Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 6 Dec 2006 09:28 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >> > > >> >Ever hear of the "peace dividend"? We weren't fighting the cold war > >> >anymore. > >> > >> And you swallowed the sound byte hook, line, and sinker. > > > >That's sound bite btw. I'm amused how it's been corrupted so quickly. > > It is "byte" if all you do is rely on Google for your facts. So you do have web access ? That's not what Google tells me ! http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=sound+bite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundbite > >> The cold war didn't just stop. > > > >Well actually, yes it did. Aside from N Korea I suppose. > > Afghanistan and the Taliban was caused by cold war skirmishes. It was certainly caused by Cold War stupidity ! > Somalia is a cold war side effect. Pass. I doubt you're right though. > Egypt was one. Egypt ? > Iran seems to be still playing with Cold War rules. Really ? Do explain. > And everybody > seems to forget about southeast Asia, India and China. What Cold War there ? India ??? !!! Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Dec 2006 09:26 In article <4576CE4D.B441DA24(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >vjp2.at(a)at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote: > >> Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security adviser.. on >> "Political Capital with Al Hunt," to air on Bloomberg Television.. Asked >> whether the U.S. should have to accept the reality of the Iranians obtaining >> nuclear weapons, he said, "I'm not entirely convinced they are really seeking >> them." The Iranian leadership is "seeking a comprehensive nuclear program" >> that would put the country in a position to produce nuclear weapons, >> Brzezinski said. [jmathewson(a)bloomberg.net November 24, 2006] > >I suspect that's quite an accurate analysis. You are swallowing Democrat sound bites again. For some strange reason, Carter is rearing his ugly head and trying to swing towards ceding to Islam. I don't understand this one. The more I read about his administration, the more convinced I get that I should have been petrified. /BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Dec 2006 04:34 In article <1d111$45762204$4fe7071$17421(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <dd9f8$45759abe$4fe71d5$13578(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>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 kind of house sells for $19,000? An outhouse? > >Nope. A clone of the one I bought for 15.5K but this one is >livable as it stands. 3/4 acre within city limits, across >the street two blocks are city owned and planted in pine >trees by generations of science classes in the local >school system. The house itself sits on a concrete wall >basement with a natural gas furnace and water heater and >a toilet in the basement. The first floor has a living room, >dining room, kitchen and full bathroom. As with all the >"company houses" built in the neighborhood ~95 years ago >it has 3 bedrooms upstairs. When I updated my version >4 doors up the block from this one I added a toilet >upstairs. > >Utilities available are municipal water & sewer, electric, >cable, telephone, and natural gas, with well maintained >paved streets. > >It is ~900 square feet on each of the three levels. > >If I remember to when I get back from my trip I'll >take front and rear photos of this non-outhouse and >post them. > >If I were currently looking for a place to live, this >one would be a really good deal except that as I age >I would probably get to hate the stairs to the >bedrooms. > > > In most areas, I suspect the land alone would be over $19,000.
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Dec 2006 04:36 In article <91c9d$4576229f$4fe7071$17421(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <37679$4575a55e$4fe71d5$13749(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <2e362$4574ab87$49ecf3a$7077(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <91fba$457234e0$4fe757d$18623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <64ec7$456a5c9b$4fe73b3$25547(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In article <ce8ce$45688adc$4fe7197$9197(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>>>>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>[....] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Actually it's even simpler -- your Medicare taxes are withheld >> >> every >> >>>>>>payday >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>and I assume for most businesses now, electronically sent to the >> >> IRS >> >>>>>>>>>with the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>push of a key. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>That key is likely to cost a penny. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Nope. You have to distribute IRS costs proportionally to >>>>>>>>>>>their destination. The Infrastructure, etc, isn't >>>>>>>>>>>free to some, and costly to others. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Huh? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Illustration, with inaccurate numbers and categories: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>IRS BUdget: 1 Billion US$ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Sent to states 10% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * >> >> 10% >> >>>>>>>>>Sent to medicare 17% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * >> >> 17% >> >>>>>>>>>Executive Branch 12% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * >> >> 12% >> >>>>>>>>>In the illustration, we'd have to add 17% of the total cost of >>>>>>>>>operating expenses of the IRS to the overhead incurred by Medicare. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Oh, I thought it was a new point. I had previously made that exact >> >> point >> >>>>>>>>when I said that the "button" likely cost something to push. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>That would start making the actual overhead for Medicare align with >>>>>>>>>the cost items reported by insurance companies. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I wonder if it would. How much money does the IRS spill in collecting >> >> it? >> >>>>>>>>I don't think it is a very large fraction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'll do out homework for us. LOL >>>>>>> >>>>>>>IRS budget for FY 2005 10.674 billion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>><www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/budget-brief-05.pdf> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>"Medicare will spend over $250 billion in 2004 on health care for >>>>>>>approximately 41 million senior and disabled citizens. " >>>>>>> >>>>>>><http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/archive/medicare_budget_FY04.shtml > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>2005 outlays total 2,472 billion >>>>>>> >>>>>>>http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>Learn a little about business and accounting before blathering >>>>>stupidly. >>>> >>>>Learn a little about making up numbers and how dishonest that is! >>> >>>Did you even look at the sources of the data? >>> >>>Obviously not. >>> >>>Now that's dishonesty. >> >> >> You cited none as to how much is spent collecting Medicare taxes. > >This is stupidity at its best. > >Do the math. Everything you need is in this posting. > > > Gee, let's assume the gov't uses 90% of its revenues to pay Medicare expenses. Then we can really make gov't look bad. I posted the data that's been published. You refuse to accept it because of your innate dislike for gov't. That's your problem. Grow up.
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Dec 2006 04:41
In article <el6g7m$8qk_005(a)s867.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <el4fqd$l1v$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <el442h$8ss_006(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <4575842D.9500EB(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: >>>>> >> 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 ! >>> >>>No, they weren't. Money was getting "saved" by stripping the >>>military funding. >> >>Ever hear of the "peace dividend"? We weren't fighting the cold war anymore. > >And you swallowed the sound byte hook, line, and sinker. >The cold war didn't just stop. There will be side effects for >a hundred years. The war we're fighting now is leftovers >from WWI and WWII that were put off for later. > >> >>>The social security chits were still getting >>>used. I don't remember the trade deficit ever going away. >>> >> >>No it wasn't. There was a budget surplus, period. Not figuring in social >>security. >> >>You know, there's this search tool called "google." > >You want me to find web pages that say the budget was balanced? >I don't have to google; I'm seeing it in this newsgroup. > >/BAH > > > So what do you believe, only Rush and Sean? What an idiot. |