Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 1 Dec 2006 22:34 In article <eb3ed$4570f324$4fe7357$10200(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled(a)nonsense.com says... > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > In article <ekpc5r$gh6$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > > > >>In article <ekpa2n$8ss_005(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > >>>In article <ekmuf7$sk6$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >>> > >>>>In article <95d74$456dc13c$4fe7752$20089(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>In article <485af$456c7009$4fe7665$9791(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > >>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>In article <ekhdog$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >>>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>But again, what you get doesn't depend on your ability to pay. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Huh? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>In a pure socialistic system, you'd receive what you need without > >> > >>regards > >> > >>>>>>to > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>ability to pay, right? That's how the military works. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>In the military physical performance is required and > >>>>>>>routinely tested. Inability to perform results in > >>>>>>>separation. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>But you get ahead without regard to wealth. Your ability to pay doesn't > >>>>>>affect your advancement, as it does with a capitalistic system. > >>>>> > >>>>>Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, > >>>>>which isn't socialist at all. > >>>> > >>>>Sure it is. While everyone gets what they need to stay alive and healthy, > >>> > >>>the > >>> > >>>>best advance. > >>> > >>>No, they don't. You need to learn what motivates people to do > >>>estraordinary things. > >>> > >>> > >>>>However, wealth isn't a consideration in advancement as it is > >>>>under capitalism. > >>> > >>>Wealth is a side effect of capitalism. > >>> > >>> > >>><snip> > >>> > >>>/BAH > >> > >>Are you seriously suggesting someone born to a poverty family has the same > >>chance of becoming successful as someone born to a rich family in a > >>capitalistic society? > > > > > > Yes. I will even go further and state that the poor kid has more > > motivation than the rich kid. Thus, the poor kid will succeed > > more often than the rich kid. > > Are there any rich kid entrepreneurs? Gates? <snip> -- Keith
From: unsettled on 1 Dec 2006 22:36 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <3c38f$456c71a7$4fe7665$9834(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> >>>In article <1909f$456a5341$4fe73b3$25206(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>>The price caps mentioned by Medicare leave me wondering what's >>>>going on. >> >>>If you want to kill a popular program, the first step is to make it >>>unpopular by messing it up. Then the public will agree to have it >>>terminated. You can also force the reduction in the size of the federal >>>government by running up unsupportable debts so that they have eventually >>>to either default on the loans or downsize massively. Both seem to be at >>>work today. >> >>History elsewhere has had governments default on loans. > > > It usually is quite a disaster for the populace when that happens. I > believe that the current path the US is on leads to the US defaulting and > the economy crashing. Right now it is looking like we are about to tip > over into a down turn, but I don't see this one as the one where it comes > home to roost. > > Right now oil is traded in US dollars. This requires a lot of the money > that went overseas to slosh around between economies. The various > countries that hold US dollars don't straight away try to turn them back > to the US. This means that if the oil business switches to using the euro > as the basis, The US will see a large number of dollars suddenly sent > home. This will drive up inflation and as a result interest rates. > (Un)fortunately the government is also effected by interest rates. In > this case the "UN" applies. The higher interest rates could mean that so > much of the budget is being used just pay interest that the government is > forced to default. This would leave the US very weak. > > China holds a large amount of US dollars. Their government runs at a > surplus. The US dollars are part of the "investment portfolio" used to > hold the value for the future. If China decides that the dollar is not as > good of a risk as some other investment, they may "rebalance" their > portfolio exchanging the dollars for the other investment. This too would > send a large wave of dollars to the US. > > Without either of these sorts of events, the curve the country is on still > leads to a bad place. With out a spark, the ignition will happen > spontaniously after even more fuel has piled up. The sky may not be > falling but we are in a handbasket and that handbasket is in motion. You're right in a lot of ways. If you're 100% right then we ought to let the Muslims win and blame it all on them. LOL
