Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 11:40 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4569574D.AE76299E(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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 ? Yep. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 11:41 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4569574D.AE76299E(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 11:46 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4569574D.AE76299E(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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 ? Dammit, I hit send twice before I wrote what I wanted. Yep, it's the thinking bit. She seems to be able to take a kernel of a tiny, semi-relevant truth, and extrapolate it into an entire thought structure that bears absolutely no resemblance to reality. For example the whole "UK = socialist" thing. She starts with the fact that the UK and Europe have small socialist aspects to ecomonies that are for the most part overwhelmingly capitalist, and has extrapolated from that to the idea that the UK is so socialist that anyone who lives there cannot even possibly comprehend how a wonderful, perfect capitalist country like the US functions. Never mind the necessary socialist aspects to the US economy, and never mind that the US and UK economies have far, far, far more similarities than differences, from everybody I've known who has extensive experience with both. Eric Lucas
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 11:54 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:55:10 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >In article <ekc3qu$8ss_007(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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. > >Our Health Service is NOT completely controlled by Govt. Funded by not >equal to controlled by. Are contractors controlled by their funders? --- By and large, yes. If I hire a contractor to put a new roof on my house I will expect him to put a new roof on my house. Similarly, I expect that your government, if it's funding the health service, expects certain norms of competence to be exhibited by the contractors (doctors) it hires. Also, I'm sure there are certain basic rules laid down by the government which the health service, itself, must follow, which _is_ control. Am I wrong? -- JF
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 12:03
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekc28m$8ss_001(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <MPG.1fd2d7e6ed030e26989ce1(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>In article <slrnemhu90.5qi.don(a)manx.misty.com>, don(a)manx.misty.com >>says... > <snip> > >>> Also, the USA's worst-in-the-world "War On Drugs"! Punish users >>> inadequately and make most punishment to distribution, so as to give >>> a profit motive to smarter meaner distributors! >>> I thing USA is better off choosing either of two extremes: >>> >>> 1) Get caught with half a joint, spend 2 years in "The Joint". >>> According >>> to my German teacher when I was taking German in highschool, that was >>> the >>> law of Germany! >>> >>> 2) Make USA's recreational drug laws like they were in 1900 - when >>> marijuana, cocaine and opiates were LEGAL! >> >>Legalizing marijuana is a good idea, the government doesn't like it >>because unlike alcohol or tobacco it cannot be taxed. It's too >>easy to grow. I don't like the idea of legalizing cocaine or >>opiates. THe cost to society of these things now makes tobacco look >>like chump change. > > In case you two haven't noticed, the trend is to make possession > of tobacco illegal. No, it is just becoming illegal to force others who choose to use public places to inhale your poisons. Nobody is talking about making it illegal, although if people start to quit using it because they can no longer poison everybody else with its smoke, it may fall out of fashion to use it, and societal mores may eventually come around to making it illegal. That is the type of progression of opinion that happens all the time in a democracy. If you had lived in the early 1800s, you probably would have rued the impending demise of slavery. Eric Lucas |