Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 30 Oct 2006 11:07 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ei4s9b$8qk_002(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ci1ak2lj6o2r74e8mrqsoerep3ck8mmm0c(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:57:10 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>>> You are only counting interruptions. YOu also need to include >>>> long-term effects. >>> >>>Yeah, and as much as you keep parroting that, you surely must be able to >>>come up with some *quantified* long-term effects. Hint: they're >>>minimal. >> >>The report _did_ include long term effects. If only jmfbahciv would >>read it. > > How can a report specify effects that haven't happened yet? Wait a minute. The attacks happened over 5 years ago. On the one hand, you're saying that the effects of such an attack are things like lost expertise--which happens instantly when the buildings fall...and on the other hand, you're saying that we haven't seen the long-term effects yet??? Where do you get off chastising other people for not thinking??? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 30 Oct 2006 11:09 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ei4sn1$8qk_005(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <3cb9f$45454f12$4fe7132$24830(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>> news:cb1d3$45452d8a$4fe72af$23817(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>snip >>>> >>>> >>>>>Nothing about annihilation of western civilization is amusing. >>>>>This is serious business and it will take another three massive >>>>>killings before the insane politicians are thrown out and >>>>>ones who are willing to deal with problem constructively are >>>>>put back in power. >>>> >>>>Those who persist in denying the announced and obvious >>>>end up driving the defensive system towards an eventual >>>>dictatorial authority. >>>> >>>>Hitler's Mein Kampf was not a secret. The agenda was >>>>mapped out in advance. Militant Islam has been advocating >>>>against the west for decades. Despite the protestations >>>>of some, it is a religion spread by violence and has been >>>>from the day that Mohammed decided he was heading up a >>>>new religion. >>>> >>>>If we look at British conduct in the face of Hitler's >>>>growing menace, we see the same sorts of appeasement >>>>as is being promoted in these related threads. In the >>>>case of Britain, they eventually put Churchill in >>>>charge. He was one of those "last choice" sorts of >>>>men that the appeasers disdained. They historically >>>>worked hard to derail him but there came a moment >>>>of truth when they were finally unable to deny the >>>>realities facing them any longer, and needed a >>>>strong man to drive them towards victory. By that >>>>time they were in trouble, so America was pulled >>>>into the fray, with its own dictator style president >>>>at the helm replaced eventually (after death) by a >>>>sleeper sort of a strong man who didn't hesitate to >>>>use the atomic bomb to end the Pacific war. >>>> >>>>How many today would have the nerve to actually use a >>>>nuclear weapon? Certainly none of the appeasers here >>>>want that to happen, but by their actions they're >>>>driving the system towards the point where other >>>>options will cease to exist. >>>> >>>>Unfortunately, with the sorts of "good human beings" >>>>we're encountering in this newsgroup, we'll probably >>>>evenually get to the point where we'll have to use >>>>our own final solution to the problem by using nukes. >>>> >>>>History has taught us that it is a much smaller mess >>>>if you take care of business and protect yourself >>>>early in the game, rather than late. Keep on ignoring >>>>all of history folks. I'll be investing in uranium >>>>futures. >>> >>> >>> BAH--this is a new low for you. Self-congratulation and attacking other >>> posters by using another screen name. >> >>Follow that lemming! > > Exactly. It is the lemming myth coming true. I keep wondering > if this isn't what happened with Tower of Babel. Then I think > about the net and its global access. I've thousands of > hypotheses and have thrown out most of them. A mutual admiration society in which you congratulate yourself under a second alias. You will assume any posture just to avoid the facts of what is really going on. I don't know how to deal with this kind of insanity. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 30 Oct 2006 11:12 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ei4t4d$8qk_006(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4544E33A.555EF3DA(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> You people are not thinking! Scenario: oil imports stop. >>> >>> >>> >>>So who's going to be buying the oil instead of the USA ? Where did >>> >>>the > oil >>> go ? >>> >> >>> >> If production hasn't been stopped, China, India, and parts of Europe >>> >> in exchange for capitulation. >>> >> >>> >> /BAH >>> > >>> >They're suddenly going to increase their oil consumption by over a >>> >factor > of >>> >10??? >>> >>> They already have. It's going to be more. >> >>Not ten times more though is it ? And not 'overnight' either. > > In economic terms, it will be overnight. Nice smokescreen. We were talking about an oil embargo, which happens overnight in *actual* terms. You implied that China is going to soak up the extra oil consumption, but it will not happen to allow the OPEC nations to keep from going bankrupt. Please try to focus and stay on point--defending your wacko theories by trying to shift the discussion is a very disingenuous arguing tactic...although it is what the Bush administration has been doing for 6 years. