Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 03:56 krw wrote: > Dumber than dirt donkey. LMAO ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 03:58 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> Socialism does get communistic if the administration covers a > >> >> large geographic and/or population density. There isn't any > >> >> other way to "control" renegades who don't like to be told > >> >> what to do all the time. > >> > > >> >What nonsense is this now ? > >> > > >> >Where *do* you get these ideas ? > >> > >> I think about what I read. > > > > You'r reading garbage in that case. > > I suspect the other half of that sentence is at least as important as what > she reads in leading her to such a warped view of how the world works. The 'thinking' bit ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 04:03 krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > krw wrote: > > > > > Health care is not in the COnstitution as a federal power > > > > Are you always going to let a historical document rule your lives as if nothing > > had changed ? > > THere is a method (actually two) for changing it. If it needs to > be changed it can be tried[*]. Until then it is the supreme law of > the land and must be treated as such or it has no meaning at all; a > dangerous thing. > > [*] NHS won't even get to first base. If it's possible for you to accept that an 'NHS' isn't some form of communism, do you actually have any objection to the idea *in principle* ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 04:09 krw wrote: > In article <4569013C.A9CD5750(a)hotmail.com>, > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > > krw wrote: > > > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > krw wrote: > > > > > > > > > Think, dumb donkey. A controlled economy *is* communism. > > > > > > > > Where did I say controlled ? > > > > > > My you do like to snip out what makes you look so foolish. Here, > > > I'll remind you: > > > > > > > > It's more like a mixed economy run by a party that still calls > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > itself communist. > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > "Economy run by" => "Economy controlled by", dumb donkey. > > > > Did the Republicans *control* the US economy > > No. > > > and do the Democrats do so now ? > > Dumb donkey, they aren't in power. And No, all they can do is muck > it up, which I'm quite sure they will. > > > Is the USA economy a *comtrolled economy* ? > > No. It certainly looks manipulated to me. Graham
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 04:11
krw wrote: > 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. I seem to recall there was this little matter of 'forking over' the use of our army, navy and air force actually for your convenience. Graham |