Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Dec 2006 11:12 In article <1165332870.593782.314710(a)f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > >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: > >> >> >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. > >Even allowing for ultra-cheap tacky portacabin / garden sheds that some >USians call homes how exactly did they do it? None of my brothers would have been caught dead in a porta cabin. > The numbers just don't seem to stack up. They did it. Two incomes and paying off the loans first before buying junk is how they did it. Both my brothers built their houses. 50% or more of the work was done by their hands and not by hiring out. > >In most first world countries I thought we were talking about poor? >a basic starter home costs somewhere >between 5 and 20x median annual salary. If it's 20x, that means that the principle is about 10x. That's takes 10 years to pay off loan and you own the house and property free and clear. > And more still in truly >expensive hotspots like Tokyo or Hong Kong. > >I guess things are a bit cheaper in Outer Hicksville but what are the >numbers? You people keep assuming that only one person buys the house; only one person pays for the house; and that only the most expensive housing is bought. > >> None were rich. None were even middle class. Most were poor. > >This appears to be yet another of your folksy fairy tales. You cannot >be poor and buy a house - in the UK at least in the 80's the banks >would not even look at you for a home loan unless you had at least a 5% >deposit to put down. How does anybody get that 5% down payment (if you intend to borrow to buy)? > You can be cash poor after buying a house though >and finding all the things that urgently need doing to make it >habitable. sure. But you aren't poor and all your "rent" is going into your real estate pocket. I didn't buy a house until I was told my rent was going up. So I went out and bought a house where the monthly payments were less than my current rent. I picked a house that had been on the market for two years. Nobody wanted it. It would never make a Better Homes and Gargen magazine--even its worst 10. > >It will be interesting to watch the pips squeak when capitalistic USA >has to rack up interest rates to keep the dollar from sliding >inexorably into the abyss. �1 = $2 is not far away - I still recall >the shock on US colleagues faces when it reached parity with the "weak" >Euro. Now it has passed $1.30 = 1 EURO. GWB really knows how to wreck >the US economy. There are cycles. Eventually Europe will pay the bills too. > >http://www.ft.com/cms/s/179dd6e0-837e-11db-9e95-0000779e2340.html > >Still it makes the US dirt cheap for shopping trips. Bad news for the >UK tourist industry though. The UK has always been pricey for US tourists. Tell me, when Bush is no longer in office, who are you going to blame then? /BAH
From: Eeyore on 5 Dec 2006 11:18 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: > >> >> > > >> >> >Bush has made the messes; arguably the worst since ... > >> >> > >> >> And then you say this. Why aren't you blaming the extremists > >> >> instead of the politicians who are trying to deal with the > >> >> messes the extremists have made? > >> > > >> >Why would one praise politicians for throwing fuel on the fire ? > >> > >> I don't; I've been damning them throughout this thread. > > > >As long as you damn the right ones that's fine with me ! > > Oh, I have been damning the ones who deserved the judgement. I don't really see how Clinton deserves it. Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Dec 2006 11:20 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Tell me, > when Bush is no longer in office, who are you going to > blame then? We'll blame his legacy of course ! Isn't that always the way ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Dec 2006 11:21 unsettled wrote: > krw wrote: > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > >>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. > > A bank is having trouble locally selling a perfectly livable > house with an asking price of $19,000. I'll bet anyone with > a job and $100 cash and a reasonable credit history could > move in tomorrow. Please describe it. Graham
From: unsettled on 5 Dec 2006 11:49
Ken Smith wrote: > In article <85078$4573392c$4fe76d2$30377(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >>>In article <92e10$45731539$4fe70d7$29597(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>>Ken Smith wrote: >> >>>>>In article <26e4$45722fd5$4fe757d$18514(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>The world government I see forming will be a very strictly secular one. >>>>>>>The US has the seperation of church and state because the founders saw the >>>>>>>horrors that results when you mix the two. A world government would have >>>>>>>the seperation for different and very practical reasons. Even within >>>>>>>Islam, there is a great deal of disagreement about what the rules really >>>>>>>are. >> >>>>>>They remain in a medieval tribal mindset. Nothing else matters. >> >>>>>Actually a great deal else matters. The fact that they can't agree among >>>>>themselves makes them weak. They won't all follow any given leader. They >>>>>will fight among themselves. >> >>>>>So long as nothing unites them, the odds of them forming a world >>>>>government are zero. >> >>>>Not true. >> >>>>Rome gave up trying to conquer Scotland. Read Scottish history. >> >>>Rome didn't become a world government nor did Scotland. >> >>Excuse me? I did a double take to make sure it wasn't dumb donkey >>writing this reply. Rome not a world government? Hahahahahaha. >>Of course it was, in its day. > > > You said it was and then admitted that they did not rule Scotland. Was > Scotland outside the world? LOL Pretty much! A world government need not be total and absolute. > Side note: The pressures of work are going to make it harder for me to > get back here as often. This morning I have a little time because I need > to schedual the use of equipment so as not to step on production. Suuch is life. I'll be out of touch again tomorrow as I have another road trip. >>Western nations, probably moreso the US then the rest, have >>done their citizens a disservice regarding the teaching of >>both geography and history. >> >>Let's take a step backwards into another part of this thread >>wher you were addressing Jesus on a stick, hatred of Jews, >>Christians agreeing with Jews, and so forth. It was an >>unfortunately oversimplistic viiew of history more attuned >>to a coffeehouse discussion then this one. > > > I was using the over simplification to point out an error in your > statement. It was an argument for that specific case. > > [....] > >>During the 1920's