Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Nov 2006 07:11 In article <zNSdnSXXb4_BIdHYnZ2dnUVZ8sydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eii2j7$8nc_004(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> 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. > >Ok. I have thought about possible Islamic decisions which would use similar >tactics and dismissed them all as either idiotic or ineffective. Then you have made a serious error in judgement. >First >though, I though about which "Islam" could make such a decision. If this conflict becomes a war against Islam, all factions will cooperate with each other temporarily. Why do you think Al Queda is trying to make this a war against Islam? >I have also >though about the fact that there are non-Islamic countries which produce >oil. I am sure most OPEC nations would baulk at bankrupting themselves just >to reduce the oil they export to the west. You keep assuming that the goal to make Western civilization money will always exist. If there is no Western trade infrastructure, there will not be, what we know of, as money. Therefore, bankruptcy, as a figment of western civilzation, will not exist. Acquisitions through the booty system is a part of their tradition of expansionism. > >Unsettled is talking nonsense and creating more strawmen than usual here. >Siding with him on this does your argument no good. Will you get it through your head that I am not siding with anybody except myself? It is not my thinking style that I first have to pick a side and then find reasons to support it; I work the exact opposite. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Nov 2006 07:16 In article <uo83h.4309$9v5.64(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eii2uj$8nc_005(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <fAI2h.515$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 >>
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Nov 2006 07:35 In article <d1417$454c9f01$4fe7327$8157(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <454B8CBB.216F8FE1(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >snip > >>>>What do they really cost? >>> >>>I've no idea. Usually more but not always since the NHS >>>makes extensive use of >>>generics which they ( and the pharmacists ) can buy in >>>bulk and get a good price on. > >> This means that you don't have access to any improved drugs. >> The patent period, IRRC, in the US is 20 years. With your >> drug plan, you have to use 20-year old medical drug technology. > >Interestingly people like Eeyore also tend to believe that >new drugs are simply riped off older drugs, so all is well >in their little world. That is what they are told. You are missing the most important points by being in your name-calling mode of thinking. Why do you think I'm yelling at you about this bad habit of yours? You spend your thinking and writing time immersed in a pissing contest rather than spending all that energy and CPU cycles on the REAL problems. Democrats love people like you because this kind of dialogue keeps ALL people from thinking twice. > >>>>From what >>>>I've read about UK social programs a lot of real costs are hidden >>>>because a lot is subsidized. > >>>That's the whole point. If your drugs cost say ?200 you still only pay ?6.50. >>>This means good health care is affordable for all regardless of income. > >> So who is paying for the rest of the cost? $200-$6.50=$193.50 >> (I don't have a pound sign so I'll use dollars). > >The public, of course. No. The public doesn't have any money. So industry, the seed corn of any thriving nation, has to turn over monies to the government that they would have used to make more plants or ideas or stuff; so wealth eventually stops coming into and getting produced by country. > >>>The appointment with the doctor or consultant is free of course since they're >>>employed by the NHS ( actually these days the local Primary Care Trust ). > >> Just because you don't pay for it does not mean there are no costs >> for that delivery of service. Somebody is paying for suppplies, >> labor, footprint, cleaning, disposing, etc. > >But to a socialist, whatever isn't obviously visible to them >doesn't exist. And it's not supposed to. Handing off that kind of PITA work to somebody else is very nice. The problem is that a socialist ecnomic system isn't competitive and gradually becomes stodgy and non-productive. This is why capitalism works; it keeps people out of the rut and encourages new ideas, innovations, and production. >Must have something to do with Europe's >"brain drain" of recent decades. Not any more in the computer biz area. They are breeding their brightest with encouragement and not depending on outside sources to do this work. > >When you check out UK's total tax structure the inefficiencies >become obvious. Sales tax alone is 17%, they call it VAT. We, >in the US, would consider their annual taxes on automobiles >outrageous, especially when coupled to their absurd gasoline >taxes. > >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, and in the end they're paying >more for health care than we do, but it isn't visible to >them because the money trail is through government. What is more important is that they are losing capable people in that biz. THe US is now doing the same. When people who train for their profession for 8 years cannot make enough to live comfortably on 40 hours/week work, they find other work where they can. That is how middle class works. > >Talk about pollution? I smelled coal fires in a residential >district in August 2002. I haven't smelled coal in the US >in residential use since the 1950's. BAH you asked about >pollution and wood fireplaces? They don't have much wood >left in UK, but they do have plenty of coal They aren't >bashful about burning it without pollution controls. I was sanding a board outside yesterday. The air was thick with wood smoke. I immediately got a sore throat which I do when breathing wood smoke. I'm going to have another winter of constant sore throats. Now, take a good look at what happened in Britain w.r.t. coal and miners and strikes. Use it as an analogy when making a premise that a similar event will happen with the oil biz. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Nov 2006 07:37 In article <454CA66D.FCA3C05B(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> Interestingly people like Eeyore also tend to believe that >> new drugs are simply riped off older drugs, so all is well >> in their little world. > >*Some* of them are. You are talking about a tactic that drug companies so that they can keep their patent for longer than 20 years. This does not happen to all drugs. This is a very recent response to companies not recouping their investments for producing one drug. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Nov 2006 07:45
In article <454DEB98.2DABA809(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Popular restaurants here include Chinese, Indian, Italian, Spanish, Greek, >> >Turkish, Thai, Japanese, French, Moroccan etc etc ..... There's even Swedish >> >foodavailable ( at Ikea ! ) and you can find Swiss cooking !!! of all things >> at >> >the Swiss Cente in London. More 'exotic' eating out ( rather fewer restaurants >> ) >> >include Russian and Hungarian. >> >> What?! No Mexican food? > >I dare say you can find it but I'm not very keen on especially hot food so I >woundn't bother myself. Oh, you can cook so it's not hot; I'm a wimp myself. > >Also bear in mind that the food available will tend to reflect the immigrant >population and I'm not aware of many Mexicans here ! > >Much Spanish food is similar of course. I don't think it is similar. There used to be a Hungarian restaurant here. It was good. They had marvelous red wines. /BAH |