Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 15:23 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > Oh, and by the way, Canada spans just as much area as the US. With a smaller population. Graham
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 15:31 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45577CDD.2835A102(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > Round here a small flat will cost ?130,000 ! That's the entry price for >> > your own place. >> > >> > There is *no way* you can buy that easily even on an average wage for a >> > single person. >> >> Sadly, that sort of price will only buy you a one bedroom flat and it >> normally costs at least two incomes to purchase it. > > Yes. > > >> I would love to see someone on $200 per week even affording food bills >> let >> alone anything else. > > Eating economically isn't a problem for me. You really need to be able to > cook > though. But then you have to afford cooking utensils, a cooker and power to run the cooker.
From: lucasea on 12 Nov 2006 15:37 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej7873$8qk_004(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <t2l5h.2382$6t.2270(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej4f3c$8ss_004(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <t915h.3582$IR4.2252(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ej22jn$8qk_012(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>> Since my experiences were with systems that didn't work, >>>> >>>>Yes, that would be with the current US system. Why do you assume that a >>>>nationalized health care would be the same, and have the same problems? >>>>We >>>>have heard testimony from at least 3 people in this discussion alone, to >>>>the >>>>contrary. >>> >>> I'm a software developer. Code that has a bug on my development >>> machine will never get fixed if I distribute the same code on >>> all my customers' machines. All I've done is make the mess so >>> big, it can't be solved. >> >>Why do you assume that nationalized health care would simply be analogous >>to >>"distribut[ing] the same code on all customers' machines"? > > It appears my analogy was too complicated to be understood. No, I understood it perfectly. It's simply a bad analogy. >> It's an >>opportunity to fix what's broken, > > It could. However, the people are are assigned to fix what's > broken are the same ones who caused the first mess. Uh....no. Who, exactly, do you think caused the health care mess we're in now? Certainly wasn't the government. > The > campaign promises keep saying they intend to do the same thing again. And again, you're not listening to what they're saying, just like you did with national security. >>and to refuse to take it because of some >>misguided fear is just simply idiotic. Your lack of understanding of how >>things get done is sometimes staggering. > > As is your ignoring how thing have been done and demand for the > same wrong things to be done again. You're not listening, again. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 12 Nov 2006 15:38 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej78b0$8qk_005(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <b4l5h.2383$6t.568(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej4f53$8ss_005(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <Uc15h.3583$IR4.3435(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ej22rc$8qk_013(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <eivs0e$vor$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>What good are the other rights if you're dead? >>>>> >>>>> Reread the sentence. They are only talking about insurance >>>>> being a right, not getting medical care. There is a difference. >>>> >>>> >>>>Well, the difference would be kinda moot to the millions of Americans >>>>who >>>>do >>>>not have insurance and cannot afford medical care, now wouldn't it? >>> >>> Now think about why they can't afford it. >> >>Becuase of the inefficient system we currently have. Why not replace it >>with something that is proven to be efficient. >> >>Your argument that we can't switch to a nationalized health care system >>because we have problems with the current system is exactly 180 degrees >>out >>of phase with reality. We need to switch to a nationalized health care >>system precisely becuase we have problems with the current system. >> > > The current problems are *caused* by having insuranace as the > basis of medical service delivery. Correct. > Forcing > everybody to go the insurance route is flat out stupid. That's not what a nationalized health care system is. You have a complete lack of understanding of what a nationalized health care system is. Until you educate yourself on that, your protestations are pointless. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 12 Nov 2006 15:41
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:tf7el2536vl0cf68g917co2057924gdm0l(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:04:58 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:9cibl21gu2d8b4hfoo2trilmmcenvqnied(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:37:20 -0000, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>What War on Christianity am I waging? I have no concerns as to the >>>>religion >>>>people practice in their own homes. I do object to being subject to >>>>religion-derived law though. >>> >>> --- >>> Like the prohibition of murder and theft? >> >> >>You're confusing cause and effect. You assume that, because those are >>religious and legal prohibitions, that they came to have legal status >>because of their religious status. I would suggest that both are based on >>the natural law that both murder and theft are bad for society. > --- > "Natural" law stems from religious roots. No, you have that exactly backwards. >>Both religion and law codified this. > > --- > Religion first. And you have that exactly backwards as well. >> You need to read what Franklin said again. >>To paraphrase what he had to say about this, things that are proscribed by >>religion aren't bad for you because they're proscribed...quite the >>opposite. >>They are proscribed because they are bad for you. > > --- > While that may be true, it has little to do with the fact that some > laws are derived from religious prohibitions. Murder and theft are > among them, and if you agree that their proscription is necessary, > then your statement: "I do object to being subject to > religion-derived law though." becomes largely nonsensical. First of all, learn to read attributions. Second, neither of those is derived from religious law. It's derived from the need to maintain order in a society. > Even more broadly, I maintain that _all_ law stems from religious > roots, considering Jesus' command: "All things whatsoever ye would > that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." Well, that would be your religious prejudices showing. Society existed long before Jesus or any other religion came up with laws about murder and theft. Eric Lucas |