Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 5 Dec 2006 15:27 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45759156.3F1EF93A(a)hotmail.com... > > > krw wrote: > >> 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. > > There are places where house prices are lower for sure. In the cheapest > places ther's > this problem of there not being much employment either. Yeah, I am sure the poor person who ends up getting a one bedroom flat in Wigton, Cumbria (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF8&z=16&ll=54.82539,-3.159535&spn=0.008097,0.019956&om=1 for those who don't know the UK very well) - where they can actually afford it - will be able to easily commute to their �15k pa job in London....or maybe not. The problem in the UK at the moment is that house prices are significantly greater than the average income. This means that the only places people can afford jobs are where there is no work. Since privatisation, the national rail infrastructure no longer serves "poor" areas so people living in them find it even harder to get to work. When the road charging changes it will be the final nail for some communities. I have no idea about the situation in the US regarding cost of living vs average income but as I have said in the past, there is a lack of first generation immigrants in the fortune 500 boards. The crux of this sub-thread is /BAH has made yet another crackpot pronouncement which collapses when brought into contact with reality.
From: T Wake on 5 Dec 2006 15:29 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:dd9f8$45759abe$4fe71d5$13578(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > krw wrote: > >> 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. > > 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. What is the average income in that area? What sort of rental incomes do people pay? What is the employment rate in the area? What is the population makeup (numbers and age groups would be ideal)? I will buy it tonight if there is a reasonable chance I can rent it out again.
From: T Wake on 5 Dec 2006 15:30 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:el3lpc$8ss_003(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <457461F3.C9510941(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: >>> >> >> 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. You seem to have to believe > that, once poor, always poor. Nonsense. For a start this is not what "socialists" think and it certainly isnt the case the the UK "thinks" like this. > 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. Blimey, you are going of the deep end for real.
From: T Wake on 5 Dec 2006 15:39 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:el45om$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Blimey, between leaving school and reaching 21 they managed to hold down to jobs, build their own houses AND pay off all their loans. Fantastic. Your days must be long in the US. >>In most first world countries > > I thought we were talking about poor? Yes. Poor people in first world countries. Is that an alien concept? In poor countries it is the world of difference. >>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. Yes, it takes 10 years to pay off the loan if you are not charged interest (which seems a bit Islamic for my liking), and you pay for NOTHING else out of your salary. Going with out food, water, clothes, heat or transport for 10 years while holding down a job is impressive in any country. >> 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. Nope. Not an assumption I have made and looking at other people's posts it doesnt seem to be an assumption they have made. Two people in the house either means an "early" marriage or two people sharing. If they are sharing the house has to be bigger. However even with two incomes (assuming they are married or in a relationship and can still get the 1 bed starter home) it would mean five years without food, water, clothes, heat, transport while still holding down jobs. People who work, generally speaking and especially so for the poorer paid ones who have to work more and more hours, do not have the time to build their own homes nor farm their own food. Unless they work as builders or farmers perhaps. >>> 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)? This is one of the reasons the market collapsed - Thatchers rampaging insanity and destruction of industry meant that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The middle class got hit and could no longer afford to buy new houses and the market crumbled. Poor people, generally, do not own their own homes. If you own a house you are probably _not_ poor. Poor people rent. Middle classes own houses and, in the UK at least, the rich own estates.
From: T Wake on 5 Dec 2006 16:03
"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:qrc9n25pv8c1emhv84kpqn03e1rcvkgc3p(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:16:43 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> 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 will take this in an entirely different direction. One that you may > not have considered. (I'm not arguing whether or not conscript > military is better or worse, as far as winning goes. That is a > separate issue.) > > 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. > > In addition, since a US Supreme Court decision in 1938, there is no > possibility of appropriate arms being held by private citizens. So > without weapons that pose any serious opposition and without adequate > training outside of the federal military here, what protection remains > to guard us against the ultimate use of a military against it's own > populations? (Something that comes to mind as a more-present > question, with this administration and the recent removal of even the > modest protections we had against it until a month or two ago.) > > An insight that comes from what took place in China, in Beijing, with > the uprising where many were killed. I remember the picture of one > man that made the news here, standing in the middle of the street and > appearing to challenge the tanks rolling towards him. If you > remember, the earlier responses to the uprising there by the Chinese > gov't was to field their nearby military -- those who were from the > area and spoke the same language well. But they wouldn't really > engage in taking orders for indescriminate killing. So they had to > bring in troops from the southern areas, where the spoken language was > different and the soldiers were willing to take extreme orders and > obey them. > > If our military is composed of random selections from across the > country, and if we must also accept that fact that we have a standing > military here that is well trained and FAR BETTER equipped, this may > remain our better insurance against their poor use against civilians > here. No matter how you change the laws and so on, if the military is > built up from all of us, from all walks of life poor and rich, and if > it is not reasonable to sort them out in some fashion, then we may > have at least that protection from their use against the population > here. > > A volunteer army is a self-selected one. And to the degree that it > does NOT represent the population at large, to that degree we lose > some protection against the abuse of their powers. > > Maybe. > > I'm still considering this aspect. But it sounds right. It is an interesting twist and you are correct it certainly was one I hadn't considered. It will be interesting to see if the debate on this brings anything out but my instinctual reaction is that it is not right and it is not a way of protecting the people from the abuse of the military. As an example, even in a conscript military it will (I assume) still be possible to find units formed of people from different social, ethnic or religious backgrounds to the particular group you wish to put down. Another problem of conscription is you force the undesirables into the military (right wing extremists, left wing extremists, religiously intolerant bigots etc) and even provide them with military training. |