Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 08:28 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > >What nonsense is this now ? > > > >Where *do* you get these ideas ? > > I think about what I read. You'r reading garbage in that case. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Nov 2006 08:28 In article <456844E0.DCECFFCA(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> >What nonsense is this now ? >> > >> >Where *do* you get these ideas ? >> >> I think about what I read. > >You'r reading garbage in that case. Historians write garbage? De Touqueville wrote garbage? The framers of our Constitution wrote garbage? Thatcher wrote garbage? Churchhill wrote garbage? Generals wrote garbage? /BAH
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 25 Nov 2006 08:35 In article <ek9g6n$8ss_001(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Take a look at European nations that are blatant socialists. > They have to import people to do the work. What do you think > will happen when this worker population decides that they want > what their owners have w.r.t. freedoms, benefits, etc.? Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's the opposite. Hint: blatant generalisations often fail. -- Thermodynamics claims another crown! http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Nov 2006 08:34 In article <ek7bel$r6e$13(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <ek4bap$8qk_001(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> Once upon a time, they would learn >>>>how to be and think like statemen. This is no longer true. There >>>>are no benefits in thinking like statesmen in our political system >>>>these days. I keep wondering if this is due to the advent of >>>>primaries to pick candidates. >>> >>>No, I doubt that it is the primary that is at fault. A primary is just a >>>small election. The same forces will be at play in it as in the general. >>>At the moment, politics has sunk to what looks like a new low. This may >>>only be because our memories of the Nixon era are fading. >> >>One the voter questions on our state ballot was to allow one person >>to show up on more than one party's slate in the primaries. Think >>about that. It was a blatant attempt at forcing a single party >>system into law. Opposition (a.k.a. competition) is not going to >>be allowed. For some strange reason, the voters said no to this >>one. I am naively hopeful. > >New York has had this for some time. The Republican candidate was usually >endorsed by the Conservative Party; the Democrat by the Liberal Party. In one >election, Ed Kock was the candidate of both the Republican and Democratic >party. How do you think Mass. Democrats would sew up all slates? They would get one name as the candidate for all parties. All choice of who gets elected would belong to a few and the November and April elections would just be a mockery. Shades of fUSSR. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Nov 2006 08:38
In article <6fccf$45670c62$4fe76e5$31568(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <MPG.1fcf9771c508b2b6989c41(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >>>In article <ek1q41$ucf$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >>>says... >>> >>>>In article <ek1equ$8ss_003(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <ejv29u$vbq$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In article <1164101047.711452.220630(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In article <MPG.1fcae9c9199518f8989c01(a)news.individual.net>, >>>>>>>>>krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In article <ejqve0$fgo$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >>>>>>>>>>says... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <6af58$455ba5ff$4fe75f7$20998(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>>>>>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>[.....] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>The original error starts with you two clowns failing to >>>>>>>>>>>>appreciate that capitalism has a soul. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>(Boggle) Capitalism is a cold hard logical system. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>To define a term >>>>>>>>>>>>"fair profit" isn't beyond the capacity of capitalism to >>>>>>>>>>>>embrace freely and without external (read governmental) >>>>>>>>>>>>imposition. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>It is beyond the capacity of capitalism to define what "fair >> >> profit" >> >>>>>>>>>>>really means. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Nonsense! Capitalism perfectly defines what is fair; did someone >>>>>>>>>>pay the fair market value? If so, it is by *definition* fair. If >>>>>>>>>>not it is not "fair". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There is no "fair" market price. There is only the price that one >>>>>>>particular individual is willing to pay for the specific goods or >>>>>>>services. If you want some fun try comparing how much you have paid for >>>>>>>an airline seat on a scheduled flight with your neighbours. And don't >>>>>>>get too upset if you find that one of them has paid half what you did >>>>>>>for the same journey and ticket. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Willing seller willing buyer. If you don't like the price you are not >>>>>>>compelled to buy it. >>>>>> >>>>>>Water after a natural disaster. Monopolies. There are many examples >> >> where >> >>>>>>unbridled capitalism is just plain wrong. >>>>> >>>>>Have you considered that people should plan ahead? >>>>> >>>>>/BAH >>>>> >>>> >>>>Have you considered compassion? Caring (about more than money, that is)? >>> >>>It's not particularly caring nor compassionate to force money from >>>one person to give it to another. The Salvation Army and even the >>>Red Cross seemed to do a bit better than the USG in the past couple >>>of disasters. > >> Red Cross isn't any good either. It's run with a government model. >> The Walmarts and other retail did the best. People should be >> wondering why and then take another look at all social programs >> not managed well by governments. > >Because they limit themselves to management skills rather than >embracing people with entrepreneurial skills. I don't think so. I think it was because a business can interrupt its usual activities to pay attention to an emergency; it doesn't matter whether tha emergency is internal or external. The Red Cross spent its time establishing its territorial imperative rather than hunkering down and doing the work, leaving the territorial meetings to occur weeks later. /BAH |