Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #27032 > unrolled thread

OT: ObamaCare vs. Google

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-11-28 07:21 -0500
    Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-28 04:45 -0800
    Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-28 05:00 -0800
      Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-11-28 06:50 -0800
      Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-11-28 09:38 -0600
        Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-11-28 07:53 -1000
          Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2013-11-29 09:06 -0500
            Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-11-29 08:13 -0600
        Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-11-28 20:24 -0500
          Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-11-28 18:47 -1000
            Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-11-29 09:54 -0500
            Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-11 12:40 -0500
              Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-11 08:23 -1000
                Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Spam@ControlQ.com - 2013-12-11 13:38 -0500
                Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-12-11 18:42 +0000
                  Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-12 02:38 -0800
          Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-11-29 03:34 -0600
            Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-11-29 08:49 -0500
              Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-11-29 08:34 -0600
                Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-11-30 18:03 +0000
                  Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-11-30 18:06 -0800
                    Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-12-01 03:09 +0000
                      Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-11-30 22:32 -0800
                        Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2013-11-30 21:26 -1000
                          Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-12-01 08:53 +0000
                            Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-01 17:16 -0800
                          Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-01 17:13 -0800
                Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2013-11-30 17:50 -0500
                  Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-01 03:32 -0600
                    Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2013-12-01 05:34 -0500
                      Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-12-01 21:36 +0000
                        Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2013-12-02 05:23 -0500
                          Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-12-02 20:58 +0100
                            Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-02 19:24 -0800
                              Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-12-03 09:23 +0000
                                Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-03 02:09 -0800
                        Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-02 19:02 -0800
                        Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-02 19:04 -0800
                      Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-02 00:42 -0800
                      Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-02 03:13 -0600
                      Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-02 19:26 -0800
          Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2013-12-02 12:10 +0100
            Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-02 05:35 -0600
              Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2013-12-02 13:40 +0100
                Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-02 06:22 -0800
            Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-12-02 20:34 +0100
              Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-02 19:28 -0800
              Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-03 02:10 -0800
                Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-12-03 14:26 +0100
                  Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-03 06:58 -0800
                    Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-12-03 17:31 +0100
            Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-03 02:34 -0800
              Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-03 03:44 -0800
                Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2013-12-03 11:51 -0800
                  Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2013-12-03 14:09 -0800
                    Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-04 21:30 -0800
                      Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2013-12-05 04:07 -0800
                        Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <notagoodone@invalid.org.invalid> - 2013-12-11 17:05 +0000
                        Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-12 02:40 -0800
                  Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-03 12:39 -1000
                    Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-04 21:32 -0800
                  Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-04 02:07 -0800
                    Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-04 21:35 -0800
          Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <notagoodone@invalid.org.invalid> - 2013-12-11 16:59 +0000
            Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-12 02:43 -0800
        Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-11-30 18:04 -0800
      Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-11-28 20:29 -0500
        Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-07 22:01 -0800
    Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-28 05:06 -0800
      Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-11-28 06:51 -0800
    Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-28 05:11 -0800
    Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-11-28 06:47 -0800
    Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google mhx@iae.nl - 2013-11-28 10:50 -0800
      Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-28 15:36 -0800
        Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-11-30 18:08 -0800
      Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2013-11-29 09:33 +0100
        Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-01 16:56 -1000
    Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-05 05:25 -0800
      Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-07 22:04 -0800

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#27074

well americans simply have proven all you commies wrong again and again and it hurts badly doesnt it?

unregulated capitalism is way better at creating riches for all people than any insane socialist mousetrap 

usa should not seek to copy failed economies of europe or the orient

usa is in ascendence and as soon as barak and the commies here are booted in 2014 and 2016 we will get back to ron reagan real growith

ask peter schiff
tom woods
john allison on youtube!!!

you patheric commy economies with 2 foot long smart cars suck ass!!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27077

In article <53607ea9-ca84-4950-a45c-076f1ca440be@googlegroups.com>,
the_gavino_himself  <visphatesjava@gmail.com> wrote:
>well americans simply have proven all you commies wrong again and again
>and it hurts badly doesnt it?

