Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Nov 2006 06:51 In article <62167$454e14f0$49ecf9b$23713(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <35729$454c971e$4fe7327$7959(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <I7I2h.500$Mw.369(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:eifeh1$8qk_004(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>What counts with measuring the effectiveness of any social program >>>>>>is the individual stories, not the cut and dried percentages >>>>>>of service delivery counts. >>>>> >>>>>And yet you prefer to believe impersonal books when learning about what >>>>>Islam is all about, instead of talking to actual Muslims. >>>> >>>> >>>>What do you suggest? I'm reading about their history. Am I >>>>supposed to wait until I can talk to those who are long dead >>>>before I learn about the history of that area? Islam >>>>did not keep history records other than who studied under whom. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Your hypocrisy on >>>>>this issue suggests that you don't intrinsically prefer one or the other >>>>>(anecdotes or data), but rather in any given situation, you just pick and >>>>>choose what you believe by how well it supports your assumptions and >>>>>preconceived notions. Nice. >>>> >>>> >>>>It's an odd behaviour where the very people who suffer a mental >>>>aberrration claim that their opposites have the problem. >>> >>>Unfortunately it is common on usenet, not so much in >>>realtime FtF. > >> Oh, no. This is not a usenet behaviour at all. Why do you >> think I'm participating? The Democrat leadership is doing the >> exact same thing and seems to be 100% successful at the >> redirection. > >I have yet to see it in raltime, especially FtF. Then you are not noticing how trends become trends. > >> I wish you would stop the namecalling bullshit. It's taking >> too long trying to find the cogent posts that I want to read. > >You probably ought to extend the same courtesy to a person >who is more on your team than not that you extend to the >idiots you're arguing with. You waste other people's time and ASCII bit storage. And it's boring to me. > > > As a result, I'm missing important stuff. > >Perhaps you should understand that to others this is a >hobby. In the case of this topic, it will kill them. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Nov 2006 07:07 In article <RRH3h.6197$B31.1642(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ein6vl$8qk_002(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >> My state is going to have an all Democrat political system with >> no checks nor balances. > >....and yet somehow you completely fail to see how unhealthy that has been >for the entire country. You do need to learn about Consitution. There are checks and balances working. /BAH
From: hill on 7 Nov 2006 07:11 Winfield Hill wrote: > > 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most of the posts were under the original subject title. This must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc.
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Nov 2006 07:09 In article <454FA606.6BE1BCE2(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > >> > My state is going to have an all Democrat political system with >> > no checks nor balances. >> >> ...and yet somehow you completely fail to see how unhealthy that has been >> for the entire country. > >She doesn't think that Republicans require any checks and balances. That's >what's really scary as they gradually dismantlke the provisions of the US >Constitution ! The Republicans do not have a voting majority in Congress. The have just enough of a majority to be chairpeople of committees and nothing else. The Democrats here are already measuring the new curtains. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Nov 2006 07:13
In article <einm2q$4me$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, 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? AFAICT, raising taxes. > If it is an improved >infrastructure, it is likely he is right. But these people don't spend the monies on infrastructure. It seems like everything gets dumped into the general fund which is a black hole. > 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. Before any taxes get increased, I want to see the current tax colletions spent on infrastructure. There is no evidence that new monies will be spent wisely. There is tons of evidence that it won't since these people don't use the current revenues for infrastructure. /BAH |