Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 19:36 "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:phineaspuddleduck-0E0983.00291726112006(a)free.teranews.com... > In article <FOCdnQH6YZ2HQvXYRVnyrQ(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >> Well, not so much idiot but total lack of _any_ grasp of History. It has >> been a fair while since our monarch had "absolute power." > > If one of course wanted to be totally picky and vindictive, you could > point out it was not that much further after the US was founded. ROTFL.
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 19:44 krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > krw wrote: > > > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > > krw wrote: > > > > > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > > > > > > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Once again, I'll ask you to think about administering your > > > > > > > > >> NHS to all of Europe. That is how the US has to work. > > > > > > > > >> We essentially 50 countries, each has its own politics, economy > > > > > > > > >> and different priority lists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a shame you have such a low opinion of the American people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's also quite a shame that she has such a lack of understanding of the US > > > > > > > > Constitution, to think that no national program is possible. There are > > > > > > > > plenty of national programs in the US, and they work fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All (not operated through the states) are unconstitutional, as > > > > > > > well. None come close to 17% of the GNP either, though you'd > > > > > > > likely be all for nationalizing the oil companies too. > > > > > > > > > > > > What would be the point of that ? > > > > > > > > > > It makes as much sense as nationalizing health care; none. Why > > > > > don't you nationalize food production while you're at it? > > > > > > > > Who said anything about nationalisation ? > > > > > > What exactly do you think *NATIONALIZED* Health Care is? > > > > > > Dumb donkey! > > > > The NHS *does not* nationalise all health care. > > > > Private practice continues and GPs run their own practices essentially as they like. They > > simply receive a salary from the NHS. > > If they receive a salary from the NHS, their practices *have* been > nationalized. Not at all. That's a completely wrong connection. > They're no longer in control of their business. > Sheesh! Yes they are. They choose to work for the NHS. There's no compulsion. The NHS pays for their services 'in bulk' as opposed to patients paying individually. If it was nationalised the NHS would *own the practice / surgery* and manage it. They don't. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 19:47 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > 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. > > > > No, honey. YOu've been listening to Democrat rhetoric. One > > of their tactics, is to get people to believe that there > > is a serious class structure in the US and that the Republicans > > are the "rich" who steal from the "poor". > > Not really what Eeyore said, is it? > > Shall we look at Halliburton and think about how it has got the contracts it > is currently running? Do you mean to imply there was an open tender and they > simply put the best bid in? It's been interesting to see that none of the right-wingers has responded to my comments about Bechtel and Halliburton. They can't refute it, it would seem. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 19:51 krw wrote: > Think, dumb donkey. A controlled economy *is* communism. Where did I say controlled ? Graham
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 25 Nov 2006 19:51
In article <4568E433.B87DAB21(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > It's been interesting to see that none of the right-wingers has responded to > my > comments about Bechtel and Halliburton. They can't refute it, it would seem. > > Graham With a certain brand of people the difference between rhetoric and fact is whether the person speaking it is on "your" side, or not. Hence its rhetoric when you attack their position ;-) -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |