Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 25 Nov 2006 23:15 In article <4569017C.53F66DE4(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > T Wake wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > The assertion has been made so many time I'm tired of answering it. > > You actually blew your own legs out on this by by admitting that > > that a Brit firm wanted a piece of the action, but wasn't allowed > > to since the work was being done with USD. Golden rule. > > And why was that ? Seems pretty obvious, dumb donkey. As I said in another article, US money + US law => US corporation. You want a Brit company to get the contract, fork over the money. -- Keith
From: lucasea on 25 Nov 2006 23:15 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:ek9q4d$lag$2(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <piP9h.6343$yf7.4809(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > [....] >>Leave it to Unsettled to fail to understand a point about insults. > > That was a boring way to respond. Hey, what can I say? Eric Lucas
From: krw on 25 Nov 2006 23:18 In article <45690236.179A2C4F(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > krw wrote: > > > > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > > > krw wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > The boss is the government. The doctor is no longer controls his > > practice. == nationalized. > > The doctor *does* control his own practice you numbskull ! The government / state / NHS does not > own the practices nor does it dictate any part of their day-to-day running ! Money => control. You can't be on a "salary" from the government and work for yourself. You're working for the government, dumb donkey. -- Keith
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 23:22 krw wrote: > In article <45690236.179A2C4F(a)hotmail.com>, > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >> >>krw wrote: >> >> >>>rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>> >>>>krw wrote: >>>> >>>>>rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>>>> >>>>>>krw wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>krw wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>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. >>> >>>The boss is the government. The doctor is no longer controls his >>>practice. == nationalized. >> >>The doctor *does* control his own practice you numbskull ! The government / state / NHS does not >>own the practices nor does it dictate any part of their day-to-day running ! > > > Money => control. You can't be on a "salary" from the government > and work for yourself. You're working for the government, dumb > donkey. I'll bet there are facility specifications that the doctor has to comply with.
From: lucasea on 25 Nov 2006 23:22
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:a2165$45687e83$4fe7197$8951(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > > The lemming reference isn't an idle insult, but a comment > that the person is heading over the cliff into the sea by > following some invisible passion (in the case of the > immediate discussion, the immediate discussion) blindly. That in itself is an idle insult, since you assume that it is blind. > I'm sorry the reference and meaning are lost to so many. Not at all. It's quite clear that you do not believe that anybody who disagrees with you can have possibly come to their conclusion by thought, but rather must be blindly following someone/thing else. > It > does have a substantial point to make, No, it is nothing more than dismissiveness. In that way, you are no different than JoeBlow. > I note that BAH seemed to have understood it. Over the years > others have understood it as well. So you're saying it's a stock insult you've used for years to dismiss others' points of view. > While that's true, usually I'm just trying to have a discussion. Lying hypocrite. You insult people more than anyone else in this discussion, save JoeBlow. > Those who repeatedly form more of a distraction than they > contribute have been openly killfiled. Gutless lying hypocrite. Eric Lucas |