Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MooseFET on 4 Nov 2006 12:10 Eeyore wrote: [.... Kerry ...] > I wasn't aware that he had committed to run. He hasn't closed the door on the idea of running. Very few politicians ever will do that. He also hasn't said he is running. They almost never say either until they have to. At this point in the 1992 election cycle, no-one had heard of Bill Clinton. You can't assume that it will be a person from the list of known actors. By this time next year, very few will remember Kerry's botched joke nor John Boehner's blaming of the troops. > > Given his apparent lack of 'charisma' he might actually make a better > vice-presidential candidate perhaps ? Is see others, Barack Oboma for example, doing better there. > > Graham
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 12:11 Eeyore wrote: > > T Wake wrote: > > >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>>>These restrictions may have to be dropped now that there is >>>>>online shopping available. >>>> >>>>There never have been any restrictions on what you can buy since rationing >>>>from WW2 ended in the 50s. >>> >>>It didn't end in the UK. Thatcher was still removing vestiges of >>>WWII price and labor controls when she was PM. >> >>Nonsense. Not to mention its been more than 15 years since she was PM. >> >>Seriously, do you exist in some Bizzaro world of 50 years ago? It would >>explain your reluctance to use a web browser on your otherwise capable PC. > > > Is there a DOS browser ? > > Graham google ascii browser
From: T Wake on 4 Nov 2006 12:11 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eii0gf$8ps_004(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <i5I2h.499$Mw.441(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eifeh1$8qk_004(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <4549E5F7.B1BC4A45(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> I listen to people and their stories rather than cite an >>>>> anonymous survey put out by the government. >>>> >>>>What 'anonymous survey' ? >>> >>> The government survey. It has removed all personal experience >>> out of the report. I used to keypunch these kinds of surveys >>> in college. The personal part is never included. >> >>Sure it is. "Are you satisfied with..." is a summary of all of those >>personal experiences. >> >> >>> surveys I keypunched was a study about retirement of faculty. >>> 50% were very bitter, a.k.a extremely unhappy. The prof >>> doing the study never read the margins of the questionaires. >>> He only did numerical analyses of the questions answered. >>> His preliminary results was the retirement program the college >>> had was acceptable until I mentioned that there were a lot of >>> people who were very bitter. >> >>Yeah, so? That bitterness is a good summary of those peoples' personal >>experiences. How does that invalidate the study? > > The conclusions from the data showed the opposite. >> >> >>> What counts with measuring the effectiveness of any social program >>> is the individual stories, not the cut and dried percentages >>> of service delivery counts. >> >>Then you'd better get prepared to listen to hundreds of millions of them, >>because one or two just won't cut it. > > It isn't just one or two. It is everyone I listened to plus > relatives of in-laws who needed the service. How many did you listen to? How many relatives? What percentage of the total did this reflect? How did you ensure your sample was representative and not just people with complaints? > The only ones > who thought Canada's medical system was wonderful were those > husbands who were very, very sick. How can you make a claim like this? Did you speak to _every_ one? You were the first to complain about the data sample methods and conclusions in the Lancet report, yet here you seem to be more than happy to weigh personal anecdote over data.
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 12:14 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:eihvrr$8ps_002(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <454B8A9B.7C879864(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>>That is why I'm trying to point out that having insurance is >>>>>>not a guarantee you will get access to treatment when you need it. >>>>>>The only thing our politicians are trying to do is to make >>>>>>the insurance available to all from a single payer, the US >>>>>>government. This will cause a decrease in access. >>>>> >>>>>How ? >>>> >>>>Doctors are also avoiding taking on new Medicare patients because >>>>they don't paid for the services delivered in a timely manner. I >>>>don't know how long the delay is now, but Dukakis years had a >>>>payment delay of 9 months to 2 years. That means that a >>>>pharmacist or a doctor had to wait that long before he got >>>>paid for a service he provided years before. >>> >>>So all you're doing here is criticising the failings of your current >>>system. >> >>Quite >> >>>so. It needs radical overhaul. >> >>To go to a single payer system implies an expansion of the Medicare >>system. So a national health insurer will not work well. > > > Why not? > > >>Congress even did something sensible and passed an extraordinary >>insurance. The youngsteres who ran AARP caused their subscribers >>to get it repealed. >> >> >> >>>It's rare here to find a doctor who *doesn't* do NHS work. >> >>Is his license tied to volunteering? > > > NHS work is not "volunteer" work. > > In the American lexicon, any work which pays less than the maximum going rate is "volunteering."
From: MooseFET on 4 Nov 2006 12:14
unsettled wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > In article <S8J2h.682$Mw.315(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, > > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > >>"MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message > >>news:1162566543.051602.226320(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > >> > >>>It is likely that he will give it a try. This week's comments were a > >>>botched joke. We already knew that Kerry can't tell a joke to save his > >>>life so in the long run it won't matter. What will matter is that he > >>>has already lost one election and it is likely that the voters will > >>>never forgive him for that. > >>> > >>>In the US they have things called "primaries" where the folks from the > >>>same party run against each other for the right to run in the general > >>>election. Kerry is not likely to come in above 4th place in the > >>>primaries where three people are running. > >> > >>Good lord, I hope not. > > > > > > I've been telling that the Democrat leadership are insane. > > It is an appeasement repeat taken from from Britain's > history at the early stages of WW1 and WW2. We can't > defend liberty by appeasing those who would end it. Are you suggesting that it was the Democrats that close the Prince Sultan Airbase? It was the republicans that did that. This along with the other blundering about on the world stage has made the US much less safe for the future. |