"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ab7acd4d-74ea-4a99-b0d4-7d0d0925e518@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> He did it!!
And right on the heels of his new book that also qualifies for the worlds
shortest book.
How I earned the Nobel Piece Prize.
On Jul 18, 9:50=A0pm, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:47:24 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]=
d>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:55:51 -0400, Steve
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
> >>>>said:
>
> >>>>> =A0 It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assess=
ed by
> >>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
> >>>>> legislative branch of government. =A0In the case of the $20B, that
> >>>>> didn't
> >>>>> happen either.
>
> >>>>Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
> >>>>Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>
> >>>>The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>
> >>> Why would you hope for fines and judgements for something that was an
> >>> accident?
>
> >>Same reason there are fines and judgments in auto accidents. There is t=
he
> >>matter of culpability.
>
> > Fines nor judgments are required after an auto accident. =A0Fines are l=
evied
> > if
> > a law was broken. =A0Judgements are only made if there is a loss. =A0If
> > everyone
> > has been made whole there is nothing to judge.
>
> You read this?
>
No
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:04:11 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Steve wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> said:
>>>
>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed by
>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that didn't
>>>> happen either.
>>>
>>> Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>> Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>
>>> The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>
>> Technically, the President of the US had absolutely no legal authority to
>> impose an escrow, fine, or judgment.
>
>
>And he didn't.
Ok, try this: the President has no Constitutional extortion authority.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:47:24 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:55:51 -0400, Steve
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>>>said:
>>>>
>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed by
>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> happen either.
>>>>
>>>>Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>>Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>
>>>>The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>
>>> Why would you hope for fines and judgements for something that was an
>>> accident?
>>
>>
>>Same reason there are fines and judgments in auto accidents. There is the
>>matter of culpability.
>
> Fines nor judgments are required after an auto accident. Fines are levied
> if
> a law was broken. Judgements are only made if there is a loss. If
> everyone
> has been made whole there is nothing to judge.
You read this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10548872
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:47:24 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:55:51 -0400, Steve
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>>>said:
>>>>
>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed by
>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> happen either.
>>>>
>>>>Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>>Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>
>>>>The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>
>>> Why would you hope for fines and judgements for something that was an
>>> accident?
>>
>>
>>Same reason there are fines and judgments in auto accidents. There is the
>>matter of culpability.
>
> Fines nor judgments are required after an auto accident. Fines are levied
> if
> a law was broken. Judgements are only made if there is a loss. If
> everyone
> has been made whole there is nothing to judge.
There IS a loss. BIGTIME!
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2c69cbdb-193c-45a8-80c1-f2229679c3db@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 18, 9:50 pm, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:47:24 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
> > <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:55:51 -0400, Steve
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
> >>>>said:
>
> >>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed by
> >>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
> >>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
> >>>>> didn't
> >>>>> happen either.
>
> >>>>Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
> >>>>Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>
> >>>>The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>
> >>> Why would you hope for fines and judgements for something that was an
> >>> accident?
>
> >>Same reason there are fines and judgments in auto accidents. There is
> >>the
> >>matter of culpability.
>
> > Fines nor judgments are required after an auto accident. Fines are
> > levied
> > if
> > a law was broken. Judgements are only made if there is a loss. If
> > everyone
> > has been made whole there is nothing to judge.
>
> You read this?
>
No
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I expect they won't either.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:04:11 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>>> said:
>>>>
>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed by
>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> happen either.
>>>>
>>>> Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>> Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>
>>>> The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>
>>> Technically, the President of the US had absolutely no legal authority
>>> to
>>> impose an escrow, fine, or judgment.
>>
>>
>>And he didn't.
>
> Ok, try this: the President has no Constitutional extortion authority.
And he didn't extort.
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:47:24 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:55:51 -0400, Steve
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> said:
>>>
>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed by
>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that didn't
>>>> happen either.
>>>
>>>Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>
>>>The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>
>> Why would you hope for fines and judgements for something that was an
>> accident?
>
>
>Same reason there are fines and judgments in auto accidents. There is the
>matter of culpability.
Fines nor judgments are required after an auto accident. Fines are levied if
a law was broken. Judgements are only made if there is a loss. If everyone
has been made whole there is nothing to judge.
