Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 02:35 unsettled wrote: > Lloyd Parker wrote: > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: > > >>>AT&T once had a monopoly on phone service. Tell me how someone could damn > >>>"plan ahead"! > > >>AT&T's former monopoly was licensed and regulated. They > >>eventally voluntarily gave it up in order to be permitted > >>to invest their profits in something unrelated to > >>their primary business. > > > Just in case you haven't been paying attention, it was a gov't lawsuit that > > broke them up. > > To be accurate, the government brought suit because of > certain aspects of the business, namely their insistance > that only equipment provided by the Bell System could > be connected to the phone lines. Breaking up the entire > system wasn't in the works at that stage. > > AT&T came to realize that they could play the game to > their advantage by divestiture. They wanted a piece of > the computer business and thought they could do well > at it. So the breakup wasn't the result of the lawsuit, > but an outgrowth of it. > > In the end their corporate culture was unable to adapt > to open markets because they had always had protections. > > Now consider the "corporate culture" aspects of creating > an NHS in the USA. Explain how any alleged 'corporate culture' has ever held the NHS back or made it inefficient. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 02:37 unsettled wrote: > Lloyd Parker wrote: > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: > >>> 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. > > Yet the bulk of the business would be taken away > in a nationalization scheme. What if the USG went into > the auto manufacturing biz, but allowed others to continue > with replacement parts and service. You wouldn't call that > nationalization either then? It seems that unsettled has got some odd idea about nationalisation. In the NHS, doctors and dentists still run their own practices as their own businesses. More so perhaps than in the USA. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 02:42 unsettled wrote: > Lloyd Parker wrote: > > > It's [ the NHS] not an experiment. We know from Europe and Canada that > system > works better than ours -- it covers everybody AND costs less. > > Of course it is an experiment. Everything new that any government > tries is an experiment. The NHS at ~ 60 yrs old is hardly a new experiment. It's older than some democracies and I'm sure unsettled is in favour of those. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 02:45 unsettled wrote: > Lloyd Parker wrote: > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > >>The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't > >>delved into why that is. > > > Think about getting care while pregnant. Think about getting a baby care. > > Think about not getting pregnant. Think about taking > control of your life and responsibility. Ah yes, 'they' deserved it. Great argument. Truly full of humanity. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 02:46
John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > > > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >unsettled wrote: > >> > > >> >> Our post offices are also open till 5PM in most places. > >> > > >> >Is that supposed to be some kind of special US achievement ? Ours stay open later > >> >than that ! > >> > >> --- > >> That's because they're so inefficient they have to. > > > >Idiot. > > --- > Ah, I see I left you nonplussed and you had to revert to your > name-calling mode to respond. > > Congratulations. You have now dropped down a notch in the food > chain. You *are* an IDIOT. That's not name-calling it's simply pointing out a fact. Graham |