A very strange thing to say,while we are witnessing what could well be
the total and final collapse of the capitalist system.
Some of c.l.f are maybe a bit strange but intelligent (Hugh).
You're just plain stupid.

Its like insisting on the term "das Tausendjaehrige Reich" while the
Russians are at the outskirts of Berlin.

Groetjes Albert

Sorry, couldn't resist. At least this thread is marked OT.
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27078

total collapse of the capitalist system??

where?

all the problems in USA are due to government spending

reduce that 95% and never be any problems

bailouts for banks are all government since 1913 when financial system was taken over by government

welfare state? government

reduce gov spending and end foriegn wars and business cycle is gone and have continual growth


youtube john allison
peter schiff
tom woods

hek ayn rand and milton friedman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27079

On 11/30/2013 8:32 PM, the_gavino_himself wrote:
> total collapse of the capitalist system??
>
> where?
>
> all the problems in USA are due to government spending
>
> reduce that 95% and never be any problems
>
> bailouts for banks are all government since 1913 when financial system was taken over by government
>
> welfare state? government
>
> reduce gov spending and end foriegn wars and business cycle is gone and have continual growth

All theory, no history or facts.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27080

on 01/12/2013 07:26:15, Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
> On 11/30/2013 8:32 PM, the_gavino_himself wrote:
>> total collapse of the capitalist system??
>>
>> where?
>>
>> all the problems in USA are due to government spending
>>
>> reduce that 95% and never be any problems
>>
>> bailouts for banks are all government since 1913 when financial system was taken over 
by government
>>
>> welfare state? government
>>
>> reduce gov spending and end foriegn wars and business cycle is gone and have 
continual growth
> 
> All theory, no history or facts.
> 
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth
> 

Gavino specialises in economic theory; his major was in economics, but he
never managed to get a job in the field.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27088

Economics helps in all fields.
Especially computing.
Where I earn a handsome living.
:)
remember marx and keyensian econmis are simply bad political science.

austrian school economics IS economics

onyl by government funding schools and controlling schools and governmetn body like fed do you employ any other kind of economist..

Remember bernanke and 1000 phd from gov grant funded ivy schools all FAILED to stop 2008

mainly because they CAUSED it by clintons and braney franks freddy fanny house loan crisis


no gov $$

no mortgage backed security 

no 2008

its that simple 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27087

on the contrary

tom woods is harvard based hostorian

john allison sat in on the bailout talks and as ceo of huge fund experienced first hand the government and said b4 it happened its mathematically proven bubble will burst and ti did!!

peter schiff is only economist to predict the crash!!

BAM!!!!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27072

On 11/29/13 9:34 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote:
>
>> Nearly every black man who dies due to gun violence in an urban
>> environment is killed by a racist, nearly all of whom are black...
>
> I was wondering how long it'd be before you played the race card.

I question why you decide to say Rod is "playing some sort of card". 
Wouldn't it be better to instead talk about facts to back up *your* 
position?  Or if you think *his* facts are inaccurate to point that out 
and how they are inaccurate?  That seems like a calmer approach.

Some facts with sources:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-04-10/trayvon-martin-black-murder-victims/54135730/1

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl06.xls

-Doug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27081

Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/13 9:34 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote:
>>
>>> Nearly every black man who dies due to gun violence in an urban
>>> environment is killed by a racist, nearly all of whom are black...
>>
>> I was wondering how long it'd be before you played the race card.
> 
> I question why you decide to say Rod is "playing some sort of card".

Of course the USA has problems that deserve serious attention, but to
bring up race in this context is a rather lame debating trick that
serves only to enflame arguments and divert attention from the issues.
And, IMO, to blame the people at the bottom for their own misfortune;
another fairly typical right-wing tactic.

> Wouldn't it be better to instead talk about facts to back up *your*
> position?  Or if you think *his* facts are inaccurate to point that
> out and how they are inaccurate?  That seems like a calmer approach.

