people work
to fulfill their goals and dreams and maintain our high
standard of living. Emphasis is more on education to
"be something" rather than the size of your bankaccount.

"Welfare", in our terms, means a common pool of social
benefits for everyone, regardless of income. It means,
for instance: free education (right through university),
medicare, childrens allowance and social secuirity/national
insurance to more traditional forms of benefits like
unemployment allowence, invalidity benefits etc. which
stays the same no matter if I make $30,000 a year or
$100,000. It ensures that, basically, everyone is
treated equally.

An example of a benefit that the state provides a place
at day-care center for children, and in cases where this
is parcitally difficult the parents can choose to have
this paied out in cash every month instead thus financing
a private solution instead. I think it's around $450
per. child per. month these days.

Another example is maternity leave or fully paied leave
for care of children (can't think of a better phrase).
I think Iceland is currently the leaders in that field,
with a very flexible 9 months leave divided by the
parents.

Of course no system is flawless, and the cost of having
such a welfare system is constantly debated. Ultimately
everything is built on economics, and maybe we can't
afford this luxury at some point in the future. I can
say, though, that we are very proud of the fact that we
can now.



Regards...
  #242  
Old November 17th 03, 05:55 PM
Alan Minyard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:39:13 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in



So you now say that Arafat and Rabin had no religious
insight whatsoever.

They were not negotiating based on religion, they were
negotiating on secular confrontation.


If that was solely the case, they would probably not
have signed the deal.


It is easy to sign a document when you have no plans
to implement it.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03

_Press.pd
f

"Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
Related to Support for War"

"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.

That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
from the fact that PIPA was involved.

That's a typical denialist response, Alan. Do you have
any examples that show how these polls are supposed
to be wrong?

If you do not believe that pollsters can manipulate the
outcome of a pole then you are a fool.


And goverments can not manipulate, in your view?


Not the US Government, there is far too much in the way
of "checks and balances"

Has any WMDs been found, like Bush said it would?


Actually he said that the best evidence available indicated
that WMDs existed in Iraq

You are quick to criticise a "useless" poll on the grounds
that it's biassed, but that the Bush administration is under
heavy scrutiny for alledged manipulation doesn't raise
a few critical questions in your mind?


The Administration is always under "heavy scrutiny", as
were all administrations before, and all Administrations
will be in the future. We call it a "free press".

I think anyone will agree that being deceptive is a game
the US goverment and military knows well, one just has to
look at their absolute control of the media during their
campaigns for that.

What "absolute control"?

In this case, the poll was conducted be a very "left wing"
University with an obvious bias.


But "right winged bias" is acceptable in your view?

No, it is unacceptable by either "side", but the
US Administration is under scrutiny, while the left
is unchecked.

The structure of the poll
was such that a "misconception" was anything that did
not agree with the views of said University.


I'd appreciate if you could give quick example of such.


Simply look at the document that you cited.


The "Program
for International Policy" is very strongly against anything
conservative. They are definitely NOT considered as
an unbiased observer.


Does the Whitehouse qualify for that in your view?

The White House is not a polling entity.

A gross simplification, and I suggest you read up on it.
Perhaps more than anything, the Scandinavian welfare model
promotes a humane philosophy of fair and equal treatment
for anyone, including those who are in a weak financial
position. It becomes part of the national soule to try to
treat all people with respect, even those who might not
deserve it at first glance, because we believe that every
person has something positive to bring into our society.


"Loss of freedom"?

I realise it's difficult for a foreigner to understand
the social constructs of small nations on the other
side of the pond.

Not at all, we simply do not see any advantage to them.

First of all, our use of the term "welfare" has little
in common with unemployed people raising a paycheck every
two weeks or "living off the system". The system or
society in general doesn't encourage that, people work
to fulfill their goals and dreams and maintain our high
standard of living. Emphasis is more on education to
"be something" rather than the size of your bankaccount.


If you "are something" then the free market will reward
you with a significant income.

"Welfare", in our terms, means a common pool of social
benefits for everyone, regardless of income. It means,
for instance: free education (right through university),
medicare, childrens allowance and social secuirity/national
insurance to more traditional forms of benefits like
unemployment allowence, invalidity benefits etc. which
stays the same no matter if I make $30,000 a year or
$100,000. It ensures that, basically, everyone is
treated equally.

An example of a benefit that the state provides a place
at day-care center for children, and in cases where this
is parcitally difficult the parents can choose to have

The US has an excellent network of PRIVATLELY owned
and operated day care centers. If you have children, you
pay the bill, if you do not have children you are not
required to pay for them.

Another example is maternity leave or fully paied leave
for care of children (can't think of a better phrase).
I think Iceland is currently the leaders in that field,
with a very flexible 9 months leave divided by the
parents.


Same as the US.

Of course no system is flawless, and the cost of having
such a welfare system is constantly debated. Ultimately
everything is built on economics, and maybe we can't
afford this luxury at some point in the future. I can
say, though, that we are very proud of the fact that we
can now.

That must be why people are constantly trying to
enter the US either legally or illegally. I do not
recall Scandinavia having such a problem.
People "vote with their feet".

Al Minyard
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The joke called TSA Spockstuto Instrument Flight Rules 58 December 27th 04 01:54 PM
Sick Boeing Joke. plasticguy Home Built 0 April 1st 04 03:16 PM
On Topic Joke Eric Miller Home Built 8 March 6th 04 04:01 AM
Europe as joke Cub Driver Military Aviation 165 November 8th 03 11:45 PM
American joke on the Brits ArtKramr Military Aviation 50 September 30th 03 10:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.