Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 24 Nov 2006 14:48 "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:ek7dfr$r6e$28(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <3c972$456712b7$4fe76e5$31718(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:ek6peu$8ss_004(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>>>In article <ek5979$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. >> >>You've redefined socialism and communism to suit your >>arguments, making your points invalid. It appears from this, unsettled thinks only it is able to set or change definitions of terms. Using normally accepted definitions, which do not suit unsettled's definitions, then becomes changing them. Hmmm. Seems pretty mad to me. >>>>Socialism does get communistic if the administration covers a >>>>large geographic and/or population density. There isn't any >>>>other way to "control" renegades who don't like to be told >>>>what to do all the time. >> >>> Socialists do not generally require the control of dissenters. >>> Socialists >>> _generally_ think more towards individual freedoms than communists. >> >>> Be carefull about the wide ranging assumptions you make here, if we put >>> the >>> US under the spot light some of your "signs of communism" may become >>> visible. >> >>Once again, you've edefined socialism and communism >>to suit your arguments, making your points invalid. Now, I found this odd. "I" never set the definitions, nor did I redefine. I was simply highlighting that /BAH's definitions were getting dangerously close to calling the US a communist nation. Unsettled is still too blinded by his pre-pubescent urges to insult and argue, to actually read the posts it responds to. > No, you have a typical right-wing idea of what they are. And like most > right-wing ideas, they are totally wrong. Personally, I think you are being over generous here. Unsettled is just arguing for the sake of it. I am not convinced s/he has _any_ idea about most of the things s/he responds to. >>>>>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. >> >>> No, that really is a sound bite. >> >>Childish rebuttal with no value. Interesting. It is acceptable for /BAH to say a post I make is a sound bite, but when she makes one I can't say the same. I like this American version of Democracy that unsettled espouses. Saying "it is impossible to [be] large and efficient with a central control" is nothing more than a sound bite made by people who oppose central control. There are large, efficient, organisations in the world which have central control. >>>>There have to be too many layers of >>>>managers to ensure obedience and that only the approved production >>>>is done. >> >>> Do you mean to say the US military is very inefficient? >> >>US military isn't a social organization. Once again your >>rebuttal is childish and invalid. > > The US military fits the classic mold of "socialism." And, importantly, it is a large organisation with central control, which has many layers of managers who ensure obedience and only the approved things get done. Pretty much fits every one of /BAH's definitions of why "large and efficient" can not occur under a central control. As the US military has a central control, either /BAH is wrong [again] and unsettled is doing nothing more than puppy dog parroting of her, or the US military is woefully inefficient. I have worked with the US military and all joking aside they are not what I would call inefficient. From this, I can only conclude that /BAH has no idea what she is talking about and unsettled has no ideas. >> >>>>Since approval has to arrive from a central point, all >>>>innovation has to be squelched. >> >>> Incorrect assumption. >> >>Bland dismissive comment with no advance to the discussion. Wow. Pot, kettle...... /BAH made an incorrect assumption. What more needed to be said? >>>>Gradually, enforcement has to resort >>>>to killing to week out the independent thinkers and those who can't >>>>fake compliance. >> >>> Again, starting with incorrect assumptions tends to lead to false >>> assessment. >> >>Physician heal thyself. >> >>Wake, you're loony. Amazing.
From: krw on 24 Nov 2006 14:49 In article <ek7a0l$r6e$5(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu says... > In article <c7c7a$456495bf$4fe7432$18128(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:03:42 +0000, Eeyore > >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>unsettled wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>NHS has not > >>>>yet withstood the test of time. Wake me up in a few more > >>>>decades. > >>> > >>>60 years is enough to prove the point imho. > >>> > >>>Graham > >> > >> > >> What all this discussion shows is how any excuse is found/made, by > >> some US folks, for not doing something that has been working pretty > >> well for a very large number of people and for keeping a system that > >> most people WITHIN it as practicing clinicians seem to agree is "in > >> crisis" here. > >> > >> Bizarre. > > > >Let's start with NHS not having 60 years experience. That > >would have given it a birthdate of 1946. > > > >Next, a goodly number of people living in the FSU and > >Warsaw Pact nations say that life was better for them > >under the old system than it is being liberated and > >responsible for themselves. Lemmings, all. > > > >Much, but not all, of the "crisis" is as BAH describes > >it. The fact that the healthcare system as it exists in > >the US has its share of problems is no surprise. Every > >business as extensive as healthcare is, that is, touching > >virtually *every* member of society, is bound to have some > >problems. > > > >The cries calling for the US to shift into a nationalized > >socialist healthcare system is the direct equivalent of > >throwing out the baby with the bathwater. > > > > Sigh. A single payer is NOT "socialist healthcare." Socialist insurance, > maybe, but I guarantee you, most people think better of the gov't than > insurance companies. ....until they have to