Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2006 13:02 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> I'm told > >>> >> that a successful socialist economy is in Sweden. I have to study > >>> >> that. > >>> > > >>> >It's called social democracy. > >>> > >>> I know. The fact that the word democracy has to be included gives > >>> me a slight warning. > >> > >>And your fear of democracy doesn't surprise me. > > > > <ahem> The word democracy is included in a political party's name > > for the same reason the word "science" is put into Computer Science > > degree's name. > > This is your real bias. Social democracy is not a political party in this > context (yes some countries have a "Social Democratic Party" but that was > never an issue here). > > You bias is ensuring you are incapable of making a reasoned judgement about > policies or foreign governments. > > Bit like saying that because the Irish Republicans spent thirty years > bombing the UK, any political party with "Republican" in its name supports > terrorism, violence and non-political methods of forcing people to obey it. > > Well, is that the case? It seems to work for the US Republicans ! Graham
From: Ken Smith on 24 Nov 2006 13:04 In article <5ab91$45663246$4fe7352$26995(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <ek4blc$8qk_002(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> [....] >> >>>>Don't you just love infinity? It so impressive! The autor seems to have >>>>confused socialism with communism. Many socialists are in favor of local >>>>control. > >>>Local economic control. When the politicians begin to control >>>the economics, the system becomes communism. > >> You need to break open a text book or dictionary. Communism and socialism >> are two fairly different concepts. Communist tend to work towards large >> organizations and central control. Not all socialists do. > >> Basically communists believe in "the efficiency of scale" like a religion. > >You might think that, but you're wrong. I maintain that I am right. > >The differentiating element are that under communism the state >owns the means of production and the concept of private property >is abolished. Yes, everything is moved into the state's control. This does not negate the statement I made. My statement was about the beliefs not about the actions taken on the basis of those beliefs. The basic difference between the belief system of a socialist and a communist is the one I pointed out. Most of the rest of their thinking has large overlaps. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 07:20 In article <3fcbb$45647f3d$4fe77c5$17560(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <ek1equ$8ss_003(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >>>>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? > >> Have you considered compassion? Caring (about more than money, that is)? > >Where necessary and it isn't part of a permanent scheme, sure. > >> AT&T once had a monopoly on phone service. Tell me how someone could damn >> "plan ahead"! > >AT&T's former monopoly was licensed and regulated. They >eventally voluntarily gave it up in order to be permitted >to invest their profits in something unrelated to >their primary business. > Just in case you haven't been paying attention, it was a gov't lawsuit that broke them up. >And just in case you haven't been paying attention, the >phoenix is arising out of its ashes. > Yep, under the Bush administration, which lets business do whatever it wants. >"In 2005, SBC Communications purchased AT&T, thus reuniting the >venerable phone company with three of its spinoffs (SBC was comprised of >Southwestern Bell, Pacific Telesis, and Ameritech). The merger was >completed on November 18, 2005. The merged company is named AT&T Inc. >Additionally, on March 5, 2006, AT&T announced that it will merge with >BellSouth pending government regulatory approval. The surviving company >will be named AT&T, and will be headquartered in San Antonio with >Atlanta retaining the headquarters for Cingular Wireless, which will >return to the AT&T Wireless name, as well as Southeast region telephone >operations. If the merger is approved, it is assumed AT&T will not >switch back to the Bell logo, thus ending usage of the Bell logo for >corporate use by any of the Baby Bells. AT&T, from its days as SBC, >already controlled 60 percent of Cingular Wireless, which had itself >recently bought AT&T Wireless from the "old" AT&T. The other 40 percent >is controlled by BellSouth, meaning the merger would unite the company >under one corporate parent." > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture > > > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 07:19 In article <4cb81$45647cf4$4fe77c5$17514(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> In article <ek1kol$8qk_001(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>>It depends on tax revenues to stay operational. If a large >>>percentage of taxes go to one social program, it isn't used >>>to startup new money makers. EVentually, there isn't