Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 2 Nov 2006 09:43 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eicnua$8qk_009(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <691d6$4548e447$4fe7703$17646(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> In article <8594c$45468e46$4fe716b$704(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <Lga1h.2227$s6.11(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >>>>> <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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Huh? I can't write that well. 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. >>>> >>>>By making this sort of accuation he's avoiding >>>>the issues. He didn't have a single point to >>>>make about the content of the post. And if >>>>one considers the content of his posting, it >>>>actually has nothing at all to do with what's >>>>above. >>>> >>>>If anyone deserves to be ignored, he does. >>> >>> >>> That's not a viable choice. When the US gets its Democrat for >>> President, s/he/it will think, talk and act like Eric portrays >>> in this discussion. That's the only reason I've stayed here so >>> long. >> >>You mean like Kerry and his latest debacle? > > > Exactly. I knew he didn't like to work. What was really > weird is that the speech was so familiar; he'ld given a similar > sentiment when he was running for an office in 1972. At least the > news here reported that one. He's using his anti-Nam speeches. > The Democrats are turning this election year into another Nam > political tactic; so now I'm concentrating on reading about that > era. So you choose to listen to somebody who isn't even running for office, as an excuse to indict the Democrats, rather than actually listening to what the actual candidates are saying. Like I said, you listen very selectively, and only hear the bits that support your pre-existing belief structure. Nice basis for choosing your leaders. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 2 Nov 2006 09:45 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eico3f$8qk_010(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <9A32h.25970$7I1.11001(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eia7p3$8qk_009(a)s880.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <Rvp1h.23508$e66.15121(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>><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, >>> >>> You may have been talking about an embargo. I wasn't. >> >>Don't try to weasel out of it. You brought this up as a national security >>issue. The only sense in which that is the case is if OPEC decides to >>undertake an embargo. Nice try. > > Have you considered the possibility that extremists gain control, > or destroy, the oil pumping infrastructure? OPEC has nothing to > do with it. >> >>In any case, your original demand that our politicians talk about building >>nuclear power plants will not help, until people have electric cars. And >>that ain't gonna happen until oil become uncompetitive. > > I am not talking about oil becoming uncompetitive. Yes, and in that case, people won't have the electric cars to make use of all those nuclear plants that you want to build. Focus. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 2 Nov 2006 09:47 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eicog6$8qk_012(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eiashg$drm$1(a)news-int2.gatech.edu>, > david.bostwick(a)chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) wrote: >>In article <5oshk217oi02qvuhp0g8vmbi3turugqrjg(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan > <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:33:26 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>><snip> >>>>>>You can't keep attributions straight, neither can you keep >>>>>>the people you're talking to straight. I never refused to >>>>>>read the article. All your arguments are similarly confused. >>>>> >>>>> Saddam killed well over a million. >>>> >>>>Evidence, please. >>>> >>>>Eric Lucas >>> >>>It's just interesting that the argument is about who is worse, Saddam >>>or Bush. Maybe we can compare between Hitler and Bush, too? >>> >>>Note: >>>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MOR20061029& > art >>>icleId=3618 >>> >>>Jon >> >>Godwin alert. > > Not really. It's a tactic that the Democrats started in the > House and the comparison is now used by the common people. > This is one sound byte that can be easily traced back. And as Godwin himself says, there *are* many valid comparisons to Hitler's tactics. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 2 Nov 2006 09:53 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eicori$8qk_013(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <Ht32h.25968$7I1.23695(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eia16e$8ss_008(a)s880.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <PDp1h.23510$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. >> >>Yes, as I thought, it is a red herring. That is use tax due on >>out-of-state >>purchases, calculated independent of a person's income. In no way is the >>amount of tax related to a person's income. Your lies are getting you >>nowhere. > > Did you read the instructions? In them is a precedent which > can be used to collect a VAT as a percentage of your income. > Just one little twitch of a rider on a bill in the state House > can change that into an additional income tax. It's been done > before. If you look at the form, go up a few lines and see > how we are allowed to "volunteer" to pay a higher income > tax rate. From the published instructions: "A 5% Massachusetts use tax is due on your taxable purchases of tangible personal property purchased for use in Massachusetts on which you did not pay Massachusetts sales or use tax." Nothing about income there. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 2 Nov 2006 09:56
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eicp5g$8qk_014(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <454952A9.54CB1E21(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >>It's a simple fact. >> >>USA 2003 $1.7 trillion. >>( $5666 per head of population ) >>http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358 >> >>UK NHS budget ?76.4 billion. >>( ? 1273 per head of population ) >>http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/PressReleases/PressReleasesNot > ices/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4127292&chk=HDOR9C >> >>And of course in the USA it's only those with health insurance who get >>proper >>treatment. > > Wrong. I have insurance. I have no access to treatment unless > I get "permission" from the primary care physician to whom I've > been assigned. If you are already ill with an untreatable disease > you have no access unless the PCP is cooperative. Mine isn't and > nobody will take new patients who are already ill. Yes, we know, the current US system is broken--it's what we've been saying. Please do try to focus. > That is why I'm trying to point out that having insurance is > not a guarantee you will get access to treatment when you need it. > The only thing our politicians are trying to do is to make > the insurance available to all from a single payer, the US > government. This will cause a decrease in access. Evidence, please. Eric Lucas |