Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 4 Dec 2006 15:51 On Sun, 03 Dec 06 13:46:19 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <gtk1n2lnpgh9bk0o6sn4r1v9n2pofis8bt(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:13:24 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>wrote: >> >>><snip> >>>Opportunity is discovered by the individual, not handed to them. >>><snip> >> >>Nope. That only tells me you've never been there. Spoken like a >>person born with a silver spoon in their mouth. >> >>I hadn't said that being poor means there are no opportunities. A >>smart person will recognize more of them. So being smart helps. A >>hard working person will be better able to make more of them. So >>being hard working helps. But wealth is a far bigger advantage for >>success than is being poor. >> >>Control over capital and people creates opportunities and defends >>against feeling the fuller brunt of mistakes made in learning from >>them. >> >>It would seem that you'd argue being poor is an advantage, too. If it >>weren't so patently laughable, I'd even imagine you actually believed >>it. > >Being poor is an advantage only if you use what you have learned >to make stuff. > >Being rich is an advantage only if you use what you have learned >to make stuff. This kind of comment almost makes me certain you are just being disingenuous, or worse. It is possible you don't even understand and can't. But it is so hard to understand for me that you can dare to try and say such things so craftily, with a design to imply that such circumstances are no better than each other, unless you are being disingenuous and worse. I had written much more just now, born of my own personal history and those I've worked with in other countries, but I deleted it since it's not worth adding under the circumstances. You aren't even trying to argue your point, just stating it. So that pretty much means this conversation is ended. Jon
From: unsettled on 4 Dec 2006 17:58 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:73101$45730543$4fe70d7$29287(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <4572483D.8CB44CB6(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>snip >> >> >>>>It's more to do with 'professors' not having a clue about the real world >> >>>IMHO. >> >>>Those professors never had exposure to the real world when they >>>were kids. It's a problem; one of the ones I'm working on. >> >> >>One of the beauties of universal military service. > > > In principle, National Service is a good idea - although I think people > should be "conscripted" to "social" type work (and I suspect this will be > heckled as being "socialist" by many knee-jerkers). > > Conscript soldiers nearly always undermine the militaries effectiveness. A > modern army needs willing volunteers who are prepared to do the bad, harsh, > things. Armies with conscripts have (in my personal experience) always been > inferior. I think you need to look at history a whole lot more closely. Every military service in the world from medieval times through the Vietnam era was comprised of mostly conscripts, even (perhaps especially) in feudal times when it was a lifelong duty. Your personal experience is limited providing us with what you pesent as an almost universal case which is actually patently incorrect. The tone of your post on this issue provides some proof my recommendation has merit.
From: unsettled on 4 Dec 2006 18:04 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ekrt27$8ss_004(a)s1015.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <45703E5A.EF353FB2(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: >>>>> >>>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>I rather doubt that it happens like that in practice. >>>> >>>>But it happens all the time in the US, which is capitalistic >>>>and not socialistic. >>> >>>I rather doubt that it does happen all the time in the USA. I suspect it's >> >>just >> >>>another of your fanciful folksy notions. >> >>Nope. It's fact. > > > Really? It is strange how many of the "self made millionaires" in the US > actually come from wealthy backgrounds. > > You don't find many second generate Puerto Ricans heading up Fortune 500 > companies. > > I am sure you, or some of your pointless sycophants, Rough time in London? Too much of a good time? Or did you just get up on he wrong side of the rock? (refers to USA TV commercial.) > can point to one or two > self made men who truly came from poverty (in the last fifty years) and is > now a billionaire or whatever - however, based on the percentages this > represents, it _still_ proves Lloyd Parker's point. > > Your exact claim is the "poor kid will succeed more often than the rich > kid" - given there are *more* poor kids than rich kids, the percentage of > ex-Poor kids should be staggering in your society. > > Is it? > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 4 Dec 2006 12:27 In article <91fba$457234e0$4fe757d$18623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <64ec7$456a5c9b$4fe73b3$25547(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <ce8ce$45688adc$4fe7197$9197(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>[....] >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>Actually it's even simpler -- your Medicare taxes are withheld every payday >>>>>>>and I assume for most businesses now, electronically sent to the IRS >>> >>>with the >>> >>>>>>>push of a key. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>That key is likely to cost a penny. >>>>> >>>>>Nope. You have to distribute IRS costs proportionally to >>>>>their destination. The Infrastructure, etc, isn't >>>>>free to some, and costly to others. >>>> >>>> >>>>Huh? >>> >>>Illustration, with inaccurate numbers and categories: >>> >>>IRS BUdget: 1 Billion US$ >>> >>>Sent to states 10% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * 10% >>>Sent to medicare 17% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * 17% >>>Executive Branch 12% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * 12% >>> >>>In the illustration, we'd have to add 17% of the total cost of >>>operating expenses of the IRS to the overhead incurred by Medicare. >> >> >> Oh, I thought it was a new point. I had previously made that exact point >> when I said that the "button" likely cost something to push. >> >> >>>That would start making the actual overhead for Medicare align with >>>the cost items reported by insurance companies. >> >> >> I wonder if it would. How much money does the IRS spill in collecting it? >> I don't think it is a very large fraction. > >I'll do out homework for us. LOL > >IRS budget for FY 2005 10.674 billion. > ><www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/budget-brief-05.pdf> > > >"Medicare will spend over $250 billion in 2004 on health care for >approximately 41 million senior and disabled citizens. " > ><http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/archive/medicare_budget_FY04.shtml> > > >2005 outlays total 2,472 billion > >http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html > > >Looks like you add ~1.067 billion to medicare expenditures as the >collections expense. That adds about 0.4% to the overhead which >is usually reported elsewhere. That increases their reported >expenses by more than 10%. What? You're claiming 10% of the entire IRS budget goes to Medicare tax collection? Absurd! It comes in electronically. > >>>Then there's all the paper provided by the GPO. And probably other >>>stuff as well
From: Lloyd Parker on 4 Dec 2006 12:30
In article <ekulj0$8ss_012(a)s896.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <4572475E.BA56AF16(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: >>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >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. >>> >> > >>> >> >I rather doubt that it happens like that in practice. >>> >> >>> >> But it happens all the time in the US, which is capitalistic >>> >> and not socialistic. >>> > >>> >I rather doubt that it does happen all the time in the USA. I suspect it's >>> > just another of your fanciful folksy notions. >>> >>> Nope. It's fact. >> >>I still don't believe you. Your 'facts' have been rather fanciful to date. >All of my brothers and sisters bought their own home before they >got legal (21). They were on their second or third car. They >worked and supported themselves. All of my relatives on my mother's >side had some kind farm business before they were legal. > >None were rich. None were even middle class. Most were poor. > >/BAH Teenagers buy their own homes, and "none were right -- none were even middle class." There's your problem -- you have no idea of what "middle class" means. Hint: middle-class teenagers are not able to buy their own homes. |