Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 09:28 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >The truth is that the NHS ( a national social prgramme ) does deliver a > >> >> >good > >> >> >service very effectively. I'd call it better than a minimum too but it > >> >> >is for sure essentially 'no frills'. > >> >> > >> >> It services a small geographic area with a uniform economy, a > >> >> uniform governement, and a uniform political base of assumptions. > >> > > >> >It covers England, Scotland and Wales with slightly different rules in > >> >each place according to local taste (devolution for Scotland saw to > >> >that). I take it you have never heard of the North South divide then? > >> >The UK is not a uniform economy by any means. > >> > >> It is run under the same laws. That is a uniform economy. Each > >> of our states have their own laws. Very few federal laws > >> supercede state law. Cases before our Supreme Court are cases > >> where the Feds want control and the states say no. > > > >Scottish Law is different actually ! It has its own Parliament too as will > >Northern Ireland when the 'Loyalists' and Republicans can get their act > >together again. > > I thought those places based their politics on ideas started > with the Magna Carta. If they don't, then they do not a uniform > basis. Scottish Law is based on Roman Law and has certain things in common with the French model. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Nov 2006 09:25 In article <3ef75$4567118a$4fe76e5$31662(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <1cd33$4566184a$4fe77e2$26508(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Thu, 23 Nov 06 15:09:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>>I have yet to hear anybody help about this step to a dicatorship; >>>>>it is very worrisome. >>> >>>>You must be an idealist Libertarian or something. As I've mentioned >>>>here earlier, I grew up working the fields as a child to make the >>>>money I needed to eat, lived in a home without walls, begged for food >>>>at grocery stores, and I did NOT have medical care. There is NO >>>>possible excuse for a society such as ours with children growing up as >>>>I did, after my father died. It's inexcusable. Period. >>> >>>>It has nothing to do with dictatorship. It has everything to do with >>>>being compassionate. Something, perhaps, you lack? >>> >>>The fact is we've made a point of looking after orphans >>>since the earliest days of the US, so I really don't >>>understand the basis for your history. >> >> >> I understand. > >Were the conditions during your childhood inexcusable? No. That's just the way they were. For a long time while I was in hippie mode, I did think that kids should not have to work for their livelihood. Note the word "have to". I've changed my mind. Our society did do that and now we have 2-1/2 generations who do not know how to work nor how things necessary to our life-style get done. However, I never wished that all be free for the taking. This doesn't work when people are involved. Another thing I assumed was possible is that reasoned discussion between opposing parties is possible and can solve all diagreements. I was a fool to think this and have corrected my basic assumptions. /BAH /BAH
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 25 Nov 2006 09:30 In article <456850AB.F1798E5F(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Have you ever read anything modern ? > > Thatcher was quite mad btw. "Quite" - barking towards the end. There is no love for Thatcher in Wales, for example. Less then for Beeching, in faact. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 09:33 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> >Scottish Law is different actually ! It has its own Parliament too as will > >> >Northern Ireland when the 'Loyalists' and Republicans can get their act > >> together again. > >> > >> I thought those places based their politics on ideas started > >> with the Magna Carta. If they don't, then they do not a uniform > >> basis. > > > >There is a varying degree of autonomy in the four nations that make up > >the Uk. I live in one of them (Wales) with a National Assembly that has > >secondary legislative powers and some primary legislative powers (now) > >in a limited field. > > > >Hence whey they are able to vary their legislation to take into account > >of different local conditions. > > > My statement about a uniform political basis did not mean that > all were exactly alike. Was this really not written clearly enough? Apparently not. You used the idea to suggest that the UK was more uniform that the USA whereas we've contended it is no such thing. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 09:35
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Have you ever read anything modern ? > > > > Thatcher was quite mad btw. > > "Quite" - barking towards the end. There is no love for Thatcher in > Wales, for example. Less then for Beeching, in faact. Her idea of running the economy using 'corner shop' economics was a total disaster. Graham |