Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 12 Nov 2006 17:59 T Wake wrote: > It wont be relevant. When I was 18 you could buy a house outright for ?20k. > Now you need ten times that amount. I bought a bank reposessed house two years ago for $15,500. It is an investment house. It needed $1000 in repairs to make it habitable, and that was because the pipes had frozen and burst. I can buy similar houses today at a similar price.
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 18:01 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > >> Ben Ben Newsam wrote: > >> > On Sun, 12 Nov 06 12:47:09 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> > >Didn't you ever wonder where your sewer people put all of that > >> > >water that get flushed and put down the drains of your sinks, > >> > >baths, and showers? > >> > > >> > No, because I know exactly what happens to it. It goes to the sewage > >> > treatment works at Tinsley. > >> > >> And ends up as bottled water in France? ;-) > > > > You have some very odd ideas. > > > > The only company I know of that made a bottled water of 'dubious origin' > > was the Coca-Cola company who used tap water. > > It's actually pretty widely known in this country that most bottled waters, > even those that call themselves "spring water" are simply tap water in a > fancy package. A few actually do bother to get spring water, but it's not > very common. No laws regarding labelling ? > I think he might be conflating the fact in my previous sentence, with the > widely reported scandal of benzene in Perrier about 10 - 15 years ago. To > my knowledge, Perrier does indeed sell spring water...not that I think > that's any great shakes--I think a lot of the bottled waters taste like > Elmer's Glue. I just buy a bottle once in a very long while, then keep > refilling it from the tap because it's a convenient container to carry water > around with me as I go about my job. Most of them are vastly over-rated and overpriced. It's snob appeal mostly. Graham
From: lucasea on 12 Nov 2006 18:02 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej7b7t$8qk_023(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4em5h.2414$6t.70(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej4l1b$8ss_033(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> 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. >> >>Yes, defending an untenable position against data and logic will cause one >>to do that. > > Actually, the problem is property taxes doubling and then quadrupling > every four or five years. And we in Mass. passed a 2.5% cap. The > governor people just elected has promised to undo it. > > >> >> >>>AS minimum >>> wage goes skyhigh, >> >>This is disingenuous. Nobody is suggesting it go "sky high". The >>contemplated increase, the first such in something like 20 years, is about >>$2, or about $20. In that time, inflation has gone up nearly 100%. I'd >>say >>that's a rather modest increase. > > Are you saying that there is no correltation between a minimum > wage increase and living expense increases? Yes. At most an *extremely* weak correlation. > I say there is a correlation. Then you don't know what you're talking about, you're fantasizing again. Eric Lucas
From: unsettled on 12 Nov 2006 18:04 Ben Newsam wrote: > On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:27:48 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > wrote: > > >>Please go read the reasons for the British Mandate near >>the beginning of the 20th century. The facts and reasoning >>haven't changed. > > > That was nearly a century ago. Things have most definitely changed > since then. You haven't done it. Till you do we have nothing to discuss. > > >>The reason we need to "raise a country" is because they >>never grew up. That's not to say they cannot, just that >>they have not. Given the opportunity I think the US can >>do a much better job of it than the UK did. > > > You fail to realise just how offensive it is to people in the region > to be occipied by a foreign power.
From: lucasea on 12 Nov 2006 18:07
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:455782C6.1CD4BAE4(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> Oh, and by the way, Canada spans just as much area as the US. > > With a smaller population. ....90% of which is amassed within 100 miles of the US border, ready to attack us. Aaaiieieiei! Canada wants to destroy western civilization! They want to destroy all baseball card trade! They only hate us for our football! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! (You really do need to rent a copy of "Canadian Bacon", if you can find it. It's very good satire. You would like the grafitti scene in Quebec. As an educated John Fields would put it, "Mange mes shorts!") Eric Lucas |