Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 07:53 In article <PwH4h.11589$B31.10737(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><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. You are parroting politicians again. What is really happening is that people, who do not have access to a GP, go to the most expensive health care facility for treatment. Now instead of concentrating on how they can't afford the most expensive service, why not concentrate on why they cannot get access to the usual general practioner's services. That is the problem. And it has become exasperated by everything being based on whether you have insurance or not. /BAH /BAH
From: Ben Newsam on 11 Nov 2006 07:57 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:44:29 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >It takes time to raise a country just as it does to raise a >child. In this case we're raising a country with far too >many guns and explosives and a very bad recent history This is the USA you're talking about, right? I am sure that there are more guns around in the US than anywhere else.
From: Ben Newsam on 11 Nov 2006 07:54 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:26:36 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: >> Possibly. Why do these governments and organisations hate the US when you do >> so much good? Why is the US, with its massive media capacity, unable to >> counter this propoganda when all you have is the good of the people in your >> mind? > >My mother, 1907-2000, said in a 1950's conversation >that it was simple jealousy and she'd been seeing >it all her life. Hahahaha! Er.... no thanks, I have no wish to live under the US yoke, thank you very much. Wha on earth have I got to be jealous about? A country that fails to see the results of its actions on the planet, the lack of a proper healthcare system, a country that seems (IMO) to be filled with hate-ridden people who are only able to judge the worth of a person by how much they earn... OK that's enough to be getting on with. Don't even get me started on their lack of a proper democratic system. >Brits, in particular, hate the US because Brits, >by comparison, feel impotent, while some remember >what it was like back in the Empire days. God, you're so stupid.
From: Ben Newsam on 11 Nov 2006 07:41 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:41:23 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > The fact is that some jobs >aren't worth "minimum wage". Are you saying that you consider some jobs to be so menial that you would actually pay someone less than enough to live on to do them? The trouble with naked capitalism is that it doesn't just produce winners and wealth, it actually requires losers and poverty to operate. Because otherwise there would be no incentive to do anything, would there? The "pure" capitalist system actually requires that some people starve to death just to make sure that the oiks get back to their slave labour.
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 07:56
In article <45537045.AC5FCFC6(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> 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. > >BAH may not be aware that it was a social conscience that drove Britain to look >at the possibility of a National Health Service. Britain is a single country and has a "small" acreage. The US is 50 "countries" span a quarter hemisphere. > >A society that condemns its less well-off members to poor / inadequate health >provision is no great example to anyone. > >Heck, there's an American chap I chat with on MSN who simply couldn't afford to >buy the best medicine for his wife's condition. You should have examined the situation a tad more closely. Was he able to get the good medicine or was he forced to take the generic? Did he expect to pay $12 for the best? I've run into this attitude before and people simply don't want to buy drugs without a massive discount. I don't understnad this mindset yet. /BAH |