Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 24 Nov 2006 11:08 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:e9d6$4565ee94$4fe72a4$25703(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > JoeBloe wrote: >> >> Being a Usenet PlonkTARD is likely worse. Announcing your filter >> file edits plants you squarely at the bottom of the barrel. > > Having read his bile which he tries to foist off as discussion > for a bit, it is obvious that he only engages those who are easy > victims. Relf and TJ spring to mind. He thinks it is a face > saving form or retreat on his part to plonk posters like me, > never realizing just how transparent his agenda is. Is that why you put me in your killfile? Eric Lucas
From: krw on 24 Nov 2006 11:13 In article <ek6q01$8ss_007(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <MPG.1fcf9771c508b2b6989c41(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <ek1q41$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. > > Red Cross isn't any good either. It's run with a government model. Sure, that's why I said "_even_ (emphasis added) the Red Cross seemed to do a bit better than the USG". I'll not give the RC a dime (we gave to the Salvation Army, who does an excellent job). > The Walmarts and other retail did the best. People should be > wondering why and then take another look at all social programs > not managed well by governments. Sure. WM has a huge infrastructure to move stuff to where and more importantly when it's needed. All they have to do is change the data files and the trucks roll. Maybe there is a lesson in there somewhere. Contract FEMA out to WallyWorld. ;-)/2 BTW, a local trucking company sent its entire fleet down to LA with donated goods. A local radio station was soliciting WallyWorld gift cards (they got something like $30K worth), with WallyWorld doubling the take, to be used by the school kids in one of the communities on the MS islands to purchase clothes. BTW, note that all of this was done voluntarily. No one forced anyone to do it (unlike FEMA). -- Keith
From: T Wake on 24 Nov 2006 11:14 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:eFE9h.9693$yE6.9309(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:MtSdnXm0y5U4evjYnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:ek47u9$8qk_002(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <456481AB.D9E20023(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>What percentage do you think the government has to take? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>Medicare runs with about a 3% overhead rate. >>>>> >> >>>>> >>I don't believe this. That may be the Federal percentage. The >>>>> >>state percentage also has to be included. >>>>> > >>>>> >There is no state % for Medicare. You're thinking of Medicaid. >>>>> >>>>> No, I'm not. Who sends the money? Not the feds. The feds >>>>> send the money to the state who then disburses it. That is >>>>> two political levels of bureaucracy. >>>> >>>>An 'NHS' doesn't have these problems. >>> >>> Once again, I'll ask you to think about administering your >>> NHS to all of Europe. That is how the US has to work. >>> We essentially 50 countries, each has its own politics, economy >>> and different priority lists. >> >> It is a shame you have such a low opinion of the American people. > > It's also quite a shame that she has such a lack of understanding of the > US Constitution, to think that no national program is possible. There are > plenty of national programs in the US, and they work fine. I suspected that was the case, but not knowing for sure I was waiting for confirmation from those more knowledgeable.
From: T Wake on 24 Nov 2006 11:14 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:HHE9h.9696$yE6.2106(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message > news:77qbm29el5g5dfm6cmo0ve7d9che195e3g(a)4ax.com... >> >> Being a Usenet PlonkTARD is likely worse. Announcing your filter >> file edits plants you squarely at the bottom of the barrel. > > Oh, you mean like Unsettled does? And lots of the others here (/BAH, Terrell etc).
From: krw on 24 Nov 2006 11:16
In article <456658AD.8E7F3B0E(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > > > > >The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't > > >delved into why that is. > > > > It's possible that medical technology is too good. > > In what way can that explain the higher level of US infant mortality ? Drugs in the inner cities, mainly. -- Keith |