Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 2 Nov 2006 10:41 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > <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. The most important of the Dems have now distanced themselves from Kerry, at least for the election season. The Muslms should take a lesson.
From: Eeyore on 2 Nov 2006 10:42 MooseFET wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >Actually, yes, GDP includes things that are exported. > > > > One doesn't export intellectual property. It's not a thing. > > What a curious comment. Care to expand on it? BAH seems to think things other than *physical objects* can't be bought and sold ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 2 Nov 2006 10:43 unsettled wrote: > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > > And we're going to ram that tolerance down their throats? You whine about > > Muslims taking over the rest of the world and ramming their ideas down our > > throats. How do you think they feel about us taking over their country and > > ramming our ideals down their throats. Get a clue. > > Only the stupid hate it. Only *stupid ppl* hate having American values stuffed down their throats ? I guess that makes me stupid then ! Grahan
From: MooseFET on 2 Nov 2006 10:46 Eeyore wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > > > > >They seem to be doing better than the US with a lot less money for > > >health care. > > > > Could it be the drug costs that make this difference? > > Why do so may US medical practicioners prescibe expensive drugs when cheaper > generics are just as good for mnay things ? Imagine that a drug company comes up with a new drug called "Nopainatall". They send their field people out to talk to doctors an sell them on the advantages of Nopainatall. They have studies and graphs and all sorts of useful literature that calls the drug only by its brand name not the chemical name. This is where doctors get a lot of their information today. After a rah-rah peptalk, the doctor is all fired up about the advantages of the "new drug" http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/2005/Cheerleader-Drug-Sales28nov05.htm > It artificially inflates costs. That's not allowed in the NHS. My insurance company provides the doctors with a list of generics that they suggest be substituted. My doctor (at least) puts words to the effect of "or generic" into the computer when setting up a new drug for me. As a result I have a lower co-pay on my drugs. > > Graham
From: unsettled on 2 Nov 2006 10:48
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:3c732$4549ec30$4fe7336$23388(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I am not talking about oil becoming uncompetitive. I am talking >>>>about oil suddenly becoming unavailable. That should be a >>>>scenario considered by all heads of state, not just the US. >>> >>> >>>It's not going to happen short of nuclear war. >> >>You're obviously not old enough to personally >>remember the fuel crisis of the early 1970's. > > > First you say you're not talking about an embargo, Who are you talking about? Your imaginary conflation of two distinct individuals? > then as evidence that it will happen, Oil becoming unavailable by embargo is a historical fact. The discussion you led us into has to do with can/can't happen. Your argument has multiple disingenuois elements. I guess when you get on a roll you just can't stop. you point to an embargo. At least you could get your story > straight.... Idiot. |