Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 04:54 neo wrote: > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > > 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 Are you always going to let a historical document rule your lives as if 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 ? > > > > In any case, he's simply wrong. Article V can easily be interpreted to > > include health care, if one isn't prejudiced to preclude it in the first > > place. > > 93 authors, 10334 replies. I would have been happy if such long > discussion had taken place on topic like 'what was before big bang'. > > Jihad don't need scientists. > > This thread is closed. It looks to have plenty of life in it yet. Graham
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 06:37 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4568F8AB.DAA6B723(a)hotmail.com... > > > Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: > >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >> > What's the matter? You have to stoop to snip-forging? You are >> > areal piece of work. I think that's enough of you! >> >> Thats pretty rich coming from a poster who has to try hard to be >> noticeable, let alone interesting. It seems the quality of political >> debate in the UK is far more mature as we grew out of calling people >> "leftist" or "rightist" as insults quite a while ago. > > US politics seem to be astonishingly immature. I don't think it is the politics per se, just some of the people who post here.
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 06:53 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45695558.4B8B3343(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >> > >> > I wonder how they react to the national guard.... >> >> My usual (albeit unfair) gut-level response to the phrase "national >> guard" >> is "place for your rich daddy to hide you from military service during >> war". >> Like I said, completely unfair, but The Shrub is partly to blame for that >> one. > > What does the USA actually need a national guard for ? In some ways it is similar to the Territorial Army we have. It has also been used as a reinforcement to the police authorities (which is probably not idea).
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 06:54 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4568E370.EEA0DCF7(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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. Interesting grasp of logic. Part of my salary comes from the US government, does that mean I have been nationalised?
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 06:58
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45695C08.CCC8EE19(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> krw wrote: >> > 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. > > I'm sure it's not allowed to be a hovel. The facility specifications are not implemented by the NHS per se. They are the same requirements all establishments have to adhere to - even private practice health care facilities. These are set by bodies such as the health and safety executive. I find it amusing when people can't accept the fact that the NHS is government funded but not government run yet they readily accept the same for all the contractors who provide services for the US government. |