any >>>tax base. So the government has to take over the running >>>of each sector as it stops working. > >> No, this is not right. It is if nonproductive government spending plus >> other nonproductive spending gets too large that this happens. The money >> used for things like the miltiary and a fraction of what is used for >> health care fall into this class. It doesn't really matter if the >> spending is public or private if only matters that it is nonproductive >> spending. Much of the spending that goes on in Los Vegas is dollar for >> dollar as much of a drag as any other. Right now there is a large amount >> of nonproductive spending in the healthcare system. You pay for this if >> you buy a US made product in a US store. This drives down the economy. >> The NHS model eats up less money and thus is less of a drag on the >> economy. > >"Nonproductive spending in the healthcare system..." > >What happens to the money? Someone destroys it? > >> If the government builds infrastructure this is generally not a drag on >> the economy. > >Depends on the effectiveness of the infrastructure. > >> When the CEOs of a bunch of companies go golfing in >> Scotland, it is a drag on the US economy. > >Not so simple. How's our balance of trade with UK? > >>>I don't care how many web site say this number. It's too low. >>>Just the collection costs of the premiums would be 3% or greater. > >> Do you have any evidence for this besides your assumptions? There are >> lots of well documented sites out there where you can see the real >> numbers. > >While the costs for administration of Medicare are repeatedly >reported to be ~3% this doesn't include many expense factors >which private industry must report. It is another of the many >lying by statistics gambits used in such cases. What factors? Be specific. Anybody can make vague charges. The fact is, of the money Medicare spends, only 3% goes to overhead -- administrative costs. > >>>>I have not suggested that the NHS is the only answer. I have pointed out >>>>that the system the US has selected is much worse than the NHS system. > >>>And I'm telling you that the system the US has will be a template >>>for what it would do if we are forced to eat a single-payer system. > >> ... and I'm saying you are wrong on this, but even assuming that you are >> right that a US single payer system will look like medicare, this would be >> better than the current situation. > >Then why are retirees who had private insurance paid for by >their former employers complaining so bitterly when those >programs are terminated? Because the only alternative now is they buy health insurance for themselves. It's expensive, very much so the older you get. >Why do people like me buy supplemental insurance? Because I >am insuring against the possibility that a severe illness >not well covered by Medicare can bankrupt my estate. So why is this any different than what you could do under a single-payer system for all Americans? > >>>>>This is what is very, very odd in this thread. This underlying >>>>>belief system is creeping to the point of insanity. That's >>>>>why I keep thinking lemmings and wonder if it's biochemical. > >>>>Now you are falling right off the rails. Others are pointing out >>>>documented facts that should make you change your mind on a single matter. >>>>For some reason you have such a strong aversion to changing your mind on >>>>this one subject that you see this as evidence of the end of life as we >>>>know it. This is getting into tinfoil hat land. > >>>Not evidence but an indication of a thinking trend that will lead >>>to results previous civilizations have experienced. > >> Fiat money and irrigated agriculture lead to the downfall of all >> civilizations. The record is full of such examples. We are doomed, >> doomed I tell you. > >Every system fails eventually unless it evolves. Private >enterprise does a much better job of evolving than massive >governments because you can have partial failures of private >enterprise, but when a government topples, an impromptu >praetorian guard notwithstanding, it all falls apart. Yeah, Enron, WorldCom, etc., all evolved nicely, didn't they?
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 07:21
In article <8381b$456480b7$4fe77c5$17599(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <ek1fi2$8qk_002(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>This is >>>the road to dictatorship and communism. > >> A commie under every bed. Wondered when the far right mantra would emerge. > >Funny thing, we have an almost meaningless piece of a curve >describing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which is >dubbed a second order polynomial predictive of ecological >disaster, but that's PC and acceptable. A warning that >nationalizing private industry is a step on the path to >dictatorship and communism isn't PC so it is subject to >ridicule. > >Lemmings. > Who's nationalizing private industry? The insurance companies would still be there, selling supplemental insurance. Just like they do to Medicare recipients. |