Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 14 Nov 2006 20:18 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:455918C4.23BF9F44(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>Funny thing. A number of posters say the US is imposing >>>its will on the Iraqi population. But there's no problem >>>with you lot wanting to impose NHS on America. You argue >>>for it as though you know what's best for us. >> >>No-one said anything about *imposing* it. Why do you have to lie ? > > > It has no choice in the matter. When unsettled runs out of random things to > try and use as points for his argument he seems to resort to lies - anything > to keep his denial going strong. > > Comical Unsettled? > > >>I'm perplexed you can't see its advantages for sure. > > > Keeping his eyes firmly shut, and his head properly buried ensures this. You've nothing of value to add so the feeding (off one another) frenzy continues.
From: unsettled on 14 Nov 2006 20:22 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4559D87C.A071FB9D(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>Sorcerer wrote: >> >> >>> The NHS is the world's worst bureaucracy >>>and the most expensive waster of human resources imaginable. >> >>Not needed to use it yet ? The economy of the NHS is a proven fact. > > > Androcles/sorcerer just says argumentative things for the hell of it, he > very rarely has more than 1/10th of a clue what he is talking about. Wait > till you get him started on Einstein. As badly as he misunderstands Einstein he's still head and shoulders above you.
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 20:25 YD wrote: > So, have the lot of you reached a consensus, does jihad need > scientists or not? Is bomb making science ? Graham
From: unsettled on 14 Nov 2006 20:26 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ejcga8$8ss_018(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <455759E3.AAAFF753(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>>Now think about why they can't afford it. >>>>> >>>>>Their wages are too low maybe ? They can't get a better paying job. >>>>>Other >>>>>expenses come first out of necessity ? These would be typical reasons. >>>> >>>>No. Unfortunately, people's mindset is that they should get stuff >>>>for free or pay very little. When a generic doesn't work as well >>>>as the namebrand, people decide to stay with the generic because >>>>they don't have to pay as much for it. >>> >>>You're not addressing my point, ot you're arguing in favour of inadequate >> >>health >> >>>care for ppl who aren't well off. >>> >>>In the above you seem to think that poorer ppl *really could* pay say $300 >> >>p.m. >> >>>for drugs. I say they simply don't have the kind of income to afford it >> >>without >> >>>starving. >> >>You are making too many assumptions. EAch sentence assumes different >>aged people. >> >> >>>How about someone on that minimum wage job for example ? >> >>Here you seem to assume that all people who work at >>a minimum wage job will always work for that money, never >>get salary nor benefit increases, nor work at better-paying jobs. > > > Ok, they may well get a pay rise. Hopefully they can stave off their health > care needs until that time. > > What if they cant? What if the 20 year old person trying to live on minimum > wage needs health care. How can s/he afford it? Medicaid.
From: unsettled on 14 Nov 2006 20:42
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:455A5340.42719F8E(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>> >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And you like to imply things that just aren't true. You weren't >>>>>>>>living on "$2/day". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Right. It was $2/month. >>>>>> >>>>>>And you can also clean a whole house in 15 mins ? >>>>> >>>>>The thing that she conveniently glosses over is that 1) it was in >>>>>1960s >>>>>dollars, about a factor of 10 - 100 higher when adjusted for >>>>>inflation, >>>>>and >>>>>2) she was also paying tuition, room and board, which probably added >>>>>at >>>>>least $50/month in 1960 dollars, or $1000/month in 2006 dollars. >>>>>That's >>>>>a >>>>>far cry from talking about $2/month as if it were 2006 dollars, which >>>>>is >>>>>what the discussion was about...living on <$100/month total salary in >>>>>2006. >>>> >>>>In 1973 ? my first full-time job paid ?2000 p.a. ( ? 38.46 weekly ). It >>>>seemed >>>>like a good rate of pay for a youngster at the time. Heck, my rent was >>>>only ?28.16 p.c.m too ! >>> >>>The Thatcher years were not pleasant :-) Fortunately I was in the Army >>>and >>>we had massive pay rises :-) >> >>Which bit of it were you in ? >> > > > Royal Engineers mainly. A mechanic. LOL |