Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 23 Nov 2006 11:33 In article <ek1q41$ucf$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu says... > In article <ek1equ$8ss_003(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >In article <ejv29u$vbq$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >>In article <1164101047.711452.220630(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > >> |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > >>> > >>>unsettled wrote: > >>> > >>>> Ken Smith wrote: > >>>> > In article <MPG.1fcae9c9199518f8989c01(a)news.individual.net>, > >>>> > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> >>In article <ejqve0$fgo$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net > >>>> >>says... > >>>> >> > >>>> >>>In article <6af58$455ba5ff$4fe75f7$20998(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > >>>> >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>> >>>[.....] > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>>The original error starts with you two clowns failing to > >>>> >>>>appreciate that capitalism has a soul. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>(Boggle) Capitalism is a cold hard logical system. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>>To define a term > >>>> >>>>"fair profit" isn't beyond the capacity of capitalism to > >>>> >>>>embrace freely and without external (read governmental) > >>>> >>>>imposition. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>It is beyond the capacity of capitalism to define what "fair profit" > >>>> >>>really means. > >>>> >> > >>>> >>Nonsense! Capitalism perfectly defines what is fair; did someone > >>>> >>pay the fair market value? If so, it is by *definition* fair. If > >>>> >>not it is not "fair". > >>> > >>>There is no "fair" market price. There is only the price that one > >>>particular individual is willing to pay for the specific goods or > >>>services. If you want some fun try comparing how much you have paid for > >>>an airline seat on a scheduled flight with your neighbours. And don't > >>>get too upset if you find that one of them has paid half what you did > >>>for the same journey and ticket. > >>> > >>>Willing seller willing buyer. If you don't like the price you are not > >>>compelled to buy it. > >> > >>Water after a natural disaster. Monopolies. There are many examples where > >>unbridled capitalism is just plain wrong. > > > >Have you considered that people should plan ahead? > > > >/BAH > > > > Have you considered compassion? Caring (about more than money, that is)? It's not particularly caring nor compassionate to force money from one person to give it to another. The Salvation Army and even the Red Cross seemed to do a bit better than the USG in the past couple of disasters. > > AT&T once had a monopoly on phone service. Tell me how someone could damn > "plan ahead"! Please tell me that you aren't serious. -- Keith
From: krw on 23 Nov 2006 11:43 In article <tMWdnfBOoaeuM_nYnZ2dnUVZ8sSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... > > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:45638C91.511F38F8(a)earthlink.net... > > krw wrote: > > > >> > >> Why? McDonalds pays real money. They offer real benefits. Why > >> wouldn't kids learn how to handle money by being employed? It's > >> certainly better than learning to live off the government! > > > > > > A kid I know has just finished a year working at a Wendy's > > restaurant. He has bought a used pickup truck, and a used motorcycle. He > > helps support his disabled mother, and he only graduated from high > > school, earlier this year. He has matured a lot in the past year, > > something that the demented donkey really should try. > > > > The first couple months he was wasting his money, but that changed > > fairly fast. His talk of a fancy stereo system, and other useless toys > > is gone, and he is trying to save some money for his future. > > > > A kid I know has worked at McDonalds for two years and is still a selfish, > self centred idiot with no concept of the value of money, nor the social > responsibilities that go with being an adult. He wouldn't know how to save > for a pair of socks, let alone the future. He is a blight on society despite > being 20 years old and having worked since he left school. Was he still being supported by his parents? > Just shows anecdotal evidence can cut both ways. ....and sometimes you don't look far enough into the anecdote. -- Keith
From: Michael A. Terrell on 23 Nov 2006 13:08 krw wrote: > > In article <tMWdnfBOoaeuM_nYnZ2dnUVZ8sSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... > > > > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message > > news:45638C91.511F38F8(a)earthlink.net... > > > krw wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> Why? McDonalds pays real money. They offer real benefits. Why > > >> wouldn't kids learn how to handle money by being employed? It's > > >> certainly better than learning to live off the government! > > > > > > > > > A kid I know has just finished a year working at a Wendy's > > > restaurant. He has bought a used pickup truck, and a used motorcycle. He > > > helps support his disabled mother, and he only graduated from high > > > school, earlier this year. He has matured a lot in the past year, > > > something that the demented donkey really should try. > > > > > > The first couple months he was wasting his money, but that changed > > > fairly fast. His talk of a fancy stereo system, and other useless toys > > > is gone, and he is trying to save some money for his future. > > > > > > > A kid I know has worked at McDonalds for two years and is still a selfish, > > self centred idiot with no concept of the value of money, nor the social > > responsibilities that go with being an adult. He wouldn't know how to save > > for a pair of socks, let alone the future. He is a blight on society despite > > being 20 years old and having worked since he left school. > > Was he still being supported by his parents? > > > Just shows anecdotal evidence can cut both ways. > > ...and sometimes you don't look far enough into the anecdote. I think he was talking about himself. I have him kill filed, but he just doesn't get it. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: T Wake on 23 Nov 2006 13:17 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4565933B.BE6166D7(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> Lucas and Wake are, without a doubt, agitator class >> Marxist socialists. Lucas keeps denying it, but all >> the words and concepts are there from both of them. > > LMAO ! > > You really are quite mad. Have the voices in your head been bothering you > again > ? Poor unsettled, s/he is running low on things to actually say which bear any relevance to reality, but still support his/her insane world view. As a result, unsettled has to resort to this line of nonsense.
From: T Wake on 23 Nov 2006 13:24
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek47qf$8qk_001(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ek1qc7$ucf$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <ek1g07$8qk_001(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <ejv2k6$vbq$5(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>In article <ejuug2$8qk_001(a)s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>What percentage do you think the government has to take? >>>>>> >>>>>>Medicare runs with about a 3% overhead rate. >>>>> >>>>>I don't believe this. That may be the Federal percentage. The >>>>>state percentage also has to be included. >>>> >>>>There is no state % for Medicare. You're thinking of Medicaid. >>> >>>No, I'm not. Who sends the money? Not the feds. The feds >>>send the money to the state who then disburses it. That is >>>two political levels of bureaucracy. >> >>No, that's Medicaid. Medicare is handled solely by the feds. > > Did that change? In the 80s, doctors around here were not > taking any new patients with Medicare because Dukakis was > delaying payouts so he could bloat his budget to make it > seem Mass. wasn't in as much debt. >> >>> >>>> It is a fact >>>>that Medicare has a lower % of administrative costs than private >>>>insurers. >>> >>>I'm sure you believe all those so-called facts. >> >>Google it, damn it! > > I am not even trying to say that those figures are not out. I believe > you that there exist reports that give those figures. Stats can > be slanted while still not lying. In English, this is saying because _you_ dont like the numbers they must be slanted but any numbers you did agree with would be acceptable. Your understanding of statistics is shocking. >>>Just collecting >>>the premiums is costly. >>> >> >>Deducted from social security checks. > > Now think about all the money spent on payroll deductions that > prop up the measly amount deducted from the Social Security > checks. None of these costs are included in your 3% figure > because it is the employers who pay it. How do you know not of these costs are included in the 3% figure? How is this a significant impact on the administration costs when a private insurance run system still has to do it.? |