Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 25 Nov 2006 13:43 In article <45680006.3E4EBB7(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw 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! > > Right. I guess so. You are far dumber than even I thought! > > You can't ! It seems to me that you placed some up arrows just to amuse yourself. Think, dumb donkey. A controlled economy *is* communism. Controlled by a party certainly smack of totalitarian communism. Got it now dumb donkey? > You're an idiot. Wrong again. The dumb donkey is your part of this play. -- Keith
From: Don Bowey on 25 Nov 2006 13:45 On 11/24/06 7:40 PM, in article MPG.1fd18528a0dd4fe5989c7a(a)news.individual.net, "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > In article <C18CDD54.4E45D%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, dbowey(a)comcast.net > says... >> On 11/24/06 12:11 PM, in article 456751F9.811CA3F0(a)hotmail.com, "Eeyore" >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> krw wrote: >>> >>>> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>>>> krw wrote: >>>>>> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't >>>>>>>>> delved into why that is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's possible that medical technology is too good. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In what way can that explain the higher level of US infant mortality ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Drugs in the inner cities, mainly. >>>>> >>>>> I could believe that but I fail to see where medical technology comes into >>>>> it. >>>> >>>> The mothers are crack whores who don't seek medical care (they >>>> would be found to be crack whores). These mothers then give birth >>>> to crack addicted infants, usually prematurely and beyond hope, >>>> though everything possible is still attempted. >>>> >>>>> It also sounds fwiw like another failing of US society when it comes to >>>>> social >>>>> issues. Pure capitalism is rather poor at dealing with these. >>>> >>>> Socialism is worse, as evidenced by "The Great Society", which was >>>> the direct *cause* of much of this mess. >>> >>> Since when has the USA had socialism ? >>> >>> Graham >>> >> >> There have been "pockets of socialism in the US, > > Hell, the Branch Dividians were socialist too. There are *many* > "pockets of socialism". There is also massive federal socialism. > I simply want to see NO MORE! I fail to see where it would be any of your business if the citizens of a town operate as a socialist (and somewhat Communist) society. They are good Americans. I don't believe they would give a hoot for your useless opinion. Don > >> including one (productive >> and profitable) in Alaska, which remained when the Territory of Alaska >> became a state. It had no problem inter-working with US law. > > States have no issues working under the COnstitution, except for a > few areas noted in it. It's amazing the lack of understanding of > the Constitution being shown here!
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 13:45 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek9ffo$8ss_004(a)s894.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4567044E.D1284DFF(a)hotmail.com>, > 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. Really? Can I suggest you vary your reading then. You have already demonstrated the problem with relying on an uncontested single source for your ideas when you talk about the UK, it's government and it's people. From this, I can only assume that your ideas about things I am _not_ intimately equated with are equally inaccurate. As for your descriptions of socialism and communism, well... It is _yours_ and not the accepted way of describing those "government" methods. You seem willing and able to re-define it as you see fit, so debating it with you is somewhat pointless. You have locked yourself into a single way of thinking, you cherry pick what additional data you will accept in order that your way of thinking can be maintained and you are willing to twist and turn where ever possible to deny anything which might conflict with this way of thinking. I find it very amusing that while doing this, you claim you are open minded and trying to learn. Irony is truly wonderful.
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 13:50 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek9gda$8ss_002(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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? Yes to all the above. If Thatcher wrote a book about the development of Iron age cultures in the La Tene region, it would probably be garbage. I have read books by Generals which have been nonsense. You repeatedly commit the authority fallacy. You assume because person X is famous, what they write must be true. Autobiographies are the worst offenders and normally full of self serving nonsense. As for historians, well yes they do sometimes write garbage. For an example find some texts written in the early twentieth century about the rise of Barbarians at the fall of the Roman Empire and compare it to books written in the last ten years. One group must be writing garbage. You have no frame of reference with which to detect your author's bias - and _all_ historians have a bias. This means you have no way of determining what is incorrect, what is blown out of proportion and what is simply incorrect. It may shock you to know this, but sometimes famous people make mistakes. Sometimes world leaders make mistakes, sometimes Generals do, sometimes presidents do (etc). If Thatcher wrote something about 1980s Britain which was wrong, how would _you_ know it was wrong?
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 13:51
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:phineaspuddleduck-4C46E9.14300825112006(a)free.teranews.com... > 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. Yeah, she had some great ideas for making Britain strong by dismantling our heavy industry, ruining our mining economy and making the country reliant on FSU states for the import of basics like coal. For once I side with the Welsh here :-) |