On Jul 24, 10:05=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 8:40 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> You just make shit up as you go along. =A0Like all left wing butt head=
s,
>
> > THIS is just ONE example of why YOU are a total fucking asshole, Jack.
>
> Robocop lies about calling ONLY me a douche-nozzle, I point out he has
> called others douche-nozzles, research it first, and I'm an asshole...
>
You and Billy Mays. Mays is dead. That leaves YOU as the only one
left that *I* called Douche Nozzle.
Your exclusive douchenozzleness is safe. You Da MAN!
(...you really should shed that monkey off your back, the whole douche
nozzle thing has become an obsession of yours.)
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:14:59 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote the following:
>On Jul 16, 3:58 pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>[snipped for brevity and contextual advantage]
>
>> No one realized this is what change meant. I guess obama
>> definition of equality is bread lines for every one.
>
>Well you ungrateful So-N-So! Free food and free snipping of an in-
>grown toenail? And you are complaining?
You forgot the "free" healthcare which will now cost us between THREE
AND SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS APIECE PER YEAR when it goes into effect, IF
our government is still semi-solvent by that time...
--
EXPLETIVE: A balm, usually applied verbally in hindsight,
which somehow eases those pains and indignities following
our every deficiency in foresight.
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 09:09:33 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
>from a variety of sources. When it comes to someone else's
>interpretation and opinions on those facts, it's mostly just for
>entertainment.
Yes, jack. We all know that you're easily entertained.
On Jul 28, 8:49=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You just wasted a ton of typing ... making yourself look like an
> idiot ... in the process of trying to discredit me.
>
Errrrmmm... NObody does a better job discrediting you than you, Neil.
In many ways you remind me of Moxie, my dog. We take our multi-block
walk in the morning and we stroll, at a reasonable pace along a path
we have taken many times before. She has her head up high, because she
is leading the way. The odd stop to take a whiz (we call it p-mail)
and the odd sniff of the p-mail another space-travelling dog has left
there. By and large, she's on a mission.
Yet, when the wind blows a leaf down the middle of the road, she
forgets everything she knows about discipline and heeling and attacks
that damned leaf like a banshee on meth.... just to return to my side
to continue our journey. She then looks at me with a look that says:
"THAT unruly piece of garbage/leaf won't be bothering anybody anytime
soon...good job eh, boss?"
When we encounter some of the other neighbourhood dogs, her reactions
run the gambit: "Hey Nick, you old Newfie Bastard!.. or 'sup Fifi, you
French slut!...Copper, you springy sunnuvabitch, where are your
balls?" and so on.... nothing sets her off...'cept a wind-blown leaf.
With your IQ, Neil, you will have no trouble finding the message in my
little story.
r
Ahhhhhh. You DO make this easy ;-)
On Jul 26, 10:11=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
RE: Obama.
> =A0 ... and your evidence that BHO has an extremely high IQ, is, what exa=
ctly? =A0
Having come from a family FULL of people with genius IQs, and ...
having spent my entire life in the company of people with genius IQs,
I -- in much the way I'm well equipped to judge a woodworker as "very
talented --" can figure out who does and who doesn't have a high IQ.
> He has sealed all of his academic records by executive order,
I didn't assert that he got good grades.
> there is no
> existing evidence of any of his test scores,
I didn't say that he did well on standardized tests.
> he wrote no papers while editor
> at Harvard Law Review. =A0 =A0His speeches? =A0Take away the teleprompter=
and the
> induced reverb for "godlike quality" and you get a bunch of "ahhhs",
> "Uhhhs", and "ummms". =A0
I didn't say he was a perfect public speaker. Verbal place-holders,
by the way, have NO bearing on the IQ of the speaker.
> Hardly genius quality off-teleprompter.
I've read a lot of your posts, Mark. I put NO weight on YOUR proof by
assertion.
Surprised ?
I doubt it.
You're also a rabid right-winger. You reason backward, FROM THAT
position. I've seen you do it ... time and again.
> This is a
> guy with a paper-thin resume
I didn't comment on any "resume."
> who voted "present" in his stint in the
I didn't make any statements about his voting record.
