Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 6 Nov 2006 09:44 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <MPG.1fb72cfb22c0d81989a98(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >>In article <sfa3h.4932$B31.2443(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >>>"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >>>news:MPG.1fb684b3fd4ca419989a89(a)news.individual.net... >>> >>>>In article <GRH2h.485$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. >> >>Bullshit. >> > > > That is how the politically correct raionalized the change > of having health *insurance* from a benefit to a right. Even more than that, it is a major paradigm shift away from making the federal (US) government responsible for maintaining a stable economic environment.
From: lucasea on 6 Nov 2006 09:44 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ein7c1$8qk_004(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <kTb3h.1659$r12.387(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:oojpk2tg7e5iphjsl7qdafkucotg01m67q(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:59:10 +0000, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Expansionism ? What expansionism ? After we ( and the other allies ) >>>>kicked his >>>>troops back out of Kuwait he wasn't doing any expansion. >>> >>> It didn't get into the papers much, but there was a continuous >>> campaign of bombing and so on for many years after the Gulf War had >>> allegedly ended. To enforce the "no fly zone" mostly, I think. Look it >>> up. >> >>And none of that had anything to do with "expansionism". At worst, it >>*might* have been Saddam attacking his own citizens in the no-fly zones. >>However, based on the patterns of flights and such, I remember analysts at >>that time suggesting it was only Saddam thumbing his nose at Shrub Sr. > > This was during the time when Clinton was in office. Which was, coincidentally, the time that intervened between Gulf War I and 9/11. So what? Doesn't mean it was expansionism. Eric Lucas
From: Michael A. Terrell on 6 Nov 2006 09:48 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >A good stove can be 90% efficient. > > That's not good enough if you're burning wood. Its a lot higher efficiency than the huge fires they had for about six months after the last hurricanes here to dispose of all those Water Oaks that fell from the high winds. The wood was useless for construction, and a lot of the trees were diseased, so the county dug a multi-acre pit and kept dumping truckloads of green timber into the fire pit, till it was all gone. It was about two miles from me, so i spent a lot of time indoors, under the A/C so I could breathe. Some builders are removing the older native Water Oaks, and planting Live Oaks that have a deeper root system, and survive high winds better when they build new buildings. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: lucasea on 6 Nov 2006 09:48 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ein8p9$8qk_001(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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? And exactly why have we decided to act in such a way as to make those claims credible to many Middle Eastern Muslims? >>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? You might be more convincing in this statement if you were to stop blindly spouting the Republicans' fear-mongering talking points. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 6 Nov 2006 09:52
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ein93c$8qk_002(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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 >>>> |