Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 11 Nov 2006 14:31 On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:28:06 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 21:16:34 +0100, "Frank Bemelman" >> <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: >> >> >>><snip> >>>But having said that, what did you think after reading the material >>>that Jon pointed us to? >> >> Soon after this administration took office, and after seeing some of >> the old war horses (Poindexter and Negroponte, to name just two) I'd >> seen as true felons running amok in the Reagan Administration (who >> were unscrupulous mobsters of the highest degree) and stealing like >> crazy and involving themselves deeply into the illicit drug trade in >> the US, having been reinstalled into this administration's key >> positions, I mentioned to my wife, >> >> "Cheney is going to diligently work each and every detailed issue he >> can, pressing those he can press each morning, and going on to the >> next one when he finds one he cannot press for a moment. But he will >> be relentless and undistracted. I'm somewhat worried that this >> administration [I already knew Bush himself to be a minor, bit player] >> will 'shoot the moon." >> >> This is a reference to something one does in a card game called >> "Hearts," where someone goes for broke and tries to take all the >> points. > >As an old time double deck hearts player I can assure you >that there's no parallel between the game of hearts and >US politics. When a hearts player intelligently goes for >broke it is because he has a strong enough a hand to take >all the points. Those who are hopeful for a mistake by >opponents which is necessary for a win always lose >unless one of the players, holding a critical card, >is a neophyte. > >Shooting the moon, where the US is concerned in >international politics, is ending the games by >playing the nuclear card. We're not that much in >trouble yet. I wasn't thinking of that in an international sense. (Sorry I did not see this before, but only just noticed it.) I was thinking in an 'internal to the US' sense. I wasn't clear. I worry that Cheney is working on a way to use our own military to control the populace _here_. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/27/1027497418339.html http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/sp030311.shtml http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html http://www.thevillager.com/villager_184/talkingpoint.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20061108/cm_ucru/ourlongnationalnightmarehasjustbegun Big difference. Sorry for not being clearer. Jon >> Regardless, I do also see this as just another of myriad steps of a >> larger plan of Cheney's. He's very, very good at plugging away at >> every place where there is a weakness to be seized upon and to also >> not worry much about those he cannot do much about for the moment or >> those where he gets a reversal of sorts. He is constantly surveying >> and pushing where he can. Always and ever. Like a bulldozer. >> >> I still worry that we may find ourselves, as mere citizens, caught >> unawares and unprepared.
From: Eeyore on 11 Nov 2006 14:43 JoeBloe wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >unsettled wrote: > > > >> I am at a slight loss in the > >> medicine coverage if I use Canadian pricing as > >> the basis, but way ahead if I use USA prices. > > > >Why are the same medicines more expensive in the USA ? > > > >Graham > > Ever see a Pharma production line? > > 500 tablet/capsule bottles go by getting labels at a rate exceeding > 1 per second. > > They gouge us 'cause we got money. Well.. at least we used to have > a more powerful dollar, but that is why they do it. That's sort of what I thought. I'd say they do because they can ( are allowed to ) get away with it rather than because everyone can really afford it though. Graham
From: JoeBloe on 11 Nov 2006 14:43 On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:45:06 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >news:4krbl29h7imp8vc91vrkss29r591e1lbtn(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 06:39:29 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >> >>> >>>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>>news:g1eal2dosisofr40ccnm98kcgi8pbtiar0(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>> Even Western Digital has its products made and assembled elsewhere, >>>> but it is still an American company. >>> >>>...and what fraction of their workforce would be American? >>> >>>Eric Lucas >>> >> >> >> The up front investiture, hardware product, the profits, the name, >> the quality assurance, the engineering... All the parts that matter. > >How is that a fraction of the workforce? Do you mean to imply that the >workers don't matter? > I knew I could count on a twit like you not to get it.
From: lucasea on 11 Nov 2006 14:47 "Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:e96cl2tviek822ftetj8rtphkkoold1oqe(a)4ax.com... > > (or if > immobile, I ask to be visited at home), Is this a standard form of care in the UK? We haven't had doctors in general make house-calls here in the US for at least 40 years. Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 11 Nov 2006 14:48
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej4iml$8ss_022(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <5MOdnbB1D9f_WsnYnZ2dnUVZ8sqdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej1qbp$8ss_006(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <9HG4h.11569$B31.1808(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eivamt$8qk_008(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <BM14h.8314$B31.7002(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:eiq0h1$8qk_012(a)s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>> In article <dGS3h.5355$7F3.3682(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, >>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:MPG.1fb9bd1d862e8abb989ab0(a)news.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dry wood burns very cleanly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It still stinks to hell. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Not if you're using a good, modern wood stove, and good dry >>>>>>>>(particularly >>>>>>>>hard) wood. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I burn some in a fairly efficient stove, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It's not just efficiency, it's also related to pollution control >>>>>>>>devices. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but unless there is a wind blowing it's a mess. It stinks if it's >>>>>>>>> still, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Not if you're using a good, modern wood stove, and good dry >>>>>>>>(particularly >>>>>>>>hard) wood. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How do you make everybody do this? >>>>>> >>>>>>Why your desparate need to "make everybody do" things. Why not just >>>>>>let >>>>>>them make their own decisions, and you make yours? >>>>> >>>>> Because there are never "do not burn" stamps on wood filled >>>>> with arsenic. Because there isn't any pollution controls >>>>> on burning wood. The ones who "sin" the worst are those >>>>> who are rabid anti-smokers of cigarettes, consider the need >>>>> for oil to be a mortal sin, and are against nuclear power plants. >>>>> >>>>> Yet these people have no problems with filling a whole neighborhood >>>>> with smoke and arsenic. This is another example of perfection >>>>> of inability to think. >>>> >>>>Why do you presume that it is the anti-smokers who burn pressure-treated >>>>lumber illegally? That is a rather illogical, quite misanthropic, and >>>>*very* disingenuous assumption. >>> >>> Why do you assume that I have no personal experience at all? >> >>I dont think people do make that assumption. The problem is you >>extrapolate >>your very limited experiences on a massive scale with little or no reason >>to >>do so. > > My knowledge about how things works cannot be used. My experience > cannot be used. The fact that there is an absence of stories about > how good the system is (from people who are really ill) cannot be > used. I am not sure what your line of reasoning here is and I suspect anything I say will be called a misinterpretation. > What am I left with? Politicians saying it is the right thing > to do. People who believe that they should get everything free and > have the government pay for it. That is not what a national health service is. > Some cost analysis statistics that > should be used as a tool rather than a reason for implementation of > the system. Yes. Analyse the costs of a national health service vs privatised health care. See which is more cost effective. > I can't do this without feeling intellectually dishonest. Well, that is down to you. |