> Illinois legislature in order to avoid having a record, who won most of h=
is
> elections not through electoral victory but by clearing the playing field
> before the election. =A0
I don't recall making ANY statements about his past elections.
> There seems to be no recollection of anyone he knew
> while he was at Occidental college, no former classmates, professors, or
> anyone else who has provided any information whatever regarding his acade=
mic
> capabilities or lack thereof.
I didn't say anything about his long history with friends, or lack
thereof.
Wow. You're AWFUL at this, Mark !
> =A0 You, the consummate logician, should be a bit more demanding of hard
> evidence than the fact "he attended Harvard" as evidence that he "has an
> extremely high IQ". =A0
I don't recall using his alma mater as evidence ... of ... anything.
> After all, so did GW. =A0 =A0Argument by vigorous assertion
> is not a generally accepted approach to logical argumentation.
But you use it, blithely. Hmmm.
> =A0As far as the "ahhs, umms, and uhhs", that is not necessarily evidence=
of
> someone not very bright, it can also be evidence of someone heavily self-
> censoring what they are saying so as not to betray their core beliefs by
> saying something completely antithetical to the American way of life. Thu=
s
> he uses those verbal crutches while he desperately struggles for words to
> not sound quite as statist and totalitarian as he really is.
You sound ridiculously vapid, making comments like that.
In my decades of experience with highly intelligent people, I've
learned one thing about them: they choose their words; they're
thoughtful.
I can readily see how this would be confusing (and foreign) for you.
> =A0If he said
> what he was really thinking, it might come out as, "It's not that I want =
to
> punish success, I just think that when you spread the wealth around,
> everybody benefits". [Oh, wait, he did say that]. =A0
How is that:
a) relevant (hint: it isn't), or
b) different from the notion of supply side economics, or the "rising
tide lifts all boats" idea ?
But let's focus on (a).
You're reasoning backward, again, from a starting position of hatred
for Obama.
Sense ... has gone RIGHT out the window.
Shame.
> BTW, the 57 states wasn't the only gaffe, just one of the more memorable
> ones. =A0Look up "Obama and Breathalyzer" for another example.
The POTUS ... has made (at least) TWO verbal gaffes ??
WHERE ARE THE PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIANS ???
GET MICHAEL BESCHLOSS ON THE TELEPHONE ... PRONTO !!
Awww, Mark. Sad commentary on you.
Guaranteed George Washington, and all who came after him, made
numerous verbal gaffes.
But you don't care, because ... you're a thoughtless knee-jerk blindly
partisan right-winger.
One of the handful that gives THIS newsgroup its
foul stench :-)
On Jul 22, 11:10=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree that government-tun ANYTHING will not be efficient or good.
> The government does not know how to run a business and they shouldn't
> have to worry about doing so. =A0Government only knows how to control
> costs two ways: cutting things willy-nilly or raising taxes (but
> raising taxes wins more times than not). =A0The only "incentive"
> government cares about is making sure *ALL* the customers are happy.
> Not the TAXPAYERS, mind you, they focus on the USERS only. =A0The
> incentive for a business is *GASP* that new dirty word: PROFIT.
> Businesses want to get as much of their product to as many consumers
> as they can butt hey want to make money on it. =A0As such, they will
> trim the fat whenever possible and charge what the market will bear.
> Plain and simple. =A0Price it too low and you will go out of business
> because you can't cover costs. =A0Price it too high and the consumer
> will not buy it.
>
> Oh, know. =A0That last sentence is where liberals start to lose it.
> Many think that health care costs are too high and the public simply
> has no choice but to pay what these businesses charge. =A0Agreed. =A0To a
> point. =A0There NEEDS to be more competition but if you let the
> government in and allow the government to be in charge of all the
> rules, then that is not competition: government will become the
> monopoly and then you will end up with a system where the costs ARE
> too high and you will not have any other recourse because there will
> not be any other players in the market.
Here's another way to look at health care:
There's NO MONEY in dead people.
There's NO MONEY in healthy people.
All the money is in the middle.
That's how it stands, today.
YOU decide if it's wise.
I see it as a fundamental mis-alignment in the respective interests of
the actors.
