Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 25 Nov 2006 14:00 In article <pMO9h.6329$yf7.4173(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:HZidnczurMtWkvrYnZ2dnUVZ8tmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > > > You bias is ensuring you are incapable of making a reasoned judgement > > about policies or foreign governments. > > > > 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? > > > Well, two outta three ain't bad. > Of course an unthinking sock puppet would say that. -- Keith
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 14:02 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek9kq1$8qk_003(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <phineaspuddleduck-9CD347.14112925112006(a)free.teranews.com>, > Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >>In article <ek9ig1$8qk_005(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> >This doesn't affect the patient in any significant way.. >>> >>> You are blind. >>> >> >>It doesn't. >> > I wish you hadn't snipped what "this" referred to. England, NI, Scotland and Wales having different laws doesn't affect the patient in any significant way.
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 14:03 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek9l0m$8qk_004(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <456852A0.1C71A701(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >I wasn't suggesting changing the constitution per se ! >>> > >>> >I'm sure each state could run its own baby-NHS quite effectively and >>> >that >>> >would then overcome your objections to size and scale too. >>> >>> I'm sure each state could not. >> >>Why not ? > > They would expect the Federal govnerment to fund it. > >> >>Give a reasoned answer that isn't based on dogma and rhetoric if you can. > > Is the reason that the states would not pay for it based on dogma and > rhetoric? >> >> >>> However, I will find out since >>> Massachusetts has made the first step of forcing everybody >>> to have insurance. >>> >>> >Over here we also have regional management of our NHS as in the 4 > countries, >>> >England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. >>> > >>> >This doesn't affect the patient in any significant way.. >>> >>> You are blind. >> >>You're blind to facts. > > You have demonstrated that you have no knowledge of how our > Constitution works. Yet you still claim that I, who live > here, do not know what our govenerments cannot do well? You are talking about the UK NHS here. You claim that the UK NHS regional management _does_ affect the patient. You have no idea what you are talking about and this has nothing to do with the US Constitution.
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 14:05 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek9ild$8qk_007(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45673618.53BD60(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> > |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >>> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> >> I know it isn't ideal. Because of this fact, no national >>> >>> >> social program will deliver satisfactory service efficiently. >>> >>> >> It will deliver the minimum and that's all. >>> >>> > >>> >>> >You just keep saying this with no factual basis. >>> >>> > >>> >>> >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. >>> >>> The law in Scotland is different from the law in England. Why do you >>> think >>> they are the same? >> >>It would appear to be another of her mis / preconceptions. >> >>Mnay Americans don't even realise the UK is made up of 4 countries. > > And I was thinking of the Magna Carta. Blimey. Your time warp is malfunctioning even more than I previously thought. The Magna Carta forms as much of a basis for the US constitution as it does UK laws.
From: krw on 25 Nov 2006 14:06
In article <4568506B.B2ADEA0D(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > 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 ? A little. The difference is that the Mexicans are here illegally rather than having been invited in because of a negative population rate. It's about time for an open season on Mexican here. -- Keith |