Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Don Bowey on 28 Nov 2006 15:48 On 11/28/06 7:10 AM, in article ekhjge$pkt$8(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: > In article <MPG.1fd57546bd40b365989d18(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > [....] >>> And there's also the argument that health care does, too. A pandemic that >>> starts in one state will affect the ability of people to travel to and from >>> that state, perhpas due to quarantine, perhaps due to simple fear. >> >> ...and you better believe the USG will take over control of that >> pandemic, right down to shutting down interstate transport and even >> guarantying entire states, if need be. >> >> At that point it does become an interstate issue. Your sniffles >> aren't. > > That FM station in San Fransisco is not a interstate issue. The FCC has > absolutely no right to control it. The entire FCC is completely > unconstitutional. You keep saying it, but that does not make it true.
From: T Wake on 28 Nov 2006 16:01 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekh9a6$8ss_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <456AF465.7F8B8D0F(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > <snip> > >>> Do you really want >>> me to believe that it's her fault that your citizry still >>> can't be self-sufficient without government handouts? >> >>The issue of self-sufficiency is entirely another matter. What do you do >>when >>there's a shortage of jobs ? 4 million short in Thatcher's days ( around >>10% >>unemployment ). > > You stop duct-taping the thumbs of the people who know how > to create wealth. You stop governmental support for unions > who refuse to close money-losing job sites. You stop supporting > people so they need to work in order to buy stuff. You stop > trying to run all business, manufacturing, and startups and let > non-political people do that work. Honestly, you really don't have any idea what you are talking about. What little about the period you have read, you obviously have failed to understand. Please, do yourself a favour and stop digging.
From: T Wake on 28 Nov 2006 16:02 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekhcrn$8ss_013(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <456C2DE4.695D7D0C(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: >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Do you really want >>> >> me to believe that it's her fault that your citizry still >>> >> can't be self-sufficient without government handouts? >>> > >>> >The issue of self-sufficiency is entirely another matter. What do you >>> >do > when >>> >there's a shortage of jobs ? 4 million short in Thatcher's days ( >>> >around > 10% >>> >unemployment ). >>> >>> You stop duct-taping the thumbs of the people who know how >>> to create wealth. >> >>You reckon ex-mine workers are entrepreneurs ? All 100,000 of them ? > > Nope. You'ld need only a 100 of them to create new work. All of > them are very capable of doing work outside thoes mines. Miners > have skills that middle-income city slickers never learned. Yeah, mining. When the mines are closed down what is left? That was the problem. > All those workers needed was permission to go out and work. Union > rules kept them idle. Really? Obviously you know this is nonsense don't you?
From: T Wake on 28 Nov 2006 16:04 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekhg1i$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <456C3FB2.16D1B25F(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> <snip for brevity> >>> Miners have skills that middle-income city slickers never learned. >> >>And are no longer valued ! > > They were no worth anything in the government-owned mines that > were kept open just to keep thsoe people busy. Not true. You have no idea about running a country or people. >> >>> All those workers needed was permission to go out and work. Union >>> rules kept them idle. >> >>Simply not true BAH. > > They could not go out and work on a second job when idle. Yes they could. > Union life is almost a communist entity. They even have their > own military infrastructure. Blimey. Do you visit reality very often? >> >>It would be an insult to miners to call them idle. > > When a union is on strike, the members are not allowed > to find another job. Yes they are. > They have to stand on the strike > line and carry a piece of paper. Are you talking about the UK or US here?
From: T Wake on 28 Nov 2006 16:17
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:K%Lah.16377$9v5.7889(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:V6idnY0aS9CZeffYnZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> >> Treatment is not massively effective, but it is slightly more effective >> than detention. > > Add to this the fact that prison often does nothing but serve as a giant > networking opportunity for criminals. There are plenty of cases reported > of people put in jail for relatively minor offenses, only to learn new > criminal skills and develop a network, and emerge a hardened criminal that > does a lot worse than his/her original offense. The last thing I read on this (A forward written by The Rt Hon., The Lord Woolf, Master of the Rolls) was along these lines. He was criticising the current government for implementing what he described as crazy policies (not in so few words) of the previous Conservative government, which involved the detention of large numbers of youth offenders. He waxed lyrical about how the detention of relatively minor offenders massively increased the chances of re-offence in the future - and in the examples he used, it was about youth offenders being exposed to general prison populations, becoming drug users and (as you say) acquiring new "skills." It strikes me that although detention _will_ reduce the (other) crimes committed by the addict for the period they are incarcerated, the long term prospects are pretty glum. |