Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 1 Nov 2006 02:04 John Larkin wrote: > What good are opinions if you acquire them pre-packaged? Terrell and JoeBloe should be able to answer that question ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Nov 2006 02:12 unsettled wrote: > MooseFET wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>Where there's national health insurance, which is universal > >>in any given country, where does the money come from? From > >>the unemployed, perhaps? > > > > > > It also comes from the employers but less money is required so the US > > employers who provide health insurance are placed at a disadvantage. > > In the US health care costs about 60% more than in Canada so US > > employers are at a disadvantage to that degree. > > > > There is some compensating advantage in that in Canada, you have to > > spend hugely on heating so your workers don't freeze to death on the > > shop floor. > > I really love this. You actually think you're getting > something for nothing. No. It's less expensive the 'socialist' way. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Nov 2006 02:14 unsettled wrote: > The facts you think you acquired from your formal education > aren't from "education" at all. Yeah right. Do continue. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Nov 2006 06:25 In article <ei56j9$3mf$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <ehv9me$8qk_001(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <1161872944.979802.222000(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>[....] >>>> Clinton's plans only dealt with Bin Laden? What about the other >>>> 99% of the extremists who intend to make mesess? >>> >>>This is simply false. >> >>Oh, you mean my comment about only Bin Laden. >>> >>>Things I can remember, off the top of my head, Clinton admin doing: >>> >>>(A) >>>The Counter-Terrorism Act of IIRC 1995 >> >>I don't remember that one. I'll check it out. Didn't that just >>provide some funding to put cement barriers around a few buildings? >>> >>>(B) >>>Conducted terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility. >> >>I don't believe that. From my recollection the embassies were >>checked and then nothing was done to fix the security problems >>in most of them; no funding was allowed. >>> >>>(C) >>>Pressed the Saudi government to reduce support for the Wahhabis. This >>>I remember because it was a near perfect failure. >> >>I don't call asking a government to reduce support for its brand >>of religion an effective action. That's spitting into a gale >>force wind with expectations that you'll hit the sidewalk >>a hundred miles away. >> >>> The Saudi government >>>had made a faustian bargain with the Wahhabiists and the US depended on >>>Saudi oil so much that there was no leaverage point. >> >>None of these are actions that addresses the problems as Clinton's >>stump speeches would have one believe. >> >>I'll ask again...if those plans were so good and so effective, why >>didn't _Clinton_ use them instead of now blaming Bush for not >>doing it? >> > >As was posted here, the confirmation from the FBI and CIA that bin Laden was >behind the Cole came right at the end of Clinton's term, so it was too late >for him to act on that. But plans had been drawn up and were left for Bush. It was not too late for him to act on the first WTC bombing. > >Clinton also never received a briefing that bin Laden was (1) "determined to >strike inside the US" and (2) might crash airplanes into buildings. Bush got >both. Why do you keep insisting that the only appropriate method of ensuring national security is to wait until something happens and then be in react mode? That is one sure way to get destroyed. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Nov 2006 06:29
In article <ei56p7$3mf$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <ehvga6$8qk_008(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <45433F9F.F6808F39(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> [Clinton] >>>> >(C) >>>> >Pressed the Saudi government to reduce support for the Wahhabis. This >>>> >I remember because it was a near perfect failure. >>>> >>>> I don't call asking a government to reduce support for its brand >>>> of religion an effective action. >>> >>>It's not *its brand of religion* at all ! >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabbi >>> >>>> That's spitting into a gale >>>> force wind with expectations that you'll hit the sidewalk >>>> a hundred miles away. >>> >>>How would you deal with it then ? >> >>I'd establish a nation with a capitalistic, representative democracy >>with a secular education system mandatory for all residents >>smack dab in the middle of that mess. >> >>/BAH > >And then what, leave and hope they like it? The people already like it. All they need is to be left alone, which Iran and Syria won't do, and get on with doing business. /BAH |