Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Dec 2006 04:38 In article <el6el5$8qk_001(a)s867.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <el43p1$83n$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <el3o53$8qk_001(a)s881.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <45742DA0.41C26436(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: >>>>> >> >Ken Smith wrote: >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >> The so called "war on terror" has cost the US a great deal without >>>>> >> >> really yelding anything much as a result. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >You're kidding. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >It's yielded greater instability in the word and more hatred of the >>USA >>>( >>>>> >> >entirely justified this time ). >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >What sheer brilliance. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> You both have been blind. >>>>> > >>>>> >Come on then. Don't be shy. What's your opinion on the matter ? >>>>> >>>>> The sound bite "war on xxxx" was misused so often that, when >>>>> the real thing is happening, nobody pays attention. The fable >>>>> about the boy crying wolf has become reality. >>>> >>>>That wasn't quite what I meant but I can't really disgree with that >>>statement. >>>> >>>>To return to the original question. Do you feel this so-called 'war on >>>terror' >>>>has been useful or counter-productive ? >>> >>>It has been useful. Libya decided it would give up making >>>atom bombs in return for trade. Saudis are slowly emancipating >>>their women. >> >>Let's see, they can't drive, they can't go outdoors unless escorted by their >>husband or a male relative, they get punished for adultery and the man >>doesn't, their testimony in court is legally worth less than that of a man... >> >>If that's emancipation, I'd hate to see what you consider inequality! > >They are starting to get their driver's license. It will take >a half generation or so for the mindset to change. Wasting >50% of their resources by keeping them under cover is stupid. >This can only happen in a middle class mindset. I'm starting >to think about how Islam started out as middle-class and rather >ignored the working part. > > >> >>>Somalia is trying to sort itself out and seems >>>to be tottering towards trade rather than isolation. >> >>Just a nasty little civil war going on. > >You should watch what they're fighting about. It's about >their lifestyle. Every Muslim nation is going to go through >similar internal discussions. One the methods used to avoid >dealing with thorny issues is to point outside the borders >and say, "it's their fault". >> >>>A lot of Americans, who now have to remain mute, have had lessons >>>on what happens when politics and policies are left to >>>people who undermine the Constitution. These people have also >>>reexamined their priorities and threw the old ones out and >>>have a new list. >>> >>>Slowly, albeit too slowly, the public health departments are >>>back to doing their jobs and have started thinking about >>>how to manage a pandemic. >> >>Maybe if the same type of people who were appointed to head FEMA hadn't been >>appointed here... > >You keep missing the legal point that FEMA cannot do anything until >it is asked to come in and help by the governor of the state. > You right-wingers keep saying this, and it's no more true than any other of your mantras. >You really have to begin to realize that states are more >powerful than the federal because that is how our >Constitution has set things up. > >/BAH Supreme Law of the Land -- state law or federal?
From: Eeyore on 6 Dec 2006 10:22 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. Hardly. I came to that conclusion some considerable time ago based on a whole stack of things. In any case I pay next to no attention to what politicians have to say on the matter, whichever their persuasion and certainly don't give much credibility to purely US politics in that respect. > For some strange > reason, Carter is rearing his ugly head and trying to swing > towards ceding to Islam. No he isn't ! How about a cite here ? > I don't understand this one. The more > I read about his administration, the more convinced I get that > I should have been petrified. You're easily petrified it seems. Having thought quite long about these issues, I've concluded that much US reaction is based on fear of the unknown or unfamiliar actually and the typical US reaction is to try to stamp it out as a result. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Dec 2006 10:21 In article <1165411552.207590.59670(a)16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <1165332870.593782.314710(a)f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >> >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. > >But how did they buy the land and materials? They would each be more >than a median annual salary in the UK. Quick check residential land is >around �500k/acre locally here with minimum lot size of 1/20 acre >going for �30k. More in the SE less in the N. Each borrowed a chunk of money. They were married. One salary was used to pay off the loan, exclusively. One brother started with a small house and kept building larger and more elegant houses. He's tired of building and now buys a house, fixes it up, adds a pole barn, then sells and buys another one. The other brother is still at his original house. That brother is also "cheaper" than I am. <snip> >I don't know about US banks, but in the UK they charge borrowers at a >rate somewhat above the base rate of interest for home loans. Do US >banks really offer charity handouts? Some do. It depends on the area, the program, the bank, etc. A really good way to get low-interest loans is to join the Army. >> >> > 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. > >I assume no such thing. Although I have perhaps assumed that by house >you mean a properly engineered permanent structure and not some rickety >4x4 timber frame shed with OSB sheets roughly nailed to it and daubed >with paint. No bank here would approve that kind loan. That kind of structure would be declared unsafe and razed. > >> How does anybody get that 5% down payment (if you intend to borrow >> to buy)? > >If you can't save a 5% deposit in 3-4 years you are going to struggle >to pay off the remaining 95% in 25 years. > >> 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. > >OK lets play the game. I found the cheapest house that a quick UK >search gave me for �50k ($100k) it is in the middle of a war zone in >Salford. For that you get to buy a mid terraced house 2up 2down with >about 700sqft of interior living space on a 40'x14' plot. Those of you >familiar with Coronation Street will recognise the layout - a few of >them still survive. > >http://uk.propertyfinder.com/2/pf/property/details.do;jsessionid=98C9550E2F06 C63E671CDD2B775D2EE4?propertyDetailsKey=8764593&atn=ATN_GET_PROPERTY_DETAILS&= >(you get to buy the middle bit between the colour change and the white >drainpipe) > >Next cheapest in that patch was for �58k with armoured shutters on the >windows. And for about �80k you could buy one not located in a war >zone. I didn't know that England was having a civil war. /BAH
From: unsettled on 6 Dec 2006 10:30 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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. You're soundling more like dumb donkey Eeyore by the minute. I'll repeat this one last time. The data and, as well as the sources for the data, are all posted above in this very article. The expenditures as well as the sources are there if only you'll read them, think about them, and do the simple multiplication. When you stop making up things and participate as though you were a reasonable human being then perhaps there might be some grounds for discussion. Given your participation thus far has not met the minimum basic standards for rational discourse there's no need for me to continue with you.
From: unsettled on 6 Dec 2006 10:36
Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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. The point is, not everywhere. |