Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 27 Nov 2006 09:58 In article <ekervb$8qk_004(a)s966.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > We do not have your equivalent of your Civil Service system. > The decisions that group makes in your political system is > done by law in ours. Your Prime Minister and Cabinet > can change a lot of details without the equivalent of our > Congressional approval. In your country its the House of > Lords (I think). I'm still trying to learn how you run > your country. You don't say. You show a pitiful level of knowledge over a subject you're trying to lecture us about. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: John Fields on 27 Nov 2006 10:11 On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:02:37 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >John Fields wrote: >> > >> >> I left out the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, >> > >> >Totally irrelevant. >> >> --- >> Hardly. Those are part of the ugly part of Europe's history. > >Certainly not relevant to the preceding discussion though. --- I see you've been confused by not following the thread. The relevance was established earlier on and was only used peripherally in replying to your post. If you're interested in pursuing it further I suggest you do the leg work required. I certainly won't. --- >> >> two world wars that we got dragged into >> > >> >You have this continual memory problem about WW2. >> > >> >Have you forgotten that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor ? >> >> --- >> It wasn't the war in the Pacific I was talking about. > >Are going to try to suggest you could have gone to war with Japan and not >Germany ? --- Have you lost your senses? Do the required legwork before you post stupid questions which only waste everyone's time but yours. -- JF
From: Eeyore on 27 Nov 2006 10:30 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >John Fields wrote: > >> > > >> >> I left out the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, > >> > > >> >Totally irrelevant. > >> > >> --- > >> Hardly. Those are part of the ugly part of Europe's history. > > > >Certainly not relevant to the preceding discussion though. > > --- > I see you've been confused by not following the thread. The > relevance was established earlier on and was only used peripherally > in replying to your post. If you're interested in pursuing it > further I suggest you do the leg work required. I certainly won't. How far off the beaten track do you propose to stray ? How about Roman times, say ? > >> >> two world wars that we got dragged into > >> > > >> >You have this continual memory problem about WW2. > >> > > >> >Have you forgotten that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor ? > >> > >> --- > >> It wasn't the war in the Pacific I was talking about. > > > >Are going to try to suggest you could have gone to war with Japan and not > >Germany ? > > --- > Have you lost your senses? > > Do the required legwork before you post stupid questions which only > waste everyone's time but yours. Your failure to answer a simple question noted. Graham
From: Lloyd Parker on 27 Nov 2006 05:23 In article <ek9f58$8ss_002(a)s894.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ek7d1r$r6e$22(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <ek6p6d$8ss_003(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <4565BA66.1AE61881(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm told >>>>> that a successful socialist economy is in Sweden. I have to study >>>>> that. >>>> >>>>It's called social democracy. >>> >>>I know. The fact that the word democracy has to be included gives >>>me a slight warning. >>> >>>> All of the European 'lbour' parties embrace the >>>>concept more or less. >>> >>>Yes and that's a serious problem when independent thinking >>>and action is required. >>> >>>> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy >>>> >>>>" The prime example of social democracy is Sweden, which prospered >>>considerably >>>>in the 1990s and 2000s [1]. Sweden has produced a strong economy from sole >>>>proprietorships up through to multinationals (e.g., Saab, Ikea, and >>>Ericsson), >>>>while maintaining one of the longest life expectancies in the world, low >>>>unemployment, inflation, infant mortality, national debt, and cost of >>living, >>>>all while registering sizable economic growth. " >>> >>>What bothers me about this is that there is only a few companies. >>>There are many ways to measure cost of living. If they included >>>all the taxes it would be very high. >>> >>>/BAH >>How about "quality of life"? The US usually ranks near the bottom of western >>nations. Why must it always be about money to right-wingers? > >I am getting more and more convinced that this "quality of life" >comparison is getting to mean no obligation to make one's own decisions. No, it means things like life span, infant mortality, literacy, incidence of cancer, retirement security, etc. >A high QoL means no decisions at all. This is getting to be more >in line with the way Islam works. > >/BAH And right-wingers value lives only for the $$ they bring in.
From: Lloyd Parker on 27 Nov 2006 05:33
In article <MPG.1fd25670c445fcf7989c94(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <hBP9h.6352$yf7.1704(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> news:MPG.1fd114f98b36d7fd989c5f(a)news.individual.net... >> > In article <ek7djo$r6e$29(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >> > says... >> >> In article <MPG.1fd0ee0dd9e02c81989c57(a)news.individual.net>, >> >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >> >In article <eFE9h.9693$yE6.9309(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, >> >> >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> >> >> >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:MtSdnXm0y5U4evjYnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > news:ek47u9$8qk_002(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >> >> >> In article <456481AB.D9E20023(a)hotmail.com>, >> >> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >> >> >>>> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> >>>>What percentage do you think the government has to take? >> >> >> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>> >>>Medicare runs with about a 3% overhead rate. >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> >>I don't believe this. That may be the Federal percentage. The >> >> >> >>>> >>state percentage also has to be included. >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> >There is no state % for Medicare. You're thinking of Medicaid. >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> No, I'm not. Who sends the money? Not the feds. The feds >> >> >> >>>> send the money to the state who then disburses it. That is >> >> >> >>>> two political levels of bureaucracy. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>An 'NHS' doesn't have these problems. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Uh, did I miss the part of the constitution where you get to declare laws >> >> unconstitutional? >> >> >> > Theoretically this happens only when there is actually something in >> > the Constitution that forbids the action of the law. >> >> OK, so pony up. What clause of the Constitution precludes a nationalized >> health care system? > >Amendment X > > The powers not delegated to the United States by the > Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are > reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. > But "provide for the general welfare" is a power delegated to the US; so is interstate commerce. >Now please show me where NHS is mentioned in the Constitution. > Show me where an air force is. |