deal with the government. > >It is my opinion that we need the AMA or some other > >similar organization to work towards improving what > >we have. In my case the healthcare system has been > >working well 99% of the time. > > Not if you're middle class, not if you're the working poor, not if you're > unemployed, not if you work for a small business which provides no > insurance... Should have graduated high school, eh? My son and his fiance both have health care, at "middle/low-class" wages. Many don't have insurance because they *choose* not to have it (why bother, they'll get cured anyway). > >I'm looking for an > >improvement on that, not the experiment run amok > >that's being proposed. > > > > It's not an experiment. We know from Europe and Canada that system works > better than ours -- it covers everybody AND costs less. > >We don't have a universal set of state laws in the > >US. Why does anyone suppose we'd be ready to > >undertake a massive centralized healthcare planning > >scheme for those aged birth to 65? It is bad enough > >we have one for folks over 65. > > Yeah, OK, propose doing away with Medicare and see how far you get. It would have been fine if Medicare never existed. This part of the health care system *was* nationalized, which took the insurance these people had, away. > >It seems to be > >working, but the principles involved aren't anywhere > >close to ideal when we consider the principles on > >which the US is founded. > > > > Oh BS. The colonists banded together for all kinds of things -- schools, > utilities, even common grazing lands. Stuff you'd call "socialism." The Pilgrims at Plymouth rock starved because of their brand of socialism too. You're free to form a co-op with the dumb donkey, bit leave me out of it. More importantly, leave me free to be out of it. -- Keith
From: krw on 24 Nov 2006 14:52 In article <45673310.806CDC6B(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > 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: > > >>> >unsettled wrote: > > >>> >> Ken Smith wrote: > > >>> >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> >>How many communist economies exist worldwide ? > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > Zero if you round off to the nearest whole number. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> Maggot brain misspeaks again. China, Cuba, North Korea, > > >>> >> and VietNam spring immediately to mind. > > >>> > > > >>> >You think China is communist ? > > >>> > > >>> Yes. They have developed their unique form of Communism. > > >>> It is interesting to watch when they mix a little bit > > >>> of capitalism in certain areas. > > >> > > >>Little bit ???? > > > > > > Yup. A very little bit. > > > > > >>It can't be communism if they encorage capitalism can it ? > > > > > > They are not encouraging capitalism in lieu of their brand > > > of communism. They are trying out pieces of it. Their > > > field test site is usually the area next door to Hong Kong. > > > If something works, they move it to Shanghia. I am assuming > > > that the pieces that merge nicely with their political methods > > > will creep throughout its economy. > > > > Which is why it isnt considered a communist economy (any more) by normal > > people. > > It's more like a mixed economy run by a party that still calls ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ > itself communist. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Too funny! Dumb donkey. -- Keith
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2006 15:11 krw wrote: > 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. Since when has the USA had socialism ? Graham
From: krw on 24 Nov 2006 15:12
In article <ek7da7$hv4$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net says... > In article <ek71e9$8qk_001(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >In article <ek5b01$t07$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, > > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >>In article <ek4cvi$8qk_001(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>>In article <ek1mhj$cf8$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >>[....] > >>>>>What makes you think that these problem will be fixed with an NHS? > >>>> > >>>>Both Canada and the UK do better with the systems they have. The > >>>>experiment is done. The results have been tabulated. > >>> > >>>Their systems do not have to keep 50 "countries" happy with the > >>>same implementation. > >> > >>In Canada, the provinces are really about as independant as the states in > >>the US. > > > >Isn't Canada also under the UK? > > Certainly not. Begin ASCII art: > > > > ..................................................... > ......../\...............................************ > ......./ \......................***..../ > ....../ **...................! !...! > ...../ !..............**..! U !...! Europe > ....! CANADA !..................! K !...! > ....!--------!..................! !...! > ....! USA !...................***....! > >...! !..........................! > > As you can see the US is under Canada. +--- You forgot this piece. | V ..................................................... ......../\...............................************ ..+----/ \......................***..../ ..|.AK/ **...................! !...! ...\./ !..............**..! U !...! Europe ....! CANADA !..................! K !...! ....!--------!..................! !...! ....! USA !...................***....! ....! !..........................! <snip> > >No, it reeks of somebody who believes the Constitution should > >be ignored. > > It can be changed if needed. Ok, change it. I'll certainly let you try. I'm not one for going around side doors and hiding behind "penumbras" though. > In fact, most likely is should be to set > legal bounds on things like the FCC. The framers unwisely did not put any > rules on radio communications. It was very short sighted of them. Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 certifications for a piece of gear? -- Keith |