I want wellness.
The health care industry -- overwhelmingly -- wants profit.
[See my first point]
If we did NOT view simple *health* as a for-profit industry, then ...
maybe costs WOULD come down.
On Jul 16, 3:58=A0pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped for brevity and contextual advantage]
> =A0No one realized this is what change meant. =A0 I guess obama
> definition of equality is bread lines for every one.
Well you ungrateful So-N-So! Free food and free snipping of an in-
grown toenail? And you are complaining?
In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 18, 9:39 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Robatoy wrote:
> > > Maybe The British System isn't the right system. Try the Canadian one.
> > > I'm exposed to that every day. It works great.
> >
> > Yeah, it's well known how great it works every time a Canuck slithers
> > across the boarder to get timely, quality health care...
> >
>
> The Canuck that goes to the US for timely, quality health care is
> usually rich and doesn't want to wait those few extra days he feels
> could be a threat to his wellbeing.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> Nope. Washington state got a bunch of Canadian pregnant women delivering
> there because of a lack of beds in Canada. Then there was the governor of
> the Newfies ...
I know a family here in Canada that was facing a 6-12 month wait to
have tubes put in their young son's ears to drain fluid and give him
back his hearing.
A bit of research, a couple of phone calls, and they took a family
vacation to Disney Land that included the day surgery for their son.
Waiting time? "When can you be here? How about next Thursday?"
AND, because they were paying cash the anaesthetist gave them a 40%
discount, citing a 270 day average time for payment from the HMOs.
--
âThe problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peopleâs
money.â - Margaret Thatcher
On Jul 28, 5:28=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
> You know, I also ave a LOT of incredibly intelligent people in my
> family. =A0Their IQs are off the scale. =A0I, personally, am not one of
> them, =A0I have also gotten to know a lot of other people who are
> extremely intelligent thru the years.
>
> Here is an observation that I have noticed: most of these intelligent
> people don't have the sense to get in out of the rain. =A0In other
> words, they lack common sense.
Here ya' go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
> They are also extremely immature and do no take criticism well. =A0They
> are extremely myopic in their views even though they perceive
> themselves as having a very open mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
> And, worst of all, the are all like Cri-cri birds (which are creature
> who fly in concentrically smaller circle until their heads fly up
> their ass and they scream, "Cri, cri, cri, cri....CHRIST, is it dark
> up here!!!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
> Oh. =A0Oops. =A0I'm sorry: the only person who is allowed to observe and
> report is Neil. =A0The only person who is allowed to have an opinion is
> Neil. =A0The only person who should be listened to is Neil. =A0The only
> person who knows what is going on is Neil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Your intellectual insecurities are showing, and ... for VERY good
reason.
Have any interest in discussing ... well ... ANY of this, or are you
just going to launch ad hominem attacks ?
I actually know the answer to that one. I'll just get out of your
way, and let YOU be a fucking idiot :-)
> But, one more observation, if I may (until Neil tells me I am not
> worthy of having observations): Neil fits that mold to a tee. =A0So does
> Obama.
>
> Oops. =A0I did it again. =A0I had an observation. =A0And it does not alig=
n
> with Neil's. =A0Therefore, it is heresy. =A0It is wrong because only one
> opinion is right.
No. It's because you use horribly crafted and misleading arguments to
reach conclusions.
You SHOULD work on that !
> Personally, I agree Obama is intelligent. =A0Who cares if he is
> intelligent. =A0He has absolutely NO wisdom. =A0And precious little commo=
n
> sense from what I have seen.
Also irrelevant.
Please ask Jack(ass) Stein to pick you up, with the bus he's going to
lease to attend a course in Logic.
Seriously.
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:57:23 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I didn't say those who served shouldn't be supported, I said the VA
>hospitals should be closed.
Ah thank you for expounding.
Mark
On Jul 30, 9:30=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> "busbus:"
>
> All your assumptions about me are unfounded, and -- not surprisingly
> -- pure bullshit. =A0Guessing, about that which you don't know ... must
> put your mind at ease.
>
> But it tends to lead you to be wrong a lot.
>
> Your arguments, also -- almost without exception -- are arguments
> about ME, rather than arguments about anything I say.