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 30 Oct 2006 11:21 "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message news:1162219707.131372.172210(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <1162139745.736188.86580(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> In article <1161875197.735056.288140(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, >> >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > [....] >> >> The latest edict is forcing everybody to have >> >> medical insurance; if you don't the rumor is that income >> >> tax penalties will be imposed. >> > >> >The state pays for hospitals etc for those who can't pay. They don't >> >want those who can't pay dieing in the streets so they have to fund >> >their medical needs. There are some people who can afford to pay for >> >their own health care who choose to spunge off the system. To >> >discourage this, they are making those who can affort to have >> >insurance, but refuse to get it, pay a little extra towards the care of >> >those who can't afford it. It is a completely rational thing to do if >> >you have the state paying for those who can't. >> > >> >If you don't do this you must either cut off the medical care to the >> >poor or spread the cost of it evenly between the responsible and >> >irresponsible. Neither of these options is better than the one taken. >> >> Massachusetts implemented this with car insurance. It is a mess >> and people are trying to get rid of it. > > Massachusetts sets the insurance rates for autos. This includes > mandated increases for speeders etc. The change will be to remove this > requirement not to remove the requirement to have insurance. You will > still be required to be responsible. If you drive a car you have to be > prepared to pay if you cause an accident. Agreed. The biggest insurance problem in Massachusetts, at least while I was living there, was no-fault insurance. It removes any consequences for bad driving. Every state in this nation that has it, has a complete nightmare on its roads, especially in the cities. If you make people responsible for their bad driving, they tend not to become such bad drivers. >> They did this with sales >> tax and nobody, absolutely nobody, has complained. Think about >> a sales tax which is tied to your income level. I suspect, since >> nobody bitched, these Democrats have done the same thing with >> medical insurance. Exactly how does the cash register know how much you earn when it rings up the sales tax on that gallon of milk you just bought? Me smells a red herring. Eric Lucas
From: John Larkin on 30 Oct 2006 15:28
On 26 Oct 2006 18:55:25 -0700, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >John Larkin wrote: >> On 24 Oct 2006 07:40:55 -0700, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> >> >> >The nuclear power industry has a history of making false promices and >> >screwing up badly. As a result the idea of making a new power plant >> >isn't very popular. Strangley enough research into the theory that >> >makes them go is still fairly popular. This may be a good thing >> >because a "new generation of safe power plants" may just sell. >> >> Current-gen boiling water plants have been remarkably safe. I don't >> think a single person has been killed by nuclear radiation from a US >> commercial power plant; > >There have been some killed in other was in the commercial reactors and >some killed by radiation in noncommerical but I think you are right >about that. > >There is however the argument that jumping out of the tenth floor of a >building appears safer than jumping out of the 5 floor for a little >more than one second. The waste made by the current reactors will be >around and dangerous for quite a while and if that waste causes deaths, >they would have to be counted. The waste problem is easily solvable. It's being used as a political choke point to stop reactor construction. There's a whole lot more waste left over from bomb programs than there is from commercial nukes, and that has to be dealt with some day. > >> TMI was estimated to have caused something >> like 0.05 probable cancers. > >I believe that the number was much higher than that but still not very >significant. > >>Compare that to the deaths on oil rigs and >> coal mines. The real deaths from nuclear plants is among uranium >> miners. ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ >> >> Nukes just have an undeserved bad reputation among the public. > >They got the reputation because of the over promicing and bad >management. The reactor designs are said to be quite good (not as good >as advertized) but the construction was managed badly and the >maintainance wasn't good enough. As a result the plants tend to cost a >lot and go off line at bad times. > >If you are going to speak of coal mines, you need to also include >uranium mining. I did. John |