Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 25 Jan 2007 16:05 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: > >> > > >> >> I can't even guess the effects of no oil tankers delivering > >> >> oil for a couple of months. From Thatcher's book about her > >> >> government and the coal miners' strikes, England had about > >> >> 3 months reserve. > >> > > >> >Of *COAL* ! > >> > >> Yes, child. If no oil is delivered, then your country > >> will have to use its coal reserves. Right? > > > >Hey Granny, we don't have any coal reserves any more. We import coal now. > > > >The genius Thatcher saw to that by shutting the mines. Did she mention that > >in her book too ? > > Yes. She wanted to shut the ones that weren't productive and > were costing lots of money just to keep open. The unions > didn't agree and shut down all of them with their strikes. What Thatcher actually wanted to do was break the power of the unions. Instead she broke the British coal industry. > Unions never have thought long-term. They seem to be a damn sight better clued up about that than today's useless management ! Graham
From: Lloyd Parker on 25 Jan 2007 10:54 In article <45B8CE4B.DE00B4A2(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: >> > >> >> And what about judges who have a political agenda and are >> >> very willing to set bail so they can go about their mess-making >> >> plans? >> > >> >Excessively 'political' judges seem to be a uniquely US phenomenon. >> >> A lot of them are elected. > >Judges here aren't elected. We would shudder at the very idea. > >Graham > You should. We elect judges here in Georgia, and it's a real mess.
From: Eeyore on 25 Jan 2007 16:14 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >>Hey Granny, we don't have any coal reserves any more. We import coal now. > >> > >>The genius Thatcher saw to that by shutting the mines. Did she mention > >>that in her book too ? > > > > Yes. She wanted to shut the ones that weren't productive and > > were costing lots of money just to keep open. The unions > > didn't agree and shut down all of them with their strikes. > > Unions never have thought long-term. > > She lies with forked tongue there. Does she say what happened after the > strikes? I'm trying to remember the details. I do recall that those 'moderate' miners who set up a new union and kept working got shafted in the end. Another thought crossed my mind. There was indeed some 3 months or so of coal at pitheads and at power stations to keep the economy going back then ( carefully built up in advance IIRC ) . What would happen now in the event of an energy crisis ? Even the ultra-capitalist USA has a government stategic petroleum reserve ( now to be doubled it seems ). Such strategic thinking went clear over Thatcher's head. Graham
From: unsettled on 25 Jan 2007 18:18 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <6f37f$45b7d4b2$4fe74e1$20782(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> >>>In article <ep7plh$8qk_001(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[.....] >>> >>> >>>>Or the defense attorney produces a legal loophole. That's >>>>what happened in Italy. Now, I have not heard if Italy's >>>>legislatures (or whatever they call theirs) has plugged >>>>the loopholes. England's response was holding people for 30 days. >>>>This is not adequate. >>> >>> >>>These "loop holes" you see are the rights of defendants to a trial etc. >> >>Usually they're mistakes made by legislators when they're >>drafting a new law. >> >> >>>You are arguing that the government should be able to hold people without >>>cause for as long as the government chooses to do so. >> >>I haven't seen that. Has she actually said that? > > > She wants it to apply to others but not to herself but yes, she has said > that these things must be allowed. > > > >>Besides, they have probable cause sufficient to make the arrest, >>and that's not nothing usually. > > > "probable cause" allows an arrest but not prison for life or a death > sentence without a trial. This is what BAH has argued in favor of. > > >>>The terrorists have already won. You have given up everything >>>you hoped to defend. >> >>Not true either. Certainly not "everything." > > > Ok, I was being a little extreme. There may still be some apply pie left. > Mom and baseball have been sent to the prison camp. > > > >>I'd like to see a >>law under which a person is paid whatever their usual earnings >>are while they're incarcerated until they are convicted, including >>fringe benefits. That would move justice along much faster. > > > Something like that may be a good idea but I'm not sure that it would be a > good idea. If Bill Gates is accused of a crime, a city may worry too much > about losing the case. OJ Money talks.
From: unsettled on 25 Jan 2007 18:21
Ken Smith wrote: > In article <4b867$45b7d141$4fe74e1$20240(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> >>>In article <7539e$45b764bc$4fe7370$11158(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>[.....] >>> Begin loop >>>>Unless they're held under conditions not acceptable to some >>>>of our "friends" they'll continue with their program from >>>>jail. >>> >>> >>>This is simply false and I believe beneath you. >> >>For Christs sakes it has been done. The lawyer is in >>prison for being the carrier. Get a grip already. > > > You are the one who should get a grip. > > >>These people need to be held under conditions which don't >>allow any communication with the outside. That includes >>prevention of contact with randomly chosen or appointed >>lawyers and clergy. > > > How much are you willing to give up in the name of some so called safety? > All of it? end of loop. Loop back till you understand it. >>Your threshold of what constitutes torture and mine differ vastly. > I guess they must. Some of the terrorists think that sawing someones head > off while they are alive is just fine. I guess you would find friends > among them. Snide enough for usenet but absurd, of course. |