>
> You avoid trying to put forward a coherent argument, and -- instead --
> try to jump MY shit (looking like a seven year-old, in the process).
>
> But that's what happens when you're such a sloppy, illogical thinker
> who reasons backward from ... whatever conclusion makes them happy.
>
> You seem among the worst of the worst, in that regard.
>
> Please check with Jack(ass) Stein, to see if he'll be running bus
> service, to a Logic course.
>
> Seriously.
:o)
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:01:03 -0400, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 7/17/2010 1:48 PM, Leon wrote:
>> And that BP has created one of the worst pollution
>>> fiascos ever?
>The worst oil disaster occurred in the early 1900's in California.
>
>As compared to the Alaskan spill a couple of decades ago, it will not be
>as bad as the Alaskan spill was somewhat contained in the bay, the BP
>spill is in open sea.
>
>I believe the Mexican oil spill that occurred several years ago was
>worse the the BP Spill.
Yes, and the Mexicans paid no compensation (claimed sovereign immunity).
On Jul 18, 7:39=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> I know a family here in Canada
And I know one, here in America ... blah, blah, blah.
There. Now MY worthless little anecdote offsets yours.
This is the problem with how many of you "think."
The US ranks very low in how satisfied its citizens are with its
health care, relative to all other developed nations.
There. Now we're out of the realm of anecdotes.
Just ONE source ... known for being a liberal rag....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html
--
> Jack
> The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.http://jbstein.com
Maybe I SHOULD start pointing out how you're an endless stream of
illogic.
Not every day, issue, confrontation, or even military action is the
American Revolution.
And ... the mere fact that you think your stash of small arms is going
to stop The Greatest Military the Earth Has Ever Known from turning on
its citizenry -- should it ever decide to (not MY paranoid delusion,
by the way) is further evidence that ideology (if NOT fear) -- not
rational thought -- drives you.
You're a walking bumper-sticker, Jack. Bumper sticker slogans seem to
serve the need of ... some sort of person ... to simplify things far
enough that THEY can get THEIR heads around it.
Any way -- ANY way, at all -- to get you to trade that in for critical
thinking ?
On Jul 18, 12:53=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 11:50=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > =A0The British National Health System is coming to America,
> > welcome to rationing, waiting lists, and lack of care for everybody exc=
ept
> > the rich who will be able to afford to pay the tax and buy their own ca=
re.
>
> Toeing the Party line again, eh Mark? Man they got you sold in a bad
> way. No room for anything other than your extreme views. Extreme,
> Mark. Radical fanatical non-compromising views. Unreal.
Oh, and Mark...." lack of care for everybody except the rich who will
be able to afford to pay the tax and buy their own care."
How is that different than you guys have it now?
Maybe The British System isn't the right system. Try the Canadian one.
I'm exposed to that every day. It works great.
On Jul 28, 10:25=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0 Alright, that's it, he's either a flippin' troll or extreme leftwinge=
r. =A0
Or ... neither.
Pretty centrist, actually.
> i.e., he is someone with the "do as I say, not as I do" mindset. =A0This =
very
> subthread is brought about by Neil's anecdotal evidence:
I'll say it again: it's my opinion, based on lots of factors.
> "I've got lots of
> high-IQ people in my family, therefore, I know what it looks like" , thus
> using this anecdotal "evidence" (quotes on evidence, since WE haven't see=
n
> those members of Neil's family and we certainly can tell from his posting=
s
> that this observation does not apply to himself)
YOU can't. I have no doubt about that :-)
> he asserts that Obama looks
> like those members of his family
Balls-out lie, on your part, but ... not surprising.
Go on....
> (not sure who that insults more, Obama, or
> Neil's family, but we'll let that one lie).
"Lie" IS the right word, though -- YOUR lie.
> =A0 Alright, I'm done getting muddy.
I can't imagine.
rec.woodworking: where OT (Off-Topic) is okay, but OO (Off (prevailing
collective) Opinion) is not ;-)
On Jul 29, 4:39=A0pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, anybody who is "smart" and uses Wikipedia is an idiot
> themselves. =A0
Yet another ABSOLUTELY FUCKING IDIOTIC STATEMENT.