I composed a detailed reply to his points and was about to post it
when I got to the sting in the tail.  I then deleted my reply.  I am
not going to spend my time arguing on Usenet with an anonymous racist.
Let him drown in his own bile.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27082

On 12/1/13 4:32 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:

> Of course the USA has problems that deserve serious attention, but to
> bring up race in this context is a rather lame debating trick that
> serves only to enflame arguments and divert attention from the issues.
> And, IMO, to blame the people at the bottom for their own misfortune;
> another fairly typical right-wing tactic.

I don't think he blamed anyone for anything, except those who are 
murdering people.  Black on black violence is a sad but real and serious 
problem here.  The life expectancy of young black males is disturbingly 
low.  Life expectancy is not a diversion but is directly on topic.


> I am
> not going to spend my time arguing on Usenet with an anonymous racist.
> Let him drown in his own bile.

Rod's posting style is blunt and direct, that's true.  But there is 
little question about what he is saying.  I didn't see anything that 
would cause me to label him as a racist.

The liberal tactic when losing an argument, which always happens because 
liberal ideology is based on emotion, not facts and logic, liberals 
resort to name calling and demonization.  We see that repeatedly here in 
the US.  Of course I'm sure *you* would never do this.

-Doug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27085

on 01/12/2013 10:34:01, Doug Hoffman wrote:
> On 12/1/13 4:32 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> 
>> Of course the USA has problems that deserve serious attention, but to
>> bring up race in this context is a rather lame debating trick that
>> serves only to enflame arguments and divert attention from the issues.
>> And, IMO, to blame the people at the bottom for their own misfortune;
>> another fairly typical right-wing tactic.
> 
> I don't think he blamed anyone for anything, except those who are
> murdering people. Black on black violence is a sad but real and
> serious problem here. The life expectancy of young black males is
> disturbingly low. Life expectancy is not a diversion but is directly
> on topic.
> 
> 
>> I am
>> not going to spend my time arguing on Usenet with an anonymous racist.
>> Let him drown in his own bile.
> 
> Rod's posting style is blunt and direct, that's true.  But there is
> little question about what he is saying.  I didn't see anything that
> would cause me to label him as a racist.
> 
> The liberal tactic when losing an argument, which always happens
> because liberal ideology is based on emotion, not facts and logic,
> liberals resort to name calling and demonization. We see that
> repeatedly here in the US. Of course I'm sure *you* would never do
> this.
> 

Neat; it's the kind of argument you can't really argue with. Is it a tea
party technique? 

Of couse, I'm not suggesting that *you* are one. 


> -Doug
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27094

On 12/1/13 4:36 PM, Alex McDonald wrote:

> Neat; it's the kind of argument you can't really argue with. Is it a tea
> party technique?

I have no idea.  It's just an observed pattern of behavior.  If you look 
for it you will see it for yourself.

> Of couse, I'm not suggesting that *you* are one.

Feel free to do so.  I would be proud to be labelled as aligned with 
their core beliefs, most of which are:

- smaller and less intrusive government
- reducing taxes
- adherence to the Constitution and Bill of Rights
- the individual's freedom and freedom of choice is paramount
- balance the budget and reduce/eliminate the debt
- free market capitalism is the best road to prosperity for *all*
- maintain a strong military (peace through strength)
- immigration must be legal
- encourage a strong family unit (it is currently disintegrating)
- encourage self reliance, not dependency on the state
- help those who are truly in need (compassion)

-Doug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27105

Doug Hoffman wrote:
> - balance the budget and reduce/eliminate the debt
> - maintain a strong military (peace through strength)

If you believe those two things together, you are a typical believer: You 
don't see how your system is self-contradicting. This is about 20% of the 
total government spending - and you spent more money on defense as the next 
10 nations *together* (several of them are your allies, and the two of them 
who aren't are only local players today, far away from threatening you).  If 
you would cut your offense expenses to something reasonable, so that they 
can be called "defense expenses", you would be almost debt-free.  Yes, it 
costs the jobs of many people and the wealth of their bosses who pay a lot 
of campaign support to keep wars going, therefore, it won't happen.

