Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 19:28 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fb683e1f860803a989a88(a)news.individual.net... > In article <eifrsp$irb$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu > says... >> In article <eifgj0$8qk_005(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >In article <ZDn2h.3658$B31.603(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > <big snip> > >> >>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. >> > >> >> Sure, and for the IRS, you can estimate your sales tax deduction as a >> percentage of your income too. Nothing new there. > > IRS? "Sales tax deduction"? What drugs are you on? None. I've done it the last few years. You have to itemize in order to take advantage of it, though. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 19:29 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fb684b3fd4ca419989a89(a)news.individual.net... > In article <GRH2h.485$Mw.139(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:eifcgg$8qk_001(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> > >> > Yes, Medicare and Medicaid in the US. If these two programs which >> > are single payer don't work, why would making them be the only >> > insurance payer in the country work? For that matter, why should >> > we allow medical insurance payouts be a federal responsibility? That >> > is undermining our Constitution by transferring power to the federal >> > government rather than keeping it in each State. >> >> What part of "provide for the general welfare" do you not understand? > > Perhaps you want to read what the founding fathers thought it > meant. Hint: I has nothing to do with what we call "welfare". Yes, I know that. Its original meaning was the health of the people of the nation. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 19:33 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:454CBEC1.512631B8(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >> >>>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. >> > >> > >> > Eh ? Do explain what you mean. >> >> BAH explained it. You snipped the context and came back >> with this "Eeyore is stupid, please explain it again" >> thing you do all the time. >> >> The problem, simply stated, is that the way questions >> were asked in the poll prevented the people's actual >> feelings from being heard. > > How do you know this ? > > Divine Guidance ? No, it just disagrees with his/her preconceived notions of how the world *must* be, and therefore it *must* be wrong. >> I provided this book for you to read earlier in this >> thread. You need to educate yourself in such matters >> because based on your responses it is apparent you're >> not qualified to engage in the conversations you're >> embroiled in: >> >> _The Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in >> American Public Opinion Polls_ by George F. Bishop > > I'm aware of the potential for distortion by asking 'leading questions'. > > Do you have any evidence this was done in this poll ? Of course not. That would be actual data, which s/he refuses to discuss. Better to broadly dismiss all polls, than admit one that belies his/her twisted worldview. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 19:34 "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message news:1162657613.100498.94440(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > 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. > > Yes, you've been saying that, not that it has anything to do with the > posting you elected to reply to. > > You are, however, quite incorrect in this. The Democrat leadership is > quite sane and rational. This will be demonstrated after tuesday when > a wave of sanity sweeps through Washington. Let's hope so. Vote early, vote often, as they say. Eric Lucas
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 19:36
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:454CAD3B.FF177A12(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>But then they tout their "free" national health care. Heck, >>>they're too poor after paying all their taxes to be able >>>to afford much of anything, >> >>LOL. UK incomes aren't that much less than US. >> >> >> >>>and in the end they're paying >>>more for health care than we do, >> >>Let's see some numbers then ! I'm all for seeing a fair comparison ! > > > Don't hold your breath. Data preclude the emotional rhetoric that his type > use to avoid actually discussing data. You're an idiot. Data has been posted. I elected not to argue whether it is accurate or not. >>>but it isn't visible to >>>them because the money trail is through government. >> >>?76.4 bn according to recent figures. That's ?1273 per head of population. >> >>What are your numbers ? >> >>Can you get US comprehensive ( no exclusions ) medical insurance for $2418 >>regardless of age or medical history ? > > > Of course not. However, since his/her employer pays his/hers, all he knows > is it's free and if we were to nationalize, it would cost him/her a paltry > extra 4 % of his/her income. Such simple-minded thinking, along with the > attitude "I've got mine, go find your own somewhere else" is what keeps us > from adopting a realistic system of health care...that and the drug and > insurance lobbies, that plant such misanthropic thinking in peoples' heads > and panders to their basest selfish emotions. I am retired. I pay my own insurance. |