Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 24 Nov 2006 22:29 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:HZidnczurMtWkvrYnZ2dnUVZ8tmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > 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? Well, two outta three ain't bad. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 24 Nov 2006 22:32 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:b9d31$4567109f$4fe76e5$31662(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:45665D70.AA196620(a)hotmail.com... >> >>> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I don't accept that the US healthcare system is such a >>>>disaster as several claim it is. >>> >>>I'm sure it's great for ppl who don't get ill. >> >> >> Funny thing is, most of the proponents of the NHS _haven't_ said the US >> health care system is a disaster as such - just that introducing an NHS >> system would be better. >> >> /BAH is a good example of an odd one out - she rants about how bad the US >> system is but any thing which changes it will just make it even worse >> (often for random reasons) > > You've failed completely to understand her point. > > Her view is that for ordinary medical care there > should be no insurance. There should be insurance > in cases where medical care becomes financially > catestrophic for median income people. > > This would keep routine and ordinary medical care > affordable to everyone. That's pretty much how things > were when she and I were kids. Ahh, the good-old-days argument. Well, you might be interested to know that, in those halcyon days, doctors didn't make more than 10X the national average income. Things have changed since then, and in ways that we cannot go back. But the, you've got yours, so why should you care if anyone else gets proper care? Eric Lucas
From: krw on 24 Nov 2006 22:35 In article <ek7mtp$9d2$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu says... > In article <MPG.1fd1133a687980b3989c5d(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >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. > > > The US has never tried socialism. Yes, it most certainly has! What do you think the "New Deal" and "The GFreat Society" were other than utterly failed attempts at socialism. ...not to mention the coming failure of Social Security. > > And I fail to see how providing food and medical care for children has made "a > mess." Grow up and read history, if you're too young to remember it. -- Keith
From: krw on 24 Nov 2006 22:40 In article <C18CDD54.4E45D%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, dbowey(a)comcast.net says... > On 11/24/06 12:11 PM, in article 456751F9.811CA3F0(a)hotmail.com, "Eeyore" > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > There have been "pockets of socialism in the US, Hell, the Branch Dividians were socialist too. There are *many* "pockets of socialism". There is also massive federal socialism. I simply want to see NO MORE! > including one (productive > and profitable) in Alaska, which remained when the Territory of Alaska > became a state. It had no problem inter-working with US law. States have no issues working under the COnstitution, except for a few areas noted in it. It's amazing the lack of understanding of the Constitution being shown here! -- Keith
From: krw on 24 Nov 2006 22:43
In article <ek7mvp$9d2$5(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu says... > In article <MPG.1fd113dc48435be3989c5e(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <ek79n9$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... > > > > How often they lie... Nope. > > That's totally false. The Hillary plan was for a national single payer, not > national health care. Nope. Doctors would have lost their license for accepting money for treatment. You see, that would be "unfair" to those without money.. > As I said, the right is pathological when it comes to lying about the > Clintons. No matter how blind you are, that is what Hillary-Care was all about, and worse. -- Keith |