Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 5 Dec 2006 15:00 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:el3pcf$8qk_004(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <457433A9.82815974(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>Ken Smith 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. >>> >>> This will happen after the West is destroyed. >> >>And how do you think that's going to happen ? > > All one has to do is interrupt trade. Trade became > almost non-existent within 50 years after the Roman > Empire took their seed corn and pissed on it. Incorrect. > As before, I am not going to answer your question. I can > think of several ways; I don't intend to give anybody > pointers. Yeah, I can think of 14 ways in which what you are saying is nonsense. However, I don't want to give anything away so I am not going to mention them other than to tell you they exist, therefore your statement _must_ be nonsense.
From: T Wake on 5 Dec 2006 15:04 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:el43bu$8ss_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4575811C.AEDAD6A9(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>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. > > Don't buy in the ritzy neighborhood. Pool resources > with 3 others. There all kinds of ways to get started > owning instead of renting. Hmm. Reading block appears to remain in place. Eeyore isn't talking about a ritzy neighbourhood. How do you share a house with three other people when it has one bedroom? Personally, I do not doubt it is _possible_ in both the US and UK for poor people to "do good" and become rich. I am 100% confident it is _harder_ for the poor person to become a "success" in business. I suspect this was true even in the weird bizarro time zone /BAH lives in but it really is true in the "modern world."
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Dec 2006 09:25 In article <da22d$4575a726$4fe71d5$13856(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <el3pl3$8qk_006(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <el27qb$6qf$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <el13vm$8qk_001(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <ekv27j$l5r$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>>You really should do all that; she's now doing the preliminary >>>>>running for 2008 Presidency. The Liberals in this state want >>>>>her for President so that Bill can take over again. >>>> >>>>Yeah, we long for those days of peace >>> >>>YOu have a very odd definition of peace. >>> >> >> >> Let's see, no 3000 killed in an attack in the US, no 3000 killed occupying a >> foreign land... > > >Yes, you blame the US for the 9/11 attack. No, you questioned peace under Clinton. I responded. >The entire thing was >underway during the Clinton administration, so that bit of >"war" had already been declared. And Clinton was responsible for Pearl Harbor too. Geez, don't you right-wing fruitcakes ever get off the Clinton bashing? Bush was president on 9/11. The buck stops there. Besides, Clinton warned Bush bin Laden was dangerous and left a plan to go after him, which Bush ignored. Read Clark's book. > >You're crazy. > >snip >
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Dec 2006 09:03 In article <el43co$g14$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <el278i$6qf$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >Lloyd Parker <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote: >>In article <91fba$457234e0$4fe757d$18623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >[....] >>>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. > >He is suggesting that we spread the overhead over the monies collected. >This is not an unreasonable thing to do. I doubt it makes enough >difference to matter though. > > > Why not accept the figure that's been published? Take all the money Medicare pays and figure administrative expenses as a % of this. That's how it's done for private insurance companies. That way things like advertising isn't included, as you're not looking at money coming in but money paid out.
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Dec 2006 09:11
In article <el45om$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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. No, he means the purchase price. That's true around here -- the average home price in the Atlanta area is $156,000. That's 3 times the median income. In the LA area, it's around 9 times. Boston, 6 x. >That's takes 10 years to pay off loan and you own the >house and property free and clear. What? Nobody making around or below the median income can pay off an average mortgage in 10 years. > >> 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. > There're a lot of single parent families, you know. And I was using the average home price, above. >> >>> 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)? How indeed? The mortgage industry is luring people who can't afford it, with interest-only loans, no down payments, etc. That's why defaults are up. > >> 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 betr you saved up for a down payment though. >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 |