From: unsettled on 1 Dec 2006 22:44 krw wrote: > In article <eb3ed$4570f324$4fe7357$10200(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled(a)nonsense.com says... > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>In article <ekpc5r$gh6$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <ekpa2n$8ss_005(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <ekmuf7$sk6$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <95d74$456dc13c$4fe7752$20089(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <485af$456c7009$4fe7665$9791(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In article <ekhdog$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>But again, what you get doesn't depend on your ability to pay. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Huh? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In a pure socialistic system, you'd receive what you need without >>>> >>>>regards >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>ability to pay, right? That's how the military works. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In the military physical performance is required and >>>>>>>>>routinely tested. Inability to perform results in >>>>>>>>>separation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>But you get ahead without regard to wealth. Your ability to pay doesn't >>>>>>>>affect your advancement, as it does with a capitalistic system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, >>>>>>>which isn't socialist at all. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sure it is. While everyone gets what they need to stay alive and healthy, >>>>> >>>>>the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>best advance. >>>>> >>>>>No, they don't. You need to learn what motivates people to do >>>>>estraordinary things. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>However, wealth isn't a consideration in advancement as it is >>>>>>under capitalism. >>>>> >>>>>Wealth is a side effect of capitalism. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>><snip> >>>>> >>>>>/BAH >>>> >>>>Are you seriously suggesting someone born to a poverty family has the same >>>>chance of becoming successful as someone born to a rich family in a >>>>capitalistic society? >>> >>> >>>Yes. I will even go further and state that the poor kid has more >>>motivation than the rich kid. Thus, the poor kid will succeed >>>more often than the rich kid. >> >>Are there any rich kid entrepreneurs? > > > Gates? Father was a lawyer. http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/bio.aspx No wanting for anything and had money but not what I'd call a "rich kid."
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 2 Dec 2006 01:21 On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:22:34 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Spehro Pefhany wrote: > >> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:01:31 +0000, the renowned Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >unsettled wrote: >> > >> >> There's a case to be made for the CIA historically having >> >> involved themselves in illegal activies in other countries. >> > >> >Encouraging them you mean ? >> > >> >Graham >> >> Google on: CIA "drug running" > >I'd certainly heard of it. Add these searches: -> Castillo testimony 1998 "select committee on intelligence" -> Felix Rodriguez Donald Gregg George Bush Oliver cocaine Medellin -> Guatemala Ilopango arms cocaine Contras DEA Etc. Basically, US agents under Oliver North's NSC operational control were running drugs for cash to buy arms. The administration was directly involved in selling arms to Iran for "beyond list price" and pocketing the difference also for cash to buy arms. And other agents were working with banks to make offshore loans used as more cash to buy arms. (Depending on the idea of gov't guarantees provided in the 1982 banking bill, but leading to the savings and loan debacle.) It was "the ends justify any means" at the time. The Congress and the Boland Amendment said "No," and the administration said, "So? We'll go around you, no matter what it does to the country or anyone else." Jon
From: YD on 2 Dec 2006 07:29
Late at night, by candle light, hill(a)rowland.org penned this immortal opus: > Winfield Hill wrote: >> Winfield Hill wrote: >>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. >>>>> >>>>> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most >>>>> of the posts were under the original subject title. This >>>>> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress >>>>> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. >>>> >>>> Never have so many, said so much, about so little! ;-) >>>> >>>> I heard of one long flame war that passed 10K posts, >>>> but I never found out which newsgroup. >>> >>> We passed 9000 on the 14th, and are now within 100 posts >>> of 10,000. Keep up the good work guys, you can do it! >> >> Google Groups is having a little trouble with this long thread. >> The message-heading list said there were 9999 posts, so >> I hoped to make the 10,000th post, but upon loading all the >> article references in the left sidebar, it showed more than >> 10,050 posts, so I missed the opportunity. >> >> But, good job guys and gals, over 10,000 posts, and still >> going strong. And still on topic more or less. I've only >> read a smattering of the posts here and there, and there's >> a minimum of flaming SFAICS. Nice to see. > > Still going strong, over 11,300 posts, no sign of slowing. And covering just about anything between heaven and earth except jihad and tronics. - YD, just adding to the mess. -- Remove HAT if replying by mail. |