Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 24 Nov 2006 22:57 In article <45675408.11C7C33E(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > T Wake wrote: > > > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>It [China] 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. > > Pray tell what amuses you here. If you can't tell, you are a far dumber donkey than anyone here ever suspected. ...and that's going a far piece! -- Keith
From: lucasea on 24 Nov 2006 23:04 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45672DC7.51F45C8B(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > 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. >> >> In the FSU and Warsaw Pact the common practice was for the >> government to hand over businesses that were not doing >> at all well to private individuals working for the >> business, and allow them to operate it as a capitalist >> business. >> >> When it did well for a while, they'd nationalize it again. > > Do you have any examples of this you can cite ? > > Oh of course you're ignoring me. Yes, he's too much of a coward and hypocrite to address the factual inaccuracies of his assertions directly. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 24 Nov 2006 23:05 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:98447$45672ede$49ecf18$343(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Ken Smith wrote: >> In article <ca70$45662b70$4fe7352$26883(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>>>In article <p_b9h.24807$yl4.15267(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:c16c5$456482ae$4fe77c5$17631(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>[...] >>>> >>>> >>>>>>You've just gone over the cliff with the other lemmings. >>>>> >>>>>And you think calling people names is a valid substitute for discussing >>>>>facts. Nice way to influence people to your point of view. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>The sad thing is that this steaming pile of turtle droppings isn't very >>>>good at it. At least you could hope that when he opened his festering >>>>gob >>>>something mildly entertaining would come out. Instead that ball of dung >>>>he calls a brain can only manage to spew forth the same boring insults >>>>as >>>>before. A fixation on things like lemmings is fairly common in people >>>>suffering from pneumoencephali, so that may explain the things entered >>>>repeatedly on his drool-proof keyboard. Creations formed from >>>>reanimated >>>>vomit, such as him, are the festering canker on the leprid face of his >>>>party. Those of us in California, at least, are up wind and need not >>>>suffer the miasma-like vapor that exudes from every malodorous pore of >>>>the >>>>pustule he calls his body. Usenet has its share of maggots and vultures >>>>but this one gags them all. >>>> >>>>What do you want to bet that this now starts a subthread about whether >>>>maggots really can gag? >>> >>>Lost your edge, did you? Too bad. >> >> >> No, just making a point about insults. > > Hardly. You selected a side in an argument that had nothing > to do with you. Leave it to Unsettled to fail to understand a point about insults. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 24 Nov 2006 23:24 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fd113dc48435be3989c5e(a)news.individual.net... > In article <ek79n9$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$8qk_002(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >>>This is >> >>>the road to dictatorship and communism. >> > >> >> A commie under every bed. Wondered when the far right mantra would >> >> emerge. >> > >> >Funny thing, we have an almost meaningless piece of a curve >> >describing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which is >> >dubbed a second order polynomial predictive of ecological >> >disaster, but that's PC and acceptable. A warning that >> >nationalizing private industry is a step on the path to >> >dictatorship and communism isn't PC so it is subject to >> >ridicule. >> > >> >Lemmings. >> > >> Who's nationalizing private industry? The insurance companies would >> still be >> there, selling supplemental insurance. Just like they do to Medicare >> recipients. >> > Not under "Hilliary Care", the only seriously considered > "solution". The entire US health care system (17% of the GDP) > would have been nationalized overnight. It would have made private > practice *ILLEGAL*. Well, then it sounds like the problem lies only with those too narrow-minded to see other possible futures besides the status quo or Hillary's idea. Know anyone like that, krw, unsettled and BAH? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 24 Nov 2006 23:25
"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fd114f98b36d7fd989c5f(a)news.individual.net... > In article <ek7djo$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. OK, so pony up. What clause of the Constitution precludes a nationalized health care system? Eric Lucas |