But this is something an intelligent citizen should know. At least know, 
even though it can't be helped.

The same with your health system: The US already spends about as much public 
money (percentage of GDP) for the health care as Germany.  But while in 
German, this supports 80% of the total costs, in the US, it supports less 
than half.  So how's your capitalist system working?  It isn't.  You can see 
why if you do a little theory: What's the necessity of a treatment if you 
are really ill? It is "no matter what it costs", which means "all the money 
you have".  Therefore, in a free market economy, the price will reach 
exactly this limit; we call that "perfect elastic demand".

Of course, when Obama wants to install a system that reaches the level of 
gross inefficiency we have in Germany (i.e. only half of the absolutely 
absurd inefficiency of the US system), riots will break out, because a lot 
of really wealthy doctors will have to sell their third villa.

So what you are believing is for the benefit of others, not for your own.  
This is not about liberal or conservative, this is just about stupidity.  If 
you don't understand who's getting the benefit of the agenda you have, your 
decision is uninformed.

From an European point of view, the ideological gap between "liberals" and 
"conservatives" in the USA is "funny".  From our point of view, the gap is 
right where we put our Nazis - the conservatives are more right, the 
liberals are more left than the Nazis; and that's really a fact.  People 
have reassesed positions of Adolf Hitler in the "political compass", and 
while he came up as 95% authoritarian, he also came up as "centrist".

This is really frightening.  He was certainly *not* a centrist person.  Half 
of the US population is politically more on the extreme right than Hitler.  
No wonder, you are so locked into your broken thinking that you call 
liberals "religious".

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27108

wrong

look up defense as % of gdp

defense is 19% and invents everything (including the internet!)

75% of gdp for usa is welfare eg medicare medicaid

ideally all troops would be brought home, but then we would have to charge merchants to guard trade ships....and taiwan would fall...and israel....and iran would get nukes.....

also its not fun to watch guys like melosevic run wild and usa have to fly across europe and fix the problem

european socialism is failing fast and hard and usa should do oppsite

usa is no1 due to its core belief in limiting government spending,a nd the more jokers liek obama nad reid undo this, the more the ecnoy slides and debt grows

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27114

In article <1f70812b-d013-4ec7-83d5-2f81c748f0c7@googlegroups.com>,
the_gavino_himself  <visphatesjava@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>european socialism is failing fast and hard and usa should do oppsite

You say so, but that's not proof. Your spelling, punctuation and general
quality of writing *is* proof that the USA educational system is failing
fast and hard.

*PLONK*

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27115

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 1:23:35 AM UTC-8, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <1f70812b-d013-4ec7-83d5-2f81c748f0c7@googlegroups.com>,
> 
> the_gavino_himself  <visphatesjava@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> >european socialism is failing fast and hard and usa should do oppsite
> 
> 
> 
> You say so, but that's not proof. Your spelling, punctuation and general
> 
> quality of writing *is* proof that the USA educational system is failing
> 
> fast and hard.
> 
> 
> 
> *PLONK*
> 
> 
> 
> Groetjes Albert
> 
> -- 
> 
> Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
> 
> Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
> 
> albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

plonk I am a published author, genius, 6 fig net worth, degree from top 20 school, and have 0 debt!!  in addidion I make well into 6 figs self taught

plonk !

typing is a plebian skill and I am eating chips and drinking canada dry which is icy cold as I correc tyou commies on here

free of charge!! 

if you want spell checked reports with color my rate for you is 500/hour let me know :)


now aside from your inability to come abck to how capitalism is the worst economic system ever , except for all the others that have bene tried including socialism lol

then understand incentives

for example

take public school lets just throw a number out there at 50billion a year in usa
not counting the money given to universities, and tied up by enforced licencing in law medical etc etc but I need not digress

take that 50billion and offfer say $100 for each test passed by a student with an A, meaning 100% not 99% and sure you can retake it

fire all the teahcers and sell off all the school land and let kids study from home on internet free from communist socialization by governmetn school, itself a huge win outright!


