Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 07:59 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > krw wrote: > >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >> > krw wrote: > >> > > >> > > I do not agree that war == violence. > >> > > >> > Oh that makes it all fine then. > >> > >> If you're stupid enough to belive it is, you really need a brain > >> transplant. The premiss is false thus any conclusions are useless, > >> dumb, donkey. > > > > Whooosssshhhhh ! > > It is interesting to note that previously in this thread krw stated "No, > [war] it's state sponsored violence" when he wanted to make a different > point. > > It is very hard to argue with some one who will redefine the meaning of > every word each time they want to make a new point. > > This is part of the very early arguments in this thread - namely that the > "war on terror" is a complete misnomer. Not to mention a complete farce / waste of time and money. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Nov 2006 07:56 In article <C18DE458.4E65A%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On 11/25/06 6:46 AM, in article >ek9l0m$8qk_004(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com, "jmfbahciv(a)aol.com" ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> In article <456852A0.1C71A701(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I wasn't suggesting changing the constitution per se ! >>>>> >>>>> I'm sure each state could run its own baby-NHS quite effectively and that >>>>> would then overcome your objections to size and scale too. >>>> >>>> I'm sure each state could not. >>> >>> Why not ? >> >> They would expect the Federal govnerment to fund it. > > > >Oregon has it's own medical plan. Who funds it? Perhaps a better question is: Is it funded? If so, how is it funded? Mass. passed the edict that all has to have insurance but hasn't funded it yet. <cleanup> /BAH
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 08:07 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In case you two haven't noticed, the trend is to make possession > of tobacco illegal. No sweetheart. It's the smoking of it where it's not wanted that's becoming illegal. Graham
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 08:16 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45695694.974F9F44(a)hotmail.com... > > > krw wrote: > >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> > Don Bowey wrote: >> > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Heck, they even go to war so Bechtel and Halliburton can pick up >> > > > uncontested >> > > > contracts. >> > > > >> > > > Graham >> > > >> > > You just went to the top my extreme-nonsense-author list. >> > >> > You reckon the need for re-construction wasn't considered until after >> > the event ? >> > >> > Why were British companies excluded from tendering ? >> >> US money => US law => US company. Dumb donkey! > > So it *was* to line the pockets of US construction companies then ! Sadly, as the US has control of the Iraqi reconstruction effort the above equation can be adjusted to Every Nation's Money => US Control => US Company. There is nothing like a free and fair market...
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Nov 2006 08:11
In article <MPG.1fd256edc2f9f8a9989c95(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <4567FF01.3954B6E4(a)hotmail.com>, >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. They're no longer in control of their business. >Sheesh! > There is something more important here. He cannot conceive of a medical distriubtion system that isn't completely controlled by the national government. This means that he doesn't require chocies and is willing to allow a few politicians make all this decisions for him. This means that when his politicians do screw him, he has no means to save himself. /BAH |