Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Nov 2006 07:44 In article <5d1d4$454b8938$4fe77ae$1746(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <cAq2h.21305$TV3.15219(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:29d9e$454a2b92$4fe71d7$24986(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:5578b$454a10c6$49ecfab$24208(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I never said it wasn't....although strictly speaking, the 1970s embargo >>>>>just tightened supply, it didn't become "unavailable". It was the US >>>>>government's braindead decision to impose price controls that prevented >>>>>demand from matching the reduced supply through price increases, thereby >>>>>creating shortages. As others have pointed out, everywhere else that >>>>>allowed the price to float only experienced higher prices and as a >>>>>result, reduced consumption, not unavailability. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>The discussion you led us into has to do with >>>>>>can/can't happen. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Uh, no....please try to keep up. I was pointing out that if it does >>>>>happen it won't matter a whit if we've built hundreds of nuclear plants >>>>>or not, since we will not have the electric cars to make use of the >>>>>increased supply of electricity. >>>> >>>> >>>>In the US we have what can only be described as an overkill >>>>in residential electrical services. The minimum permitted >>>>these days is 100 Amps @ 240 volts. In fact, people are >>>>being forced to upgrade to that minimum by their homeowners >>>>insurance. >>> >>>This is a fairly small factor, since relatively little heating is done by >>>fuel oil--something like 5% of US households, >> >> >> I don't believe that. Gas lines aren't as common as electirc poles. > >He has no idea. There's no natural gas available where I live. >Much of the country doesn't have it. My son uses a heat pump >with resistive heat backup, and he lives in a densely populated >city which has no natural gas. > >>>and much of that in older >>>homes that can benefit from improved insulation, if the economic benefit is >>>there. The rest is domestically supplied--either natural gas or already >>>electric. Add to this the fact that much of the oil home heating will be >>>taken up by natural gas, since it is much cheaper in most markets. And add >>>to this the fact that it is in the summer, not the winter, that the electric >>>grid is stretched to anywhere near its limit. >> >> >> No, it's not. Ours is stretched in the winter too. If everybody >> goes to electric heating, there will black outs during the winter. >> >> >>>The need for more electric >>>plants to supply the increase in electric home heating would be minimal. >> >> >> Around here there oodles of oil delivery companies. So we must >> be all that 5%..which, of course, is nonsense. > >Much of the northeast depends on heating oil. Levittown NY and >similar densely populated regions are totally dependent on oil >for heat, both space heating as well as domestic HW which is >created using a coil immersed in the boiler. Those folks run >their boiler all year round. My Dad was anti-oil. He installed lots of conversion burners and new gas furnaces for homes. In that area gas lines were run. >>>>Automobiles form part of our consumption. There are many >>>>other uses, including significant industrial consumption. >>> >>>Much of that is raw materials for the petrochemical industry, which cannot >>>be replaced by nuclear power. Very little industrial heating is done by >>>fuel oil. Mostly it's natural gas, which is already a domestic supply. >> >> >> Most of the industrial heating my Dad put in was oil, not gas. This >> was pre-1970. But oil supplied better steam heat than gas...hmmm... >> I don't why. > >Pre-1970 there were fewer anti-pollution regulations, allowing >cheaper oil (higher sulphur content and bunker oil) to be >burned. Where large amounts are burned, it becomes very cost >effective. Such installations have scrubbers on them today. Oh, I see. I wonder if gas lines weren't run because these were manufacturing plants. Too easy blow themselves up? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Nov 2006 07:48 In article <454B7E9D.25908FBD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> 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. >> >> >> >> Sigh! That will happen unless steps are taken to prevent the >> >> mess. >> > >> >And the best way to avoid a 'mess' is for the USA to get its nose out of >> >stuff that it has no place interfering with. >> >> Would it have been OK with you if the US stopped containing Saddam and >> his excursions north and south? > >What excursions ? There weren't any after Gulf War I. Exactly. Everytime Saddam tried, the UK and US bombed him. Or have you forgotten all that? It was the UK and US spending money to keep him and his expansionism contained. > >I'll also point out to you that it wan't just the *USA* involved in that one - >nor even Gulf War II. I know that. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Nov 2006 07:50 In article <454B7EDF.F070F3B0(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Have you already forgotten the reason for the Arab Embargo ? >> >> Yes. I don't remember all the details. > >It was because of western backing of Israel. Sound familiar ? Truth is that >Israel is the number one messmaker in the region. Which action? WAs this the time when fUSSR almost gained control of whole air space over the Suez Canal? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Nov 2006 07:55 In article <454C1E11.8C3514AC(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> Eeyore distorts as only a Muslim can: >> > unsettled wrote: >> >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>Have you already forgotten the reason for the Arab Embargo ? >> >>>> >> >>>>Yes. I don't remember all the details. >> >>> >> >>>It was because of western backing of Israel. Sound familiar ? Truth is that >> >>>Israel is the number one messmaker in the region. >> >> >> >>Now I know for sure you're a displaced camel jockey. >> > >> > >> > And I know for sure that you haven't the tiniest clue about history. >> > >> > " The 1973 oil crisis first began on October 17, 1973 when the Organization of >> > Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC), consisting of the Arab members of >> > OPEC plus Egypt and Syria, announced as a result of the ongoing Yom Kippur War, >> > that they would no longer ship petroleum to nations that had supported Israel in >> > its conflict with Syria and Egypt. This included the United States and its allies >> > in Western Europe. " >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Oil_Embargo >> > >> > It's no secret what happened. >> >> It must be pathological stupidity with you. >> >> "The war began on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur with a surprise joint >> attack by Egypt and Syria crossing the cease-fire lines in the Sinai and >> Golan Heights, respectively" >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War >> >> So the arabs start another war, they lose, *again*, then >> in a fit of pique punish the US, and here some 30+ years >> later you're supporting the Arab posture? >> >> Pathological all right. You're a camel jockey all right! > >Did I say anywhere that it was 'fair' or 'equitable' ? > >I'm simply pointing out the factual reasons for the 1973 oil embargo. > >Do you want to rewrite history ? Now, think about an Islam decision that uses a similar tactic which involves a shutdown of all oil shipments. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Nov 2006 08:01
In article <fAI2h.515$Mw.135(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eifgj0$8qk_005(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <ZDn2h.3658$B31.603(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><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." >> >> Very good. Now continue reading the instructions. >> >>> >>> >>>Nothing about income there. >> >> Pay attention to the if clause. There is paragraph that says >> if you don't have records, you can opt to pay your out >> of state purchases sales tax as a percentage of your income. > >Yes, because your consumption is generally a certain percentage of your >income. In fact, this method is actually a *progressive* tax, because their >consumption is usually a much larger fraction of their income than it is for >the wealthy, yet they are taxed at the same percentage of their income. But >it is important to remember that the *rate* of taxation of consumption is >not dependent on your income, as you stated earlier. It's no worse or >better than any other sales tax. Wrong. It taxes people as if they had bought things even if they haven't spent their money. It is not a progressive tax; it is a regressive tax. It punishes everybody who saves their money instead of spending it. Consider people who retire and no longer spend lots of money. If their income is $50K from interest, dividends, capital sales and retirement plans, they will have to also pay a fictional sales tax even though they didn't buy anything that was taxable. /BAH |