Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 09:35 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekc5do$8ss_010(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45699180.78427DD2(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>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. > > In this country, it's also illegal where it is wanted. The > commentary now going on in my state is the estimate that it > will take 10 years to make possession of tobacco illegal. This "ten years" figure crops up a lot. That is a very, very long time in politics. > Granted, this is personal experience again and not allowed in > your discussions. What I would like to know is why are your > personal experiences allowed to be used as debating facts > and mine cannot be? When it is gibberish it is contested. You think this means it is not allowed. This speaks volumes.
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 09:39 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekc7ba$8qk_002(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45699BCB.BDACF454(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >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. >>> >>> In this country, it's also illegal where it is wanted. The >>> commentary now going on in my state is the estimate that it >>> will take 10 years to make possession of tobacco illegal. >> >>That sounds like simple 'scaremongering' to me. > > It's exactly how the current laws barring all people from > smoking in all public places started. >> >> >>> Granted, this is personal experience again and not allowed in >>> your discussions. What I would like to know is why are your >>> personal experiences allowed to be used as debating facts >>> and mine cannot be? >> >>Which personal experiences ? You've posted many and I've posted very few. > That >>seems to contradict your assertion. > > ARe you being ignorant on purpose? You don't allow me to use > facts that happens in my life as a valid debating point. No people aren't allowing you to extrapolate massively based on your limited experiences. For each bit of anecdote you produce others can produce anecdotal evidence which contradicts it. This is why _anecdotatal_ data is poorly viewed. Your persecution complex makes _you_ think this is about _you_ not being allowed to do things. Get over it.
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 09:40 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekc7cn$8qk_003(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <phineaspuddleduck-4AAD24.13454326112006(a)free.teranews.com>, > Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >>In article <ekc28m$8ss_001(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> >>> In case you two haven't noticed, the trend is to make possession >>> of tobacco illegal. That kind of rhetoric has already started >>> in Massachusetts. And, since this is an all-Democrat state, >>> you others can't blame Republicans. It is one of life's >>> largest ironies that the Democrats, who call themselves >>> Liberals, are the most tight-assed, prudish, intolerable >>> people. >> >>Blanket generalisation? > > It's not my usual style but it appears to be the case in this > state now. It is still a blanket generalisation based on the contacts you have had. Unless you have met and studied the actions of _every_ democrat, this is as reasonable as Eeyore saying all Americans are kill-crazed lunatics, hell bent on global destruction.
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Nov 2006 09:40 In article <45699770.B6957F47(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> krw wrote: >> >> > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> > > krw wrote: >> >> > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> > > > > krw wrote: >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > 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. > >You're utterly wrong. > >The government doesn't control the 'medical distribution system' as you call it. >There is private practice too as I keep telling you. But only your upper, upper class are allowed to use those services. How long do you think it will take some socialist to use that as a class warfare tool? YOu've already decimated your wealthy class by bankrupting them through death taxes. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 09:48
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> Are you assuming that the only way people can get "good medical > >> treatment" is through a government-controlled entity? > > > >Absolutely not, yet the evidence is that the current US system 'encourages' > >inefficiency and overcharging so it's become too costly for many to get the > >health care they deserve. > > Who decides who deserves what? The patient? The politican > who is buying votes? The bureaucrat who you just pissed off? In the NHS the doctor(s) determines your treatment. > And yet, you are talking about health care. The politicians > in this don't talk about that; they talk about insurance > as something everybody deserves. Is it actually real insurance or notional insurance ? Graham |