and 1930's the chief European protagonist >>was Soviet International Communism. Coupled with the unfortunate >>hateful conditions of the WW1 peace treaties, Germany was in >>desparate economic times. > > > I think competitor covers the concept better. "protagonist" suggest > violent means. The communists were using any means that came to hand. I think protagonist is right. They were pretty consistent in their use of violence. It was a quick and effective way to achieve their goals. >>It was obvious to all but the most stupid that some form of >>Socialism was going to rule the continent in the near future. >>Whatever else he was, Hitler was no dummy. He played all these >>elements to the hilt, and came out ruling Germany because to >>Germans he was obviously a much better choice than the soviets >>and he claimed his primary thrust was National Socialism. > I knew a German who was there at the time. He claimed that a big part of > the advantage he had was because "national socialist" sounds very good in > German. He tried to come up with an english phrase that would be about > the same. The best he could do was "reasonable democracy". It sounds > good but its meaning is very unclear. That's the usual characteristic of sound bytes. >>The rest of the European powers who were in jeopardy because >>of their geography also sided with what they were sold as >>"National Socialism" instead of the soviet version. They knew >>that the soviet version killed its own citizens, yet the >>German version wasn't known for that as yet. > That isn't the only reason. Those in power in the other countries saw > that the communists were internationalists. They were in favor of getting > rid of the nation state and having world wide communism. This would have > put those in power out of power. They saw the german version as a horse > they could ride. That works too. >>In the end both >>the National and Soviet versions were pretty much equals when >>it came to killing their own. Hitler demonstrated selective >>hatred, Stalin killed anyone who crossed his path. > Stalin killed those who were a threat to him remaining in power. > Unfortunately, he was paranoid so everyone was seen as a threat. He wiped > the leadership of the military out because they were an obvious threat. As I said, anyone who crossed his path. > BTW: Many people would claim that Stalin was not really a communist. He > was just power hungry and saw the way to get it. Since nobody was ever > really close to him, we don't really have an internal read on his motives. When one wields the baton and the orchestra plays, one is the conductor. His daughter wrote a number of books once she escaped to the US. >>One name not heard much any longer is that of Bela Khun. It >>was a name well known all over central Europe in the 1920's >>and the 1930's. Kuhn was a communist who managed to overthrow >>and seize control of Hungary after WW1. He was ousted and >>escaped to Russia where initially he was accepted, but was >>eventually assasinated by the Soviet government, killing >>another of their own. That practice was well known by Central >>Europeans of the period. > He represented a threat in Stalins mind. He was already a "has been" who posed no threat. But he was pesky. Big mouth no good. Bang. Big mouth no more. Business as usual. >>Take a look at this page: >>http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box32/t300m22.html >>which has some interesting concepts. It also shows why Japan >>side with Hitler. > I have always figured that Japan went with Hitler because basically he was > their only option. They wanted to take over everyone nearby so they were > out. The US wanted to have some power in the Pacific so they were out. > The Brits had some colonies. Russia touched the Pacific. After you > strike off all that Japan would reject, the only strongish nation left > would be Germany. Japan and Russia had an earlier war in which Russia took some Japanese islands they hold to this day. Hitler had a good political insight, promising restoration of whatever was bothering a potential ally. If you read the history you'll discover that Hitler actively courted Japan. I wonder what sort of twostep the ambassadors had to dance whenever the discussion came around to the proposed blond blue eyed Aryan rule of the world. > [.....] >>It is obvious, Ken, that you continue to try to apply the same >>sorts of causality to international politics as you would to >>electronic circuity. The thing you appear unaware of is that >>in realpolitic there are many hidden variables, rendering >>your conclusions, for the most part, invalid. In the end those >>hidden variables, in a historic context anyway, aren't really >>so very hidden as they are generally unknown by the general >>public. > I do apply logic to the know facts to come to a conclusion. I admit to > this bias. I don't hold with the invisible unicorn theory of physics[1]. > I believe that humans operate largely logically based on what they > believe. Emotions exist but unlike others, I claim that they too function > logically. Emotions come from our instincts. These instincts evolved in > another time and place and unlike learned logic, they haven't changed > since then. I give you "feminine instinct" to ponder. > [1] Everthing is caused by invisible unicorns. LOL Turtles all the way down. > You on the other hand seem to have taken as axiomatic that Islam is deadly > threat and exagerate the arguments in favor and ignore those against so > that you can mantain that belief. I think this may be a case of "the guys > on the other side of the river are cannibals". Yet the towers fell and members of our tribe keep getting beheaded for no "obvious" sane reason. > You believe that there are > cannibles and you believe that there are people over there that are > different. Back in a more primative time. If you knew about cannibals, > it would be because they are nearby so the instinct would have made sense > back then. Today where we know of many peoples at great distances, it > doesn't work anymore. Distance doesn't change the rules or the outcome. We were isolated in centuries past, thus relatively immune from attacks on "our homeland." That distance has effectively shrunk. That's why the circle we need to protect has grown. In the beginning it was just a guy with a rock. Then a sling, and eventually an arrow, then a gun, planes, rockets..... Now the guys with bombs and radioactive poisons come to attack us in our homeland. > The instinct is still there bashing away and is > hard to ignore. Nor should it be. On the one hand we have the hue and cry over why did we not see 9/112 coming and do something. On the other we have your ideas that we should ignore the cannibals on the other side of the river. Imaginary cannibals they're not. |