Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jamie on 26 Nov 2006 00:25 Eeyore wrote: > > Jamie wrote: > > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>It strikes me that some people in this subthread are unable to tell the >>>>difference between "National" and "Nationalised" and every time they see one >>>>of the words it triggers the knee-jerk "socialism = bad" response. >>> >>> >>>They've been well indoctrinated ! >>> >>> >>>>Explaining that a "National" Health Service is a service which provides >>>>health care nation wide on the basis of medical need not ability to pay >>>>seems to be falling on deaf ears. >>> >>> >>>There none so deaf as those who don't wish to hear. >>> >>>Graham >>> >> >>ah, you're finding coming to terms! > > > IDIOT > I feel sorry that finding you're true self is causing so much pain!. As you have quoted many similar statements to others "You really should go see some one about that problem" Which brings to mind. Since your NHS is so great as you keep saying, you shouldn't have any problems getting help in all area's of your illnesses. -- "I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 00:24 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:Cc2dnX6qlbpoCfXYnZ2dnUVZ8v2dnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ek9jcn$8qk_002(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <phineaspuddleduck-6DC9F9.14143025112006(a)free.teranews.com>, >> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >>>In article <ek9ijm$8qk_006(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> >Scottish Law is different actually ! It has its own Parliament too as >>>> >will >>>> >Northern Ireland when the 'Loyalists' and Republicans can get their >>>> >act >>>> together >>>> >again. >>>> >>>> I thought those places based their politics on ideas started >>>> with the Magna Carta. If they don't, then they do not a uniform >>>> basis. >>> >>>There is a varying degree of autonomy in the four nations that make up >>>the Uk. I live in one of them (Wales) with a National Assembly that has >>>secondary legislative powers and some primary legislative powers (now) >>>in a limited field. >>> >>>Hence whey they are able to vary their legislation to take into account >>>of different local conditions. >>> >> My statement about a uniform political basis did not mean that >> all were exactly alike. Was this really not written clearly enough? > > No. What did you mean? They do not even stem from the same basic laws > (England falling back on the laws of the Saxon and Danes, Wales and > Scotland having a more British history, NI being a conglomerate of them > all will lots of special powers due to the troubles) any more than every > state in the US has a uniform political basis. BAH needs to learn something that most good scientists learn very early in their career: if you cannot find a way to clearly express an idea so that somebody else understands it, then the idea is almost certainly not clearly thought-out, and in general, is simply not based on sound reasoning and reasonable assumptions. Copping out by blaming the inabilty to explain an idea because of disease, lack of sleep, etc., is nothing but denial of the basic unsoundness of the idea. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 00:37 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fd266107aed13ca989c9e(a)news.individual.net... > In article <6CO9h.6326$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. Try Article V, and read a little to understand the word "welfare". > >> > 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". You might be trying to muddy the waters and confuse people into believing this is about insurance, and not health care, but I am not. Almost all of those who do not have health insurance now are incapable of affording medical care, either preventative or curative. > And > no, it's not "extraordinary". How many had health *insurance* > fifty years ago? That's a meaningless argument because 50 years ago, most people could afford to pay for health care on their own, or at least most of the less expensive stuff. This is no longer possible. >> > 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). So writing laws and amending the Constitution are "subversions". I would suggest that the authors of the Constitution would find *you* subversive. ERic Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 00:39 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fd266d5bdc0a343989c9f(a)news.individual.net... > 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! So you *are* as hypocritical as unsettled. You're called out for hurling insults in place of discussing facts, and you run away with your tail between your legs and hide in a corner. ERic Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 00:51
"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:ekaas8$8a0$1(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <a2165$45687e83$4fe7197$8951(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>Ken Smith wrote: > [....] >>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. > > Ok. > > The "invisible passion" part I'd missed. I'd taken it as following a > person. Unsettled knows perfectly well that the usual meaning of the "lemming" label involves blindly following another person, and that essentially everybody would read it this way. To claim otherwise is hypocrisy. > [....] >>> The lurkers are the ones that both sides have a chance to convince. You >>> can't convince them if they get bored and quit reading. IIRC I made >>> this >>> point somewhere in the first week of this thread. >> >>While that's true, usually I'm just trying to have a discussion. Bullshit. He's one of the three biggest insult-mongers in this thread. >>Those who repeatedly form more of a distraction than they >>contribute have been openly killfiled. > > I skim rather than whole sale kill file. Sometimes people will come back > to sanity and start posting reasonable stuff. I admit it isn't often > though. He's not even honest about his reasons for killfiling, since he routinely responds to my posts through somebody else's response to me. If he really found me to be unworthy or reading, he simply wouldn't read anything I write, or respond to it. His only purpose for killfiling people is to make a big show of denigrating their opinion just because they won't fall down and fawn over everything he says. He is a gutless hypocrite. Eric Lucas > > > -- > -- > kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge > |