Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 9 Nov 2006 10:09 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eive3d$8qk_028(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <G1y4h.11017$r12.7330(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>news:ebe9$45527d5d$49ecfec$17717(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> Ben Newsam wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:37:42 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>I also find it a thing of wonder how well the whole lot of them was >>>>>able >>>>>to foresee how American society might develop, how prescient they all >>>>>ended up being, and how well they took account of it in their ideas >>>>>about >>>>>how the country should be structured. >>>> >>>> >>>> They were a very wise bunch indeed. They also had the luxury of being >>>> able to start from scratch. >>> >>> Not at all. They had a population that demanded as >>> little change from what they were used to as >>> necessary. As time went on they reverted to much >>> of what they sought to escape when they came here. >> >>I think it was a good balance between keeping the parts of the English >>system that made sense, and preventing the transgressions that made them >>leave England. >> >>Or were you refering to the increasing imposition of religion on the >>government that has been happening off-and-on for the last 20 - 30 years? >> >>I will say it is a shame that the current US public is currently so >>fearful >>of change that no revolutionary new ideas have a chance. The debate over >>nationalized health care is an excellent example. > > What is worse is people deciding to fix what ain't broke. Something approaching 20% of the people in our country can't afford any sort of health care. To say that "ain't broke" is one of the most morally bereft statements I've heard in a very, very long time. Congratulations, you've demonstrated the lack of a conscience along with a lack of a brain. Eric Lucas
From: unsettled on 9 Nov 2006 10:14 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <e81a6$4551f94f$4fe75b2$14650(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>In article <MPG.1fb90e071de0287c989aa6(a)news.individual.net>, >>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <454F423C.3B207DEE(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>>> >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>The days of inheriting a bicycle shop that grew into >>>>>>>an airframe manufacturing enterprise are gone. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, it's not. >>>>> >>>>>Do please supply an appropriate example. >>>> >>>>Hewlett Packard, Apple, Mc$hit, Dell... Who knows where the next >>>>one will pop up. >>>> >>> >>> >>>He'll object to that because they're too old. Google, E-bay, >>>Vehix(sp?). I can imagine a day where you login to General >>>Motors and fill out the specs for the car you want and have >>>it delivered in n days. I'd like to see this done with books ;-). >>>IOW, mass production will become blase for anything other than >>>computer equipment :-))). >> >>I object because they're not heavy industry. > > > Now define heavy industry. Heavy industry is capital intensive and difficult to relocate. They have a number of effects on the economy among which is a form of population and work stability (given demand for their output is reasonably stable.) They tended to use a wide variety of workers, from the lowest socio-economic classes to the highest. There are several general definitions of the term. Examples are given at: http://www.answers.com/topic/heavy-industry > Do you consider chip makers heavy industry? No. > Or do you think that heavy industry are > places where the workers have to get so dirty > they can't wash it off. Are you looking for trouble?
From: unsettled on 9 Nov 2006 10:33 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <d403b$455203d0$4fe75b2$14905(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>krw wrote: >> >> >>>In article <e81a6$4551f94f$4fe75b2$14650(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>unsettled(a)nonsense.com says... >>> >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <MPG.1fb90e071de0287c989aa6(a)news.individual.net>, >>>>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <454F423C.3B207DEE(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>>>rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The days of inheriting a bicycle shop that grew into >>>>>>>>>an airframe manufacturing enterprise are gone. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No, it's not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Do please supply an appropriate example. >>>>>> >>>>>>Hewlett Packard, Apple, Mc$hit, Dell... Who knows where the next >>>>>>one will pop up. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>He'll object to that because they're too old. Google, E-bay, >>>>>Vehix(sp?). I can imagine a day where you login to General >>>>>Motors and fill out the specs for the car you want and have >>>>>it delivered in n days. I'd like to see this done with books ;-). >>>>>IOW, mass production will become blase for anything other than >>>>>computer equipment :-))). >>>> >>>>I object because they're not heavy industry. >>> >>> >>>So what? Are they not new opportunities that people have made >>>kagillions? >> >>Let's see how smart you really are. I'll give you the >>elements I think important. >> >>A) To provide for the common welfare. >> >>B) In the United States, what is the distribution >> of socio-economic class >> >>C) Taking a high tech biz like Google, what sort >> of people do they employ, ie, what's the >> distribution >> > > You are too restrictive. Consider all the business those > who use Google do. You can't just count Google's P&L > statement here because the serives they provide allow > other people and businesses to make oodles more. It isn't all about P&L or even ROI. Google does next to nothing directly (by way of employment) for the unwashed masses. When what you have is companies which don't hire them at a living wage then you have a situation where the government is forced to step in and play Robin Hood. To provide for the common welfare the government (see A, above) must encourage a wide base of business types by creating an appropriate economic environment, within the limits of their authority. I have long recognized that we now live in a world rather than a national economy. Still, we can't do only high tech work because then we have to babysit and provide for those who, by economic design, have been left out. One thing that communism got right was having work for everyone. How they went about that was stupid and costly. We can do much better, and we need to. Governing in an honest, honorable, and equitable way is not an easy task.
From: unsettled on 9 Nov 2006 10:46 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <P4m4h.9861$r12.5744(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eismvd$8qk_001(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <eirk14$qa6$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>>>Where does the money really go? "the general fund" is an accounting >>>>device not the final destination of the money. >>> >>>Patronage pockets. Extending all infrastructure projects 2 or >>>3 decades. The so-called social services. Building disintegrating >>>buildings. >> >>You really do need to see more of your own country. Not every >>infrastructure project is "The Big Dig", and not every state in this nation >>is phenomenally stupid enough to let a fiasco like the Big Dig happen. > > > Oh, shove it where sun don't shine. He asked where our tax monies > were going. I listed a few. Why do you keep generalizing my > specifications to the point of fiasco and then using your erroneous > conclusions to put words in my mouth? I have far less patience than you for his highly repetitive behavior constantly derailing rational conversation. He's a log thrower.
From: Eeyore on 9 Nov 2006 11:41
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Islamic societies are based on law. It is a law which uses the Koran as > >> >its guide rather than the Bible but it is still law. > >> > >> And that law is currently being interpreted so that all people > >> who are not Muslim must be killed. > > > >No it's not. That is a complete fallacy. > > You haven't been listening to the extremists, then. There's no point 'listening' to ppl like that. You simply can't take that stuff seriously. > I did not say that *all* of Islam has this interpretation. > It doesn't, yet. But it's only a matter of years before > extremists of all kinds will have weapons that can interrupt > and destroy the world's trade. That's utterly ridiculous ! Say what you mean exactly instead of making vague allusions. > Do you want to prevent this mess from happening or wait until > it's in your lap. If you choose the latter, not only will > you have the work to clean up the mess, you will also have > additional work of trying to prevent it from happening again-- > which will be impossible. The best way to avoid a 'mess' is to behave intelligently and avoid provoking hostility. Graham |