Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Dec 2006 07:53 In article <4574662E.4F4AE23(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > 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, 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? > >I had a hard time thinking of any example of 'rags to riches' success but I >reckon I'm reasonably close with Alan Sugar. > >From school-leaver market trader to owner of what is now probably the largest UK >electronics company in consumer goods with a personal worth of �800 million >he's done quite well ! > >Of course this happened in the supposedly 'socialist' UK ! When did he start? > >I wonder if BAH would like to comment ? > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sugar >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amstrad Why can you only think of one person? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Dec 2006 08:52 In article <200612051249.kB5CnKxU005870(a)ipp.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote: >Typical of right wingnuts to > >1) turn this to a thread about Hillary > >2) focus on her minutiae (and slick willie's) while ignoring the > magnitude of what came after The US is in danger of having those two in the White House again. We apparently never learn from previous history, especially recent history. > >The difference in the scale of the corruption is at least three orders >of magnitude, people. In lives as well as in money. I think you listen to Hillary's speeches to the Palestians to get a handle of what she would be willing to cede. Isarel was one of those things. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Dec 2006 09:00 In article <qrc9n25pv8c1emhv84kpqn03e1rcvkgc3p(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:16:43 -0000, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: <snip> >One of the things that was strongly debated when the US Constitution >was debated in the various States, was the concern about a trained >federal military being used improperly. At least one of the >federalist papers addresses itself squarely to this. > >They early on agreed that there would be no standing military system, >at all, at the federal level. This was _because_ of that concern. >They wanted sufficient equality of skills and force so that no federal >military would consider the idea, at all. Of course, that's long >since been set aside, with the US now having and maintaining a >constant and well trained military force. <snip> You should also read a book, _The Navy, A History The Story of a Service in Action_, Fletcher Pratt, Garden City Publishing, 1938, 1941. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 5 Dec 2006 09:24 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> >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. > > Right. Poor ones manage to do so. One of the lessons you learn > when you grow up poor is how not to spend money. Dear BAH, the 'entry price round here for even a modest single bedroom apartment, never mind a house is the equivalent of �300,000. Please explain how a 'poor person' can acquire one. Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Dec 2006 09:26
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: > >> >> 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. > > > >My idea of poor doesn't include owning a car or home of your own ! > > > >You seemt to have a very odd definition for the term. > > You have a socialist point of view. No I don't. > You seem to have to believe that, once poor, always poor No I don't. I've been fairly poor too but I got out of that situation. > . In the US this is unheard of...or > was. Since the Democrats have created all their "Keep everybody > poor and in their place" programs, the attitude has been changing > over the last 50 years. When a majority believes that it is > the government and the few rulers who have to provide for all > basic means of living, the economy, politics and society have > become socialist with liberal dashes of communism. Your ideas about 'socialist ideas' here are plain bunkum. Graham |