no I submit that, once you sip bullshit subject like sociology etc, and stick to math computers and engineering and medical, you can then get rid of 99% of welfare jobs and wasted school money while improving performce and ending up with a lot of kids with 100% understanding of real good subjects, a muliplier win!!

see when a kid gets c or d in math and then moves on, he is not grounded for higher subjects, so only A passes get it?

now you get awesomely educated population for a fraction of the cost!!

then manufacturing becomes a high paid awesome job, with robots doing all repetitive tasks, and higher n higher paid teks to build and improve the robots, reprogram them, and population enjoying falling rpices for all goods as everything is commodified including big far apaprt plastic form filled with concrete houses!!

gov debt goes to 0
fed abolished
irs abolished
www.fairtax.org instuted hong kong style
cap gain taxes abolished
daeth tax abolished

housing regualtions abolished so incredible innovation on that front starts to mirror computer industry

and people prosper
then after usa shows hugeer margin than ever europe relents and adopts incentive based scheme as well

this is success and austrain school economic future!!

trade not war!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27106

ayn rand wrote the answers down for commies decades ago

ignoring them doesn't disprove them

ask anyone who lives in italy

everyone is cheeting since no one really follows the rules of socialism

so the politicians get rich

everyone else gets poor as dirt and production is arrested

we really need to end fed, and reduce debt ceiling to 0 and cut 99% gov spending in my humble opinion

get everyone offa welfare jobs and into the game

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27107

ayn rand wrote the answers down for commies decades ago

ignoring them doesn't disprove them

ask anyone who lives in italy

everyone is cheeting since no one really follows the rules of socialism

so the politicians get rich

everyone else gets poor as dirt and production is arrested

we really need to end fed, and reduce debt ceiling to 0 and cut 99% gov spending in my humble opinion

get eve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27091

On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:34:04 AM UTC, Doug Hoffman wrote:
> The liberal tactic when losing an argument, which always happens because 
> liberal ideology is based on emotion, not facts and logic, liberals 
> resort to name calling and demonization.  We see that repeatedly here in 
> the US.  Of course I'm sure *you* would never do this.

Fully agree. If you think of liberalism as a religion, or a faith, then it all makes sense. Even when presented with evidence, and just plain old common sense, they will simply refuse to accept it. Even when the emperor is waving his balls in their face, they will insist that a recent survey indicates that he is in fact fully clothed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27093

Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Rod's posting style is blunt and direct, that's true.  But there is 
> little question about what he is saying.  I didn't see anything that 
> would cause me to label him as a racist.

I apologize for that.  It was unwarranted to suggest that he is in any
way racist.  I am sure that there is not a racist bone in his body.

> The liberal tactic when losing an argument, which always happens
> because liberal ideology is based on emotion, not facts and logic,
> liberals resort to name calling and demonization.

Where that's true, I believe it's because they're genuinely horrified
that a huge number of people would be denied basic decent treatment on
ideological grounds.  That seems to liberals to be monstrous.  And
yes, this *is* an emotional response: it's about empathy.  There but
for the grace of God go all of us.  Most of the middle class, and
undoubtedly many of us, are only a few paychecks from being that
situation ourselves.

Bevan, the main founder of the NHS, wrote a book entitled "In Place of
Fear."  That's what it was all about.  Before the NHS, millions of
people knew that if they got sick they would very quickly go broke.
They were terrified.  The NHS, despite its many faults, blew that
away.  It remains Britain's best-loved institution; no-one wants to go
back to the bad old days.

All politicians in Britain, left and right, with the exception of a
few of the lunatic fringe, support the basic principle of a health
service that is free at the point of use.  No politician could
possibly get elected if they said otherwise.  If the USA ever got a
free health service, it'd be the same there.  That's why the
healthcare companies are lobbying so frantically against Obamacare.

> We see that repeatedly here in the US.  Of course I'm sure *you*
> would never do this.

Thank you.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web