Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 25 Nov 2006 11:23 On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 14:18:19 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 ? --- She reads you, which fits your both your "modern" and "garbage" criteria. -- JF
From: Ken Smith on 25 Nov 2006 11:43 In article <ek9i5l$8qk_003(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >It's similar to my inability to understand >how royalty functioned in Europe. It isn't that complicated. The easiest way to understand it is not to follow its tortured history. You can get to the same basic result through a path that is more "american". (1) The president and other people really in government don't have the time to go to all the weddings and funerals. (2) There are lots of actors unemployed. Many of these can be made to look good if we dress them up. (3) We have a bunch of museums and parks. To appear to be a high status person from the US, the actors can be directed to claim to own all that stuff. (4) We need a system that is not quite but nearly random to select the actors for the job. Now let your thinking run forwards in time any you will find that this leads to nearly where the royal family of England is today. They got there by a very different path. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 25 Nov 2006 12:00 In article <97b81$4567983d$4fe7021$3341(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: [...] >I don't understand how you folks have managed to >lose touch with the realities. I have 3: > >"In the 1990s a program of share-holding and greater >market orientation went into effect; however, state >enterprises continue to dominate many key industries >in China's 'socialist market economy.'" I know some of these state enterprises were acting quite capitalistic when I was there in the 1990s. I expect it is more true today. One of the sections of the military bottled orange soda to help raise their operating budget. The soda bottling had to run at a profit to remain in existance. The lab that made scientific glassware also made xmass decorations. These were sold in the market at a profit. The oil and coal ministries were still fairly tightly held. > >http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/world/A0857293.html ********* Fact Monster content cannot be used commercially or on the Web without first obtaining our permission. Please address your request to our contact form. Make your request as detailed and specific as possible, and cite the relevant URL. Note, however, that most of the maps and photos on our site are obtained from third parties and we do not hold the rights to license these. ********* I won't tell on you. Also I found this: **************** Beginning in the late 1970s, changes in economic policy, including decentralization of control and the creation of “special economic zones” to attract foreign investment, led to considerable industrial growth, especially in light industries that produce consumer goods. In the 1990s a program of share-holding and greater market orientation went into effect; however, state enterprises continue to dominate many key industries in China's “socialist market economy.” In addition, implementation of some reforms was stalled by fears of social dislocation and by political opposition, but by 2004 economic changes had become so great that the Communist party moved to add protection for private property rights to the country's constitution. Major industrial products are textiles, chemicals, fertilizers, machinery (especially for agriculture), processed foods, iron and steel, building materials, plastics, toys, and electronics. **************** Notice that they have added the protection of private property. A communists head would explode if they did that. >"Government - Type: Highly centralized communist state. > >"North Korea introduced some modest wage and price reforms in 2002, and >has increasingly tolerated markets and a small private sector as the >state-run distribution system has deteriorated. But the regime seems >determined to maintain control." The regime maintaining control does not make it a communist country. There are lots of other types of tyranny. >http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm > > >"The Cuban government oversees the the largely state- >controlled planned economy, though there remains >significant foreign investment and enterprise in Cuba. >Most of the means of production are owned and run by >the government and most of the labor force is employed >by the state." > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 25 Nov 2006 12:10 In article <l08gm2he8d16ve3dlfkuoiblcbngogeeb7(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)nosuchplace.org> wrote: >On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:57:14 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >(Ken Smith) Gave us: > >>In article <HZidnczurMtWkvrYnZ2dnUVZ8tmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>[....] >>>Bit like saying that because the Irish Republicans spent thirty years >>>bombing the UK, any political party with "Republican" in its name supports >>>terrorism, violence and non-political methods of forcing people to obey it. >>> >>>Well, is that the case? >> >>A fairly good argument could be made if you assume: >> >>"shock and aw" == terrorism >>war == violence >>war == "nonpolitical methods" >> >>You should have picked a better example. > > The word is AWE, you dipshit. > > You should have picked an example that you at least know the >spelling of. You have successfully pointed out that I can't spell. Do you want a gold star? -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 25 Nov 2006 12:15
In article <456844BE.827AEA7B(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [....] >Heck, they even go to war so Bechtel and Halliburton can pick up uncontested >contracts. Ben Laden Costruction is a local company they could have used instead. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |