Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 6 Nov 2006 10:13 In article <454E9F43.D241BF58(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> The lesson was that if you cry wolf too many times, then nobody >> will believe you when there is something wrong. That lesson was lost on >> Bush and the Republicans...and their uncritical minions like you and BAH. > >Surely you mean 'cry WMD' or somesuch ? > >Who would ever believe them now ? In the past, the CIA and NSA were believed to be reliable. When the US said there were missiles in Cuba, everyone believed it. The US's enemies feared the CIA's ability to find them out. Now the US is feared as one might a rabid dog. A country of 300 million mostly intelligent and honorable people does not deserve to be brought so low in the eyes of the world. We can only hope that some good people step forward, as they have in the past, and turn the country back onto the right path. Goldwater was an extremist, but he was an honorable man when it mattered. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: lucasea on 6 Nov 2006 10:17 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eindeb$8qk_002(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <454F23F4.F28CDB32(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >>> The UK and US were spending tons of money to keep him in his cage. >> >>Your assertion only. > > You are hopeless. It is a fact. Much like the "fact" that you asserted that Massachusetts has repeatedly had blackouts since the 80s because of network overload? Bullshit--I lived in Massachusetts for a significant period of time since 1980, during some wicked-hot summers, and there was never once a blackout, or even rolling brownouts, while I was there. Not even close. >>> They were not reimbursed for that. >> >>And who would we be reimbursed by ? > > Sigh! The UN. IOW, the UN would collect the monies from its > members and pay the bill that the UK and US sent to the UN. So the UN has become a banker now? How odd. Eric
From: Ken Smith on 6 Nov 2006 10:21 In article <einbk7$8qk_007(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [.... wood burning stove ....] >>A good stove can be 90% efficient. > >That's not good enough if you're burning wood. I have an uncle who heats his house with wood only. Several of his neighbors also heat with wood. The trees are grown in a "managed wood lot" for fuel purpose. The wood costs less than other fuels even if you include the cost of felling and splitting. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: lucasea on 6 Nov 2006 10:21 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:lbOdnX8VM4DzptLYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:einbet$8qk_006(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <454DBACA.3CA76BD2(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>>> "Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote in >>>> message >>>> > Eeyore wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Why would anyone spend that much on a watch ? I can't figure it. >>>> >> Aside >>>> >> from bragging rights of course ! >>>> >> >>>> > you can't figure it out? why does that >>>> > not surprise me? >>>> >>>> Because not everybody in the world allows the cost of their possessions >>>> to >>>> define them as human beings? >>> >>>A film and sound editor acquaintance of mine who's worked in the USA said >>>he >>>couldn't live there long-term in part because he found the use of wealth >>>to >>>define yourself to be offensive. >> >> Then he didn't mix with the usual US types. He only saw a slice >> of US. > > Funny that isn't it. Just goes to show, you can get a totally false > impression of a nation and it's people simply by mixing with the wrong > types. > > Wonder where else that could be relevant. You really do need to stop being so subtle. It doesn't work on this particular audience. Eric Lucas
From: unsettled on 6 Nov 2006 10:31
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <n9duk29u8drj3219h96heic6vvt69detb8(a)4ax.com>, > Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: > >>On Mon, 06 Nov 06 12:16:44 GMT, the renowned jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>This is the first field test of governments trying to tax >>>internet transactions. If it works well in this state, >>>a similar tax law will become national. >>> >>>THINK! dammmit. >>> >>>/BAH >> >>AFAIUI, state governments in the US have long demanded payment of >>"equivalent to" sales taxes on things bought from companies with nexus >>in other states (by mail, internet or whatever). > > > Yup. That's why those extra lines on each catalog order form > exist. > > >>They have no way of >>enforcing it for individuals (so it is routinely ignored), but for >>companies who must have sales tax licenses the "use tax" on taxable >>items (typically on items that are not consumed in production) is >>easily enforced since records must be kept to deduct the cost or to >>calculate depreciation of capital cost on all corporate purchases. >> >>Here's some information from California: >> >>http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/usetaxreturn.htm >> >>They're just making it convenient by allowing you to report it on the >>IT return, if you're so inclined. I imagine compliance rates are very >>low. > > > Now imagine all that lovely data collected when people who buy > stuff use the store's discount card. This kind of buying > data is already getting collected by some states. You ain't > paranoid enough yet :-). > > >>This isn't so much "taxing the internet" but equalizing taxation >>between in and (completely) out-of-state businesses. > > > The advent of web pages have made the old ways of collecting > more difficult. In the future, unfortunately the near future, > all purchases are going to be done on the net. Either the states > find a way to tax purchases retroactively or they come up with > a general tax that is a guesstimate of would have been collected > through a sales tax. Internet purchases are generally done by credit card. It is an easy thing to force credit card companies into tax collectors. Oh there will be complaints and lawsuits, but in the end taxation always wins. >>It could only be >>widely enforced (for individuals) if states agreed between themselves >>to collect and remit taxes for other states. > That doesn't work. They are exchanging purchase data of who > bought what instead of collecting the money for the other > states. |