Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 6 Nov 2006 11:23 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:c5919$454f47b3$4fe747e$31082(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>In article <MPG.1fb72cfb22c0d81989a98(a)news.individual.net>, >>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <sfa3h.4932$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. > > > Please explain to me, exactly, how a population fewer and fewer of who > cannot afford to take care of their health contributes to a "stable economic > environment". I'm talking theory, you're talking implementation. If it were easy, anyone could govern effectively.
From: John Larkin on 6 Nov 2006 11:44 On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:58:18 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ein6vl$8qk_002(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[....] >>My state is going to have an all Democrat political system with >>no checks nor balances. The guy running for governor is promising >>to break the 2.5% property tax mandate, eliminating the high >>school graduation test, increase the income tax (against >>another taxpayer mandate), and somehow thinks that all this >>new tax income will create jobs. > >What is he going to spend the money on? If it is an improved >infrastructure, it is likely he is right. A lot of states have roads that >are in disrepair and have to live with railway level crossings on high >traffic roads. If the infrastucture issues have been a drag on industry, >it is very likely that increased taxes to pay for increased spending on >them is exactly what is needed. > > In California, we're being asked to approve a huge bond issue to repair infrastructure. The gas tax was supposed to maintain infrastructure, but for the last 30 years they've spent most of that money on other stuff. "Infrastructure" is a good catchword to sell tax increases (and they provide sufficient potholes to make the point) but don't vote that way unless the money is guaranteed to be used for roads and parks... otherwise it will go down the standard socialist ratholes. Luckily, businesses and jobs are mobile, so if any state or country goes over the line, the best people and companies will leave for places that make them a better offer. John
From: krw on 6 Nov 2006 11:56 In article <454F45E5.A494F123(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >The days of inheriting a bicycle shop that grew into > > > > >an airframe manufacturing enterprise are gone. > > > > > > > > No, it's not. > > > > > > Do please supply an appropriate example. > > > > Hewlett Packard, Apple, Mc$hit, Dell... Who knows where the next > > one will pop up. > > I don't believe any of the above were inherited though. What does that have to do with the price of oats...? -- Keith
From: krw on 6 Nov 2006 11:58 In article <GEI3h.6225$B31.4491(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > news:MPG.1fb90e071de0287c989aa6(a)news.individual.net... > > In article <454F423C.3B207DEE(a)hotmail.com>, > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >> > >> > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > >> > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > >The days of inheriting a bicycle shop that grew into > >> > >an airframe manufacturing enterprise are gone. > >> > > >> > No, it's not. > >> > >> Do please supply an appropriate example. > > > > Hewlett Packard, Apple, Mc$hit, Dell... Who knows where the next > > one will pop up. > > Not sure who you mean by "Mc$hit", Hoe about Mickey$haft? > but not one of those companies is < 30 years old. Neither are the Wrights. > How about some *recent* examples. We don't know who they are yet. > The business climate in this > country now is very, very different than it was in the 70s. It's really not all that different, except that the economy is *far* better. The '70s were horrid. -- Keith
From: krw on 6 Nov 2006 12:00
In article <XlI3h.6213$B31.2084(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > <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. In case you hadn't noticed, it's no longer the '80s. Things change and the infrastructure has deteriorated. > >>> 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. It wants to be everything else, why not? -- Keith |