Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 24 Nov 2006 14:30 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:456732BC.6010E26E(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >> >> > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >> >>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >> >>>> >> >> >>> You're an idiot. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> He can't even spell the words laugh, your, or post, much less >> >> >>> know >> >> >>> what they mean. >> >> >> >> >> >>Yet he still has you beaten hands down. Pretty sad really. I feel >> >> >>sorry >> >> >>for you. >> >> >> >> >> > You need to stop looking in a mirror when you are thinking up your >> >> > replies. It shows, terribly. >> >> >> >> Yeah, works well with five year olds - but that is about all you can >> >> deal >> >> with really. You are pathetic, and as such, you really do have my >> >> sympathy. >> >> Hopefully one day you will be able to take your place as an adult in >> >> society - but at the moment, that day is far, far away. >> > >> > I'm sure there must be some ppl in the UK as stupid and bigoted as >> > JoeBloe >> > but it seems at least they don't post on Usenet. >> >> Sadly, some do. Androcles on news://sci.physics is a good candidate. Some >> of >> the other newsgroups have examples of English bigots who are probably >> posting from padded cells. > > At least they seem to be quite rare then. Fortunately :-) Thanks to the NHS[*] we can still lock up a fair few of our nutters :-) [*] and the Mental Health Act :-)
From: krw on 24 Nov 2006 14:34 In article <45673A08.AADD3B40(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > 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. > > I could believe that but I fail to see where medical technology comes into it. The mothers are crack whores who don't seek medical care (they would be found to be crack whores). These mothers then give birth to crack addicted infants, usually prematurely and beyond hope, though everything possible is still attempted. > > It also sounds fwiw like another failing of US society when it comes to social > issues. Pure capitalism is rather poor at dealing with these. Socialism is worse, as evidenced by "The Great Society", which was the direct *cause* of much of this mess. -- Keith
From: krw on 24 Nov 2006 14:36 In article <ek79n9$r6e$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu says... > In article <8381b$456480b7$4fe77c5$17599(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >Lloyd Parker wrote: > > > >> In article <ek1fi2$8qk_002(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >>>This is > >>>the road to dictatorship and communism. > > > >> A commie under every bed. Wondered when the far right mantra would emerge. > > > >Funny thing, we have an almost meaningless piece of a curve > >describing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which is > >dubbed a second order polynomial predictive of ecological > >disaster, but that's PC and acceptable. A warning that > >nationalizing private industry is a step on the path to > >dictatorship and communism isn't PC so it is subject to > >ridicule. > > > >Lemmings. > > > Who's nationalizing private industry? The insurance companies would still be > there, selling supplemental insurance. Just like they do to Medicare > recipients. > Not under "Hilliary Care", the only seriously considered "solution". The entire US health care system (17% of the GDP) would have been nationalized overnight. It would have made private practice *ILLEGAL*. How soon they forget... -- Keith
From: krw on 24 Nov 2006 14:41 In article <ek7djo$r6e$29(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu says... > In article <MPG.1fd0ee0dd9e02c81989c57(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <eFE9h.9693$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? > Theoretically this happens only when there is actually something in the Constitution that forbids the action of the law. Yes I know, lefty loons with lifetime tenure have found all sorts of things in the "penumbra" of the Constitution. -- Keith
From: krw on 24 Nov 2006 14:42
In article <45673C14.70276554(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > > > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > >> > > > >> 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. > > What would be the point of that ? It makes as much sense as nationalizing health care; none. Why don't you nationalize food production while you're at it? -- Keith |