Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 09:15 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Take a look at European nations that are blatant socialists. Talk about starting from a false premise ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 09:17 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Take a look at European nations that are blatant socialists. False premise commented on. > They have to import people to do the work. Like Mexicans in the 'socialist' USA you mean ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 09:18 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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? Have you ever read anything modern ? Thatcher was quite mad btw. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Nov 2006 09:16 In article <ek7da7$hv4$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >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. ROTFLMAO. Not if I stand on my head. > >[....] >>>Yes it reeks of practical politics in the US. >> >>No, it reeks of somebody who believes the Constitution should >>be ignored. > >It can be changed if needed. In fact, most likely is should be to set >legal bounds on things like the FCC. I'd love to have that done. I'm getting tired of paying that fee I call AlGoretax. > The framers unwisely did not put any >rules on radio communications. It was very short sighted of them. No,no,no. They were short-sighted by not including TV licenses. Not anticipating radio comm was due to tin ears. > > >>> As soon as the insurance >>>industry and the drug companies found out what was going on, they were >>>"all over it like a bad smell". If you want to get unbiased opinions, you >>>need to keep the study secret while you do it. If you don't the special >>>interests will find a way to influence the results. >> >>Business Week reported she had financial interest in a company >>that deal with drug futures of some exotic flavor. That was >>the bad smell. It wasnt' the PACs that were up in arms. It >>was Congress and a blantant attempt at changing how the goverenment's >>business was done. > >Would you have believed Business Week if they had reported something else? I thought they were making things up. Then that other mess started up in the courts and I figured it was her normal operating procedures. >How much was this interest. I have a part interest in several drug >companies too because I own their stock. No,no. Futures. That means that the investment company bet on when the drug indices would go up and when they would go down. > > >>> >>>BTW: the "implemetation in secret" suggestion gets close to the "tinfoil >>>hat department". The US didn't have a system of secret laws at that time. >> >>One tin foil and I quit. I am not afflicted with this kind of >>thinking. Instead, you might try to make the assumption that >>I may know something, and am able to think fairly well. Resorting >>to this approach does not become you. > >I have tried that assumption. It doesn't work well on this claim and >several others you have made. The fact that you can't see that the claims >you've made is destroying your credibility has really surprised me. I wouldn't have surprised you 10 years ago. Then I had to begin studying politics, military knowledge, history, finance, banking, etc. I'd have loved to have stayed in hippie mode but events required I grow up. I'm now on my second bout of the flu. So my writing is going to be less clear. <GRIN> Now you may say, "Oh, joy!" /BAH
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 09:23
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >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! > > I don't think he is able. Can you tell me what amsues him in the above ? > He has been born and bred with > this attitude and anything else is so foreign that he cannot > see that POV. It's similar to my inability to understand > how royalty functioned in Europe. You're barking mad. Graham |