Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 08:19 In article <ek6peu$8ss_004(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ek5979$t07$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ek4blc$8qk_002(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[....] >>>>Don't you just love infinity? It so impressive! The autor seems to have >>>>confused socialism with communism. Many socialists are in favor of local >>>>control. >>> >>>Local economic control. When the politicians begin to control >>>the economics, the system becomes communism. >> >>You need to break open a text book or dictionary. Communism and socialism >>are two fairly different concepts. Communist tend to work towards large >>organizations and central control. Not all socialists do. > >Socialism does get communistic if the administration covers a >large geographic and/or population density. No it doesn't. Socialism isn't any more communistic than having shareholders of a corporation -- the citizens are the shareholders in socialism. And every socialist nation in the west has plenty of capitalism too. >There isn't any >other way to "control" renegades who don't like to be told >what to do all the time. So the military is the prime example of socialism. >> >>Basically communists believe in "the efficiency of scale" like a religion. > >No. That's the sound bite. It is impossible to large and efficient >with a central control. There have to be too many layers of >managers to ensure obedience and that only the approved production >is done. Since approval has to arrive from a central point, all >innovation has to be squelched. Gradually, enforcement has to resort >to killing to week out the independent thinkers and those who can't >fake compliance. > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 08:28 In article <MPG.1fd0ee0dd9e02c81989c57(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <eFE9h.9693$yE6.9309(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> "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. > >All (not operated through the states) are unconstitutional, as >well. None come close to 17% of the GNP either, though you'd >likely be all for nationalizing the oil companies too. > Uh, did I miss the part of the constitution where you get to declare laws unconstitutional?
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 08:10 In article <1513d$4565ea67$4fe72a4$25623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:ek47qf$8qk_001(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>>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? > >Because they're reported elsewhere. > >> How is >> this a significant impact on the administration costs when a private >> insurance run system still has to do it.? > >Idiot. You understand nothing about accounting or >politics or propaganda (and/or urban legends) that >you didn't personally invent. > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9903.sullivan.hmo.html
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 08:21 In article <ek70b3$8qk_011(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45670324.DA07016A(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> > >>> >> I'm told >>> >> that a successful socialist economy is in Sweden. I have to study >>> >> that. >>> > >>> >It's called social democracy. >>> >>> I know. The fact that the word democracy has to be included gives >>> me a slight warning. >> >>And your fear of democracy doesn't surprise me. > ><ahem> The word democracy is included in a political party's name >for the same reason the word "science" is put into Computer Science >degree's name. > >/BAH Glad you recognize that. Does it mean the right isn't going to keep insisting the "National Socialist Party" was socialist?
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 08:04
In article <MPG.1fcf9771c508b2b6989c41(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <ek1q41$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. It is if that's the only way. >The Salvation Army and even the >Red Cross seemed to do a bit better than the USG in the past couple >of disasters. And they will tell you they cannot do it all by themselves, without the gov't. >> >> 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. > |