If the pages I linked to are correct, then ... they're correct.
That's just another ad hominem attack on your part, and ... further
evidence that you're an idiot.
> The thing is, you say something and it is "true" because
> you have experienced it. =A0
No. I didn't say that.
> You say you are centralist but you never say anything that suggests
> such. =A0Everything is an attack on "right wing nuts" but never say left
> wings are goofy, too.
They are, ... to the extent that they reason backward FROM their
positions, but ... what POSSIBLE opportunity would there be to tackle
THAT problem, here ?
None.
On Jul 18, 12:53=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 11:50=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > =A0The British National Health System is coming to America,
> > welcome to rationing, waiting lists, and lack of care for everybody exc=
ept
> > the rich who will be able to afford to pay the tax and buy their own ca=
re.
>
> Toeing the Party line again, eh Mark? Man they got you sold in a bad
> way. No room for anything other than your extreme views. Extreme,
> Mark. Radical fanatical non-compromising views. Unreal.
I have been watching this thread with interest and have not set my toe
into the water but I think this is as good a place to step in as any.
I believe the fact of the matter is that Rotoboy has hit the nail on
the head:
"No room for anything other than your extreme views...Radical
fanatical
non-compromising views. Unreal."
The problem is that BOTH sides are exhibiting these views. It is a
pity that so many "open-minded" liberals cannot be open-minded enough
to see the bigger picture as to what the conservatives are saying. At
the same time, conservatives are saying many things without examples
detailing what they are trying to say. Actually, both sides are
talking in LARGE terms, not in intimate details. Actually, it seems
like both sides are oftentimes taking their talking points from the
media they watch.
While it is true that Fox News focuses on the reporting the stories
conservative most want to hear about and how the liberal media is
misrepresenting the issues but is unyielding in its views, too (for
example, the AZ Immigration Law. They say that racial profiling can
NEVER happen, which is narrow minded. If they would say that the law
is not intended to do that but mistakes [intended or not] can
certainly happen).
On the other hand, the other news mediums simply do not report on many
things (for example, the Black Panther incident) or doing exactly what
they say the conservatives do like unfairly misrepresenting the
members of the Tea Party as radical, stupid, racial idiots, mostly
because their liberal-minded audience loves to hear this stuff.
Both sides are wrong and the misguided American public doesn't
understand that this is marketing at its finest. Gone are the days of
reporting the news ON BOTH SIDES and the news media is now into
EDITORIALIZING the news.
Sorry. both sides are wrong. Both sides fuel the fire. And the
people who watch only one or the other without a discerning mind will
just repeat the blabbering that these people say. That is why there
are so many doggone things said from either side that turn into
fights.
Both sides think what they are being fed is 100% the truth and what
the other is being fed is 100% a lie. And instead of coming to terms
and understanding each other, it is whomever yells the loudest, the
longest, or uses the most profane or degrading language who "wins" in
the end. If this is the sort of dialog that is going to go on
forever, then nothing will get done.
I see a lot of horse manure about Government Run Health Care here.
First off, "Health Care" is not the right name for it, it is a
government run health care INSURANCE plan that is being talked about.
How about we sort of do a hybrid, why don't we? Why can't whoever
WANTS to belong to the government run health care insurance plan be
allowed to sign up? I think there are a number of people who fell
they will benefit from this plan and, if they get enough members, they
WILL get good prices. If the government wants to get into the mix of
this, then I say they should be allowed. on the other hand, there are
more than enough people in this country who DO NOT want it and they
should not be forced to have it, plain and simple. And if they lose
their job and, thus, lose their health care insurance, well, that's
life. They can sign up for the government run insurance is they so
choose. Maybe the government health care insurance plan will allow
you to join whenever you feel like it, too, instead of opting in or
out once a year and living with that choice.
Anywho, that is my two-cents worth. I am sure it will not go over
well but that's life!
busbus
On Jul 25, 3:14=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Upscale" wrote:
> > The
> > realistic part of your blathering is that the more you do it, the
> > more
> > people realize what redneck cretin you are.
>
> -------------------------
> Bumped him up a couple of grades I see.
