Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 5 Dec 2006 09:37 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > > >>You really should do all that; she's now doing the preliminary > >>running for 2008 Presidency. The Liberals in this state want > >>her for President so that Bill can take over again. > > > >Yeah, we long for those days of peace > > YOu have a very odd definition of peace. > > > and prosperity, of balanced budgets, > > Budgets were not balanced. They were a heck of a lot better ! I'm truly astonised. In the time GWB has been in office, the value of the dollar has dropped by > 40% ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Dec 2006 09:38 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: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> When everybody gets everything equally, nobody is > >> >> >> >> allowed to be wealthy. Thus, all are poor, equally poor, but > >> >> >> >> poor. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Even communist Russia wasn't run like that ! > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Of course it was. Only the viscious of the managers got the > >> >> >> power. > >> >> > > >> >> >We were talking about wealth, albeit rather limited wealth in that era. > >> >> > >> >> And look how their agriculture suffered. How people get food is a clue > >> >> to their economy, social structure, trade and power. > >> > > >> >This has absolutely nothing to do with degress of wealth under communism. > >> > >> If that is true then I've been wasting all of my studying time. > >> However, I haven't wasted my time; you can tell a lot from > >> old grocery lists. > > > >The 'wealth' of the favoured few wasn't perhaps so obvious. > > You don't think the unfavored didn't know who was favored? Where did I say that ? Graham
From: Ken Smith on 5 Dec 2006 09:39 In article <el3tjb$8qk_004(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >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. My wife would buy Monica some gold plated knee pads to get Clinton's policies back. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 5 Dec 2006 09:43 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >T Wake wrote: > > > >> 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? According to my link, as a market trader in the early 60s. > >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? Not everyone's such a great self-publicist ! Graham
From: krw on 5 Dec 2006 10:18
In article <4575811C.AEDAD6A9(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > 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. Live elsewhere. -- Keith |