Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 08:50 In article <dvidnWPSgamHfcnYnZ2dnUVZ8sqdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej211j$8qk_003(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <455485EB.84F083F4(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: <snip> >>>I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. >>> >>>Can anyone actually live on that ? >> >> $10k/year? Yes. > >Blimey. Where in the US can you live (housing, food, fuel, clothing, >transport) on $10k per year? I would love to know. I assume this does not >include health care though.... It includes the government insurance. My folks, who are 2 people, live on that little. Their income is social security and they never maxed out on the payments. > >In the UK I would be amazed if _anyone_, even in council housing, could live >on ?10k per year, let alone $10k. It's an interesting experiement. I'm trying to get to $10K. /BAH
From: Ben Newsam on 11 Nov 2006 08:49 On Fri, 10 Nov 06 12:04:46 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <AEG4h.11568$B31.4300(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eiva46$8qk_005(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <4550A28F.B40C659F(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> In addition, people burn the wood that is laced with arsenic. >>>> >>>>What kind of wood is laced with arsenic ? >>> >>> Any wood you want to prevent termintes from eating. >> >>Not any more, at least not new wood. > >Sigh! People don't burn wood they've just paid $2.59/bd.ft. They >burn the old wood they've just replaced. But according to you, the treated wood never needs replacing.
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 09:00 In article <4555374F.EF500B95(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >krw wrote: > >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> > > Raising the minimum wage is stupid and insane. >> > >> > Why ? >> >> Why should the federal government tell anyone what their worth is? >> > >> > I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. >> >> The federal minimum wage is $5.15/hr. Some states are higher >> (Vermont is $7.25 and going up). I'm not sure anyone really works >> for the minimum (MacD's is advertising $9.00/hr.). > >So why the fuss over increasing what would seem to be a notional minimum ? > You should notice that Keith is swearing. That is not is usual style. I guess he's got the same problems I have. AS minimum wage goes skyhigh, so do property taxes, real estate, food, other taxes, and other things needed for survival. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 09:08 In article <1163176958.162131.272120(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <8EG4h.11567$B31.466(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> > >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >news:eiv9vl$8qk_003(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >> >> These people came from an economic system where the only property >> >> owners (I think) were farms. The only people who knew how to >> >> make things go were property owners. When the above people envisioned >> >> the manufacturing and industrial revolution, did they also anticipate >> >> where people would only own 1/8 acre with a hut on it? >> > >> >You mean like all of the people in Europe who lived in the cities already >> >had? >> >> They didn't own. > >Oh yes they did at least in the UK - and those with a certain modest >amount of land got to vote too. I thought that property was entailed? > The poorest were usually tennants of a >rich landowner (and that still persists to some extent in rural areas). >Private rental property is still very common on mainland Europe and it >has nothing at all to do with promigenture(sic). > >Successful merchants and tradesmen tended to acquire enough wealth to >own their premises and if relevant some land to go with it. But this only happened after the middle class became the majority? > >> Europe is based on promigenture and that's very >> different from the way the US operated. > >Are you dyslexic or something? ITYM Primogeniture Thanks. I didn't use to be dyslexic. It seems that the disease I have causes brain wires to be crossed in a very odd manner. I'm still trying to figure out the bugs. I couldn't find the correct spelling in the dictionary. >- the entire estate >(especially for the seriously rich) going to the eldest surviving male >heir. I can see why believing this would conflict with your misandry >but I can't see how it is remotely relevant. It isn't true either. > >A rough guide to how goods & chattels were divided according to the law >of thirds is at: >http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/OLD-ENGLISH/2006-01/1137061033 > >And a longer more complex description at: >http://www.bahs.org.uk/14n2a1.pdf > >Bess of Hardwick was a notable example of a very powerful woman who >amassed a huge fortune by marriage. And out living various husbands. >Hardwick Hall, near Sheffield is well worth a visit. > >http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-hardwickhal l/ > >Second most wealthy woman in England after Queen Elizabeth I. > >> I suspect that the >> reason these fears of the founders didn't surface is because >> the US got rid of promigenture. That is real property ownership >> where its disposal and use is solely the decision of the owner >> and not some outdated inheiritance laws based on kingships. > >Primogeniture inheritance was done primarily to keep the large landed >gentry estates of the aristocracy intact. And even then estates were >bought and sold as the new super rich of the industrial revolution came >along. Right. The time frame I was thinking about when I wrote the above was the 1700-1800s. Middle class hadn't become super rich. Trade was still filling the government's coffers rather than an individuals. Companies didn't own trade routes, governments did...or a consortium approved and controlled by the king did. >The cash poor, asset rich landed gentry were smart enough to >acquire money by marriage into the upcoming new industriallists. That is how the entailments survive today. How did they get funds in the 1700 and 1800s? /BAH
From: John Fields on 11 Nov 2006 09:23
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:39:20 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:c8u9l2p15huilmdlqg8okct65cdt6ap5hm(a)4ax.com... >> >>Not that we're >> lily-white, but we don't exactly go around skewering babies for >> snacks either. > > >How's that for damnation by faint praise? How far we've fallen from our >high ideals--from "Give me liberty or give me death!" and "E pluribus unum" >to "At least we don't skewer babies for snacks!" --- I see you have a great deal of trouble dealing with limits. There are an infinite number of states between heaven and hell, you know... -- JF |