Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 25 Nov 2006 14:30 In article <ek9kq1$8qk_003(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <phineaspuddleduck-9CD347.14112925112006(a)free.teranews.com>, > Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >In article <ek9ig1$8qk_005(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> >This doesn't affect the patient in any significant way.. > >> > >> You are blind. > >> > > > >It doesn't. > > > I wish you hadn't snipped what "this" referred to. > Just plonk the duck. He's never come close to write anything worth reading. -- Keith
From: krw on 25 Nov 2006 14:39 In article <6CO9h.6326$yf7.931(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ek70h3$8qk_012(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > > > Most people, (except it seems our current Demcocrat leadership), > > in this country are highly allergic to throwing away our > > Constitution. > > That's hilarious. The Bush administration has been throwing out wholesale > clauses of the Constitution at their whim. Or was your substituting > "Democrat" for "neo-conservative Republican" another Freudian slip? More claptrap from a leftist loon. > > > To transfer states' powers to the Federal > > government is unconstitutional > > Please quote the clause that forbids this in general. And please quote the > clause that says that providing health care is a "states' power". Health care is not in the COnstitution as a federal power, thus under the Xth Amendment it becomes a power of the states or the people. > > and requires extraordinary > > circumstances > > And you think that having 20 % of our population without health care is not > "extraordinary"? Now you're confusing "health care" with "health insurance". And no, it's not "extraordinary". How many had health *insurance* fifty years ago? > > > and legal actions to do so. > > And what makes you think the needed legal actions cannot happen? > That's what I'm always afraid of "legal actions". They're the worst subversions of the Constitution (again, see: Kelo). > -- Keith
From: krw on 25 Nov 2006 14:43 In article <S4Q9h.6357$yf7.6206(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > news:MPG.1fd184177442f6c6989c78(a)news.individual.net... > > In article <ek7mtp$9d2$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu > > says... > > > >> And I fail to see how providing food and medical care for children has > >> made "a > >> mess." > > > > Grow up and read history, if you're too young to remember it. > > Translation: "I don't have any real facts, so I'll just hurl a few explicit > and implicit insults and hope nobody notices." What's the matter? You have to stoop to snip-forging? You are areal piece of work. I think that's enough of you! -- Keith
From: Don Bowey on 25 Nov 2006 14:47 On 11/24/06 11:53 PM, in article 4567F663.BCA033AD(a)hotmail.com, "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Don Bowey wrote: > >> "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, 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. > > I'm sure it wouldn't. > > How did this example in Alaska come about ? > > Graham > > I don't know the town's history. When I visited (by rented motorboat from Ketchikan), the obvious "means of production" included a fishing fleet, a cannery, and a timber mill. The largish island had good timber. There may have been more. I talked with a few people and found that the neer-do-well characters in the town were supported, but did not share the larger portion of income of those who worked. I think the US may have paid a lease for use of the land on which the Air Force had an airfield, which was also used by commercial flights. My guess is the citizens of Metakatla were astute enough to see that they would do better by owning everything than by delivering their fish and timber to some corporate cannery and mill. Alaska's natives always seemed to come out with less than a fair share of things, and this community had a good solution. By the way, the state of Alaska makes an annual payment to all it's citizens, according to their longevity in the Territory and State. This money comes from payments received by the state for oil removed from AK by the oil companies. Is this "socialist" or just a fair return of funds to the citizens? Don
From: Don Bowey on 25 Nov 2006 15:02
On 11/25/06 5:27 AM, in article 456844BE.827AEA7B(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: >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm told >>>>>>>> that a successful socialist economy is in Sweden. I have to study >>>>>>>> that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's called social democracy. >>>>>> >>>>>> I know. The fact that the word democracy has to be included gives >>>>>> me a slight warning. >>>>> >>>>> And your fear of democracy doesn't surprise me. >>>> >>>> <ahem> The word democracy is included in a political party's name >>>> for the same reason the word "science" is put into Computer Science >>>> degree's name. >>> >>> Shame they don't have one for 'hands in the till' for the Republicans then ! >> >> What makes you think that the Republicans are the only ones who >> take money? My state is now pure Democrat. They've had their >> hands in everybody's pockets for decades. > > The Republicans do it on the grand scale. > > Heck, they even go to war so Bechtel and Halliburton can pick up uncontested > contracts. > > Graham > You just went to the top my extreme-nonsense-author list. |