Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 26 Nov 2006 10:54 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. 40% isn't it?
From: krw on 26 Nov 2006 10:57 In article <Craah.15803$9v5.14513(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4568EDE9.72E1B5ED(a)hotmail.com... > > > > > > 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 Are you always going to let a historical document rule your lives as if 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. Only by a leftist loon. Looking around in those penumbras again, eh lefty? -- Keith
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 10:57 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:gccjm250hv76302flj90a82fmpv3937a2m(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:09:11 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> >>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>news:l08gm2he8d16ve3dlfkuoiblcbngogeeb7(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:57:14 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >>> (Ken Smith) Gave us: >>> >>>>In article <HZidnczurMtWkvrYnZ2dnUVZ8tmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>[....] >>>>>Bit like saying that because the Irish Republicans spent thirty years >>>>>bombing the UK, any political party with "Republican" in its name >>>>>supports >>>>>terrorism, violence and non-political methods of forcing people to obey >>>>>it. >>>>> >>>>>Well, is that the case? >>>> >>>>A fairly good argument could be made if you assume: >>>> >>>>"shock and aw" == terrorism >>>>war == violence >>>>war == "nonpolitical methods" >>>> >>>>You should have picked a better example. >>> >>> The word is AWE, you dipshit. >> >>Nice spelling lame. > > Thanks. You're welcome. All your posts are very lame, I am glad it makes you happy. > He deserved it. Nonsense. You only pounced on it because you are too retarded to have anything of value to say, but want to say something. > I do not, however, need your approval, nor > does your retarded critique need to be positive. It wasn't a show of "approval" nor was it a positive critique. You may be able to spell but your comprehension of English is abysmal. >> You really are a pointless individual. > > I know you are. Blimey, an IKYABWAI if ever I saw one. > BTW, you spelled the words "I" and "am" incorrectly > in that sentence. Wow, you are so funny. When you get through puberty you'll be a real blast. Until then, stick to milk. >> >>> You should have picked an example that you at least know the >>> spelling of. >> >>Not only do you miss the point of _both_ posts you respond to, but your >>well >>of hatred means you cant do anything but insult and argue. > > That's not all I can do, you dumbfuck. That may be all I am doing > when a twit like you looks. Hmm. Like an addict who claims he can give up, you claim to be able to converse like a human. I doubt it. >> >>Sad really. > > Yes, you are. I am honoured. Two IKWYABWAI in one post. Thank you so much, your lameness. >> Were (are) you bullied at school? >> > Did you ever achieve a mental age that was greater than 15? Yes. Now your turn.
From: JoeBloe on 26 Nov 2006 10:59 On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:23:10 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >In article <6mpgm2p3fhibvke3euu0tcgblrbkl7aakr(a)4ax.com>, >John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:22:43 +0000, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >[....] >>>Whereas you 'know' what you've been told / indoctrinated to believe. >> >>--- >>Would you have him believe _that_? > >It would be healthier if he decided to assume it for a while and see where >the thinking leads him. He can then make the choice about believing it >for logical reasons. Taking such things on as a matter of faith is not >healthy. >-- That means that you must look like the portrait of Dorian Gray then.
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 11:05
"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:1sdjm2p130hvdb80b4krjmdobr0ke3sub2(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:22:43 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >>JoeBloe wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:06:17 -0000, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >>> > >>> >Unsettled seems to think the US government is inherently corrupt and >>> >that it >>> >is not responsive to the will of the people. Odd really, as I thought >>> >the US >>> >was a democracy. >>> >>> The fact that you do not *know* tells a lot about just how little >>> you do know about the world, much less corruption in it, or the lack >>> thereof. >> >>Whereas you 'know' what you've been told / indoctrinated to believe. >> >>Graham >> > No, dolt. The fact that you do not know whether we are a democracy > or not. You are thicker than a whale omelette. > You really are quite slow. You're not a donkey, you're a > friggin sloth. I will try to spell this out for you in simple terms. It was me not Eeyore who made the comment "Odd really, as I thought the US was a democracy" and it was sarcastic - which you would have realised if you were able to read like an adult. Feel free to look at the snipped bits in which unsettled implies the US government is not responsive to the wishes of the population it governs. This is why my comment came. Your stupidity is monumental. Do you get assistance getting dressed in the morning, or are you just not allowed out? |