Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Nov 2006 06:34 In article <4546F871.E7AD0EB5(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> Also compare the availability of goods and services in Europe >> and other places in the world to ours. > >What !!!! > >Are you being funny ? No, he's not. There are a lot of Europeans who come to the US to shop. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Nov 2006 06:36 In article <ei7q0p$t6a$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <6bc19$454692e6$4fe716b$813(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >>> In article <ei224n$8ss_004(a)s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>snip >> >>>>>What excuse is there for 1/20th of the world's population using 1/4 of the >>>>>world's energy production ? >> >>>>You forgot to include the last datum; the goods and services produced. >> >>> Our GDP is about the same as Europe's, which uses a lot less energy. >> >>There's much more that these few items to consider. >> >>What is our population density. > >So? Do people regularly travel hundreds of miles? Yes. > If so, something's wrong. The US is a large country. You might try looking at a globe. > >>What is the geographic size >>(distribution systems matter.) What are the weather patterns? >>Much of continental Europe has milder weather. > >Hello, Alps? Are your population centers located on the Alps? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Nov 2006 06:42 In article <PDp1h.23510$e66.6564(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"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. Go to Mass. DoR web site. Find Form 1. Look at line 33 of the 2005 year and its instructions. This is not a red herring but a big ugly rat. What works in Massachusetts' tax law usually shows up 5 years later in the Federal tax code. /BAH
From: unsettled on 1 Nov 2006 07:18 John Larkin wrote: > Some day I might try to teach people to think; maybe it can be done. If you understand "self taught" in the broad context then you'll see that thinking can't be taught by one person to another. Many misconstrue "process" for "thinking." The very heart of learning is discovery.
From: unsettled on 1 Nov 2006 07:19
Eeyore wrote: > > 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. Hoodwinked. Bwahahahahahaha. Never. |