Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Tchiowa on 27 Jul 2006 20:48 JohnT wrote: > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:907ic2928akdg2epo5n0q2aji627hasgia(a)4ax.com... > > Miguel Cruz writes: > > > >> This isn't what actually happens. I am sitting in front of the computer > >> with one fan and my skin is dry to the touch. The humidity today is in > >> the high 80s. > > > > Your skin is never dry. You're just losing water to evaporation > > before you notice it accumulating on your skin. > > > >> Lose what? People here are happy and comfortable. > > > > Well, no, they aren't. In hot climates without air conditioning, it's > > routine to complain continually about the heat. > > Miguel says not. Miguel is respected on travel ngs. Mixi is not. QED. Miguel is indeed well respected on travel ngs. But that doesn't alter the fact that the statement above was 100% right: People in hot climates without air conditioning regularly complain about the heat. And since you asked someone else their experience in hot climates let me point out that mine includes living and working in places like Nigeria, Angola, DR Congo, Indonesia, Papua Niugini, Thailand and more than a few other "hot climate" areas. Probably 80% of my time over the past couple of decades. My wife is Thai, born and raised, and always complained about having a hard time sleeping during the hottest times of the year until I put A/C in our house up country.
From: Padraig Breathnach on 27 Jul 2006 21:04 "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >The Reid wrote: > >> Nonsence, I live and work in a free market capitalist system that >> chooses to fund medical care from taxes, that isnt a failed >> communist state. you dont seem to be able to differentiate the >> two. > >You don't seem to understand that what you just described is called >"Socialism". > By you, obviously. Not by people who understand what socialism is. Mike, you know the advice about arguing with an idiot, don't you? -- PB The return address has been MUNGED My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
From: Tchiowa on 27 Jul 2006 21:10 Padraig Breathnach wrote: > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >The Reid wrote: > > > >> Nonsence, I live and work in a free market capitalist system that > >> chooses to fund medical care from taxes, that isnt a failed > >> communist state. you dont seem to be able to differentiate the > >> two. > > > >You don't seem to understand that what you just described is called > >"Socialism". > > > By you, obviously. Not by people who understand what socialism is. Socialism is an economic system where businesses are either owned or controlled by the government, which is *exactly* what the Socialized Medical programs we're discussing are. Or to look at others' definitions: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry" > Mike, you know the advice about arguing with an idiot, don't you? That's a lot easier than actually responding to the documented points, isn't it?
From: Padraig Breathnach on 27 Jul 2006 21:49 "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Padraig Breathnach wrote: >> "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >You don't seem to understand that what you just described is called >> >"Socialism". >> > >> By you, obviously. Not by people who understand what socialism is. > >Socialism is an economic system where businesses are either owned or >controlled by the government, which is *exactly* what the Socialized >Medical programs we're discussing are. > Bollocks. States "own" armies and navies. By such a definition, they would be instances of socialism. >Or to look at others' >definitions: > >The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth >Edition > >"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the >means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a >centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." > That is not a profound definition, but still does not come anywhere near supporting your claim. >WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University > >"a political theory advocating state ownership of industry" > A trivial definition which tells us almost nothing. >> Mike, you know the advice about arguing with an idiot, don't you? > >That's a lot easier than actually responding to the documented points, >isn't it? > Given the quality of the points you make and the weighty documentation that you adduce, it's no more trouble than swatting a fly. But it's not worth my while. Your approach to argument is (to put it mildly) unsatisfactory. -- PB The return address has been MUNGED My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
From: Tchiowa on 27 Jul 2006 23:02
Padraig Breathnach wrote: > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >Padraig Breathnach wrote: > >> "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >You don't seem to understand that what you just described is called > >> >"Socialism". > >> > > >> By you, obviously. Not by people who understand what socialism is. > > > >Socialism is an economic system where businesses are either owned or > >controlled by the government, which is *exactly* what the Socialized > >Medical programs we're discussing are. > > > Bollocks. States "own" armies and navies. By such a definition, they > would be instances of socialism. And you were under the impression that armies are a "business"???? > >Or to look at others' > >definitions: > > > >The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth > >Edition > > > >"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the > >means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a > >centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." > > > That is not a profound definition, but still does not come anywhere > near supporting your claim. It *exactly* supports my claim. > >WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University > > > >"a political theory advocating state ownership of industry" > > > A trivial definition which tells us almost nothing. "State ownership" doesn't mean anything??? It's what causes the system to fail. > >> Mike, you know the advice about arguing with an idiot, don't you? > > > >That's a lot easier than actually responding to the documented points, > >isn't it? > > Given the quality of the points you make and the weighty documentation > that you adduce, it's no more trouble than swatting a fly. > > But it's not worth my while. Your approach to argument is (to put it > mildly) unsatisfactory. Particularly since it proved you wrong. You obviously find that quite "unsatisfactory". |