Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Don Bowey on 25 Nov 2006 15:15 On 11/25/06 6:46 AM, in article ek9l0m$8qk_004(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com, "jmfbahciv(a)aol.com" <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > In article <456852A0.1C71A701(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I wasn't suggesting changing the constitution per se ! >>>> >>>> I'm sure each state could run its own baby-NHS quite effectively and that >>>> would then overcome your objections to size and scale too. >>> >>> I'm sure each state could not. >> >> Why not ? > > They would expect the Federal govnerment to fund it. Oregon has it's own medical plan. > >> >> Give a reasoned answer that isn't based on dogma and rhetoric if you can. > > Is the reason that the states would not pay for it based on dogma and > rhetoric? >> >> >>> However, I will find out since >>> Massachusetts has made the first step of forcing everybody >>> to have insurance. >>> >>>> Over here we also have regional management of our NHS as in the 4 > countries, >>>> England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. >>>> >>>> This doesn't affect the patient in any significant way.. >>> >>> You are blind. >> >> You're blind to facts. > > You have demonstrated that you have no knowledge of how our > Constitution works. Yet you still claim that I, who live > here, do not know what our govenerments cannot do well? > > /BAH
From: Don Bowey on 25 Nov 2006 15:25 On 11/25/06 9:31 AM, in article ek9uln$lag$9(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: > In article <MPG.1fd11c17f0518b5a989c65(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > [.....] >> Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps >> there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other >> than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 >> certifications for a piece of gear? > > I like radio just fine. > > Is radio "interstate commerce" if the broadcast can't be heard in another > state? If not, I don't think the constitution gives the federal > government preemptive control. > > Since the FCC DOES coordinate and regulate all forms of radio transmission, what is the purpose of your post? Perhaps the problem is with your understanding.
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 15:26 krw wrote: > In article <6CO9h.6326$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? Actually, my parents did. But they were among the few. Back then "major medical" policies, which were inexpensive, had a threshold starting once the insured already spent $10,000. I sat and listened to the poor salesman trying to convince my dad. >>>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). Not universally, but often.
From: Don Bowey on 25 Nov 2006 15:30 On 11/25/06 9:40 AM, in article d2cf$45688016$4fe7197$8995(a)DIALUPUSA.NET, "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: > >> In article <45686CC4.DA2FE2C9(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>> Although one could argue that the coal mining industry in Wales was >>>>> reaching the end of the line in the 70's and 80's, due to cheap EU >>>>> imports of coal - what was more galling was the fact that there were no >>>>> contingency plans set up by government. Her government simply shut up >>>>> shop in Wales without any investment in replacement/alternatives. >>>> >>>> Good Lord! You mean the cradle to grave gravy train ended? >>> >>> Mining was hardly a gravy train. >>> >>> Graham >> >> >> Of course it was, those miners went down in fur-lined elevators to >> recline in comfy settee's and watch daytime TV. >> >> Ignoring the fact that Welsh coal and steel built most of the British >> Empire, of course. > >> (quick rule of thumb - Unsettled is an idiot) > > Quick rule of thumb: Marxist socialists like Puddledick and > the dumb donkey come to the discussion ill equipped to > deal with the issues because they won't read political science > and economics texts, let alone wikipedia: > > "In politics, 'gravy train' refers to a depraved gorging on > luxuries, since someone else foots the bill." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravy_train > > In this case, the "cradle to grave gravy train" refers to > a socialist government providing for its charges. It is a > common enough an idiom among the well read. > > > I believe the term from which some Wiki idiot stole that, is "cradle to grave security."
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 15:31
Don Bowey wrote: > 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? You'd first have to research what part of the population are native, what treaties were executed, and a myriad of other stuff usniqu to Alaska. |