Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 5 Dec 2006 18:49 T Wake wrote: > 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. I've heard this is deliberately happeening in the US forces. What better way to learn how to kill ppl ? Graham
From: T Wake on 5 Dec 2006 18:57 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4576059D.2EF6C63D(a)hotmail.com... > > T Wake wrote: > >> 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. > > I've heard this is deliberately happeening in the US forces. What better > way to > learn how to kill ppl ? It is the same over here. The Armed Forces generally recruit from people who cant get jobs anywhere else. Sadly, the large proportion of the ill educated who enlist also come from the hotbeds of right wing extremism and racial intolerance. I am fairly sure the US military has a robust policy at weeding them out when they are identified. My recollections of working with Americans is that they were a _lot_ less tolerant of the "banter" that was flung around than Brits were.
From: unsettled on 5 Dec 2006 20:25 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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. Because in the case of the insurance company all the functions are under one roof and come out of one pocket, ir one cost center. In the case of Medicare collections is performed by a completely different cost center, publications by another, and so on. You really need to get a handle on standard accounting procedures *before* you get involved in this discussion.
From: unsettled on 5 Dec 2006 20:30 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <bf6a7$4575a5bf$4fe71d5$13749(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> >>>In article <el3lpc$8ss_003(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>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. 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. >>>> >>>>/BAH >>> >>> >>>Interesting -- under Clinton, the middle class income actually improved; > > under > >>>Bush, it has gone down (adjusted for inflation). Under Bush, the top 1% > > has > >>>gotten richer, not the rest. So "keep everybody poor" is more appropriate > > for > >>>Bush and the Republicans. >> >> >>Looks like you're making up numbers. >> > > > Nope. Under Bush, income for the top 1% doubled, for the top 0.1%, it > tripled, and for the top 0.01%, it quadrupled. > > For example, "New figures from the Internal Revenue Service show that income > disparities grew substantially from 2002 to 2003. After adjusting for > inflation, the after-tax income of the one percent of households with the > highest incomes shot up in 2003 by an average of nearly $49,000 per household > while the after-tax incomes of the bottom 75 percent of households fell on > average." I gave you a hint. Where is the source? Try posting a URL when you make claims. I did and you didn't look. If you post the resource I will go look at it. Anyone can write a paragraph like you did above.
From: unsettled on 5 Dec 2006 20:41
Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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. For entering the homeowner market for the first time owner "average price" means exactly squat. What is the cost of an entry level home in a black section and what is it in a white section? We're talking about livable with no frills. >>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. There you go again. "Average mortgage", which includes multimillion dollar homes, means there are many that can be paid off in 10 years. Are you mathematically challenged? >>>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? Actually Hicksville is pretty expensive these days. >>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. Average home price is a meaningless measure in the context of the discussion. Care to try something reasonabl for a change? >>>>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. That's not the main reason. Check those default folks' other financial arrangements to discover how badly they're mismanaging *everything.* >>>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. It doesn't sound like she did. It doesn't sound as though buying a house was in her plans. I can say for a fact I didn't. I got into my first house ($50K) with $1K of my own. Let's just say that the seller and the realtor were both very motivated. >>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. snip |