>
Coffee through the nose....hurts. Was worth it.
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:28:18 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Honey, I learned many years ago that I'm an asshole. A fucking asshole
>is a bit of a surprise but you say it so well I never tire of hearing
>it. Keep the empty headed personal attacks coming before you get
>banished to the Land of Point, nevertoreturn!
Hey, if it's YOU or someone that generally agrees with you that
filters me out, then all is well as far as I'm concerned. The
realistic part of your blathering is that the more you do it, the more
people realize what redneck cretin you are.
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:14:30 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>
>> It was in the early 1970s. Before Carter. Nixon and Ford were the
>> Presidents.
>---------------------------------
>Let's see:
>
>Nixon '68-'74
>Ford -74-'76
>Carter '76 '80
Right, the "early 1970s" came sometime before '76 and somewhere between '68
and '76. ;-)
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:28:18 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>Honey, I learned many years ago that I'm an asshole. A fucking asshole
>>is a bit of a surprise but you say it so well I never tire of hearing
>>it. Keep the empty headed personal attacks coming before you get
>>banished to the Land of Point, nevertoreturn!
>
> Hey, if it's YOU or someone that generally agrees with you that
> filters me out, then all is well as far as I'm concerned. The
> realistic part of your blathering is that the more you do it, the more
> people realize what redneck cretin you are.
Perhaps he was thinking of the Land of Punt. Quite nice.
On Jul 29, 6:39=A0pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 8:55=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 28, 5:28=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > You know, I also ave a LOT of incredibly intelligent people in my
> > > family. =A0Their IQs are off the scale. =A0I, personally, am not one =
of
> > > them, =A0I have also gotten to know a lot of other people who are
> > > extremely intelligent thru the years.
>
> > > Here is an observation that I have noticed: most of these intelligent
> > > people don't have the sense to get in out of the rain. =A0In other
> > > words, they lack common sense.
>
> > Here ya' go:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>
> > > They are also extremely immature and do no take criticism well. =A0Th=
ey
> > > are extremely myopic in their views even though they perceive
> > > themselves as having a very open mind.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>
> > > And, worst of all, the are all like Cri-cri birds (which are creature
> > > who fly in concentrically smaller circle until their heads fly up
> > > their ass and they scream, "Cri, cri, cri, cri....CHRIST, is it dark
> > > up here!!!"
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>
> > > Oh. =A0Oops. =A0I'm sorry: the only person who is allowed to observe =
and
> > > report is Neil. =A0The only person who is allowed to have an opinion =
is
> > > Neil. =A0The only person who should be listened to is Neil. =A0The on=
ly
> > > person who knows what is going on is Neil.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>
> > Your intellectual insecurities are showing, and ... for VERY good
> > reason.
>
> > Have any interest in discussing ... well ... ANY of this, or are you
> > just going to launch ad hominem attacks ?
>
> > I actually know the answer to that one. =A0I'll just get out of your
> > way, and let YOU be a fucking idiot :-)
>
> > > But, one more observation, if I may (until Neil tells me I am not
> > > worthy of having observations): Neil fits that mold to a tee. =A0So d=
oes
> > > Obama.
>
> > > Oops. =A0I did it again. =A0I had an observation. =A0And it does not =
align
> > > with Neil's. =A0Therefore, it is heresy. =A0It is wrong because only =
one
> > > opinion is right.
>
> > No. =A0It's because you use horribly crafted and misleading arguments t=
o
> > reach conclusions.
>
> > You SHOULD work on that !
>
> > > Personally, I agree Obama is intelligent. =A0Who cares if he is
> > > intelligent. =A0He has absolutely NO wisdom. =A0And precious little c=
ommon
> > > sense from what I have seen.
>
> > Also irrelevant.
>
> > Please ask Jack(ass) Stein to pick you up, with the bus he's going to
> > lease to attend a course in Logic.
>
> > Seriously.
>
> Well, anybody who is "smart" and uses Wikipedia is an idiot
> themselves. =A0The thing is, you say something and it is "true" because
> you have experienced it. =A0I say something is true because I
> experienced it, and it is wrong. =A0Seems like a double standard, if you
> ask me.
>
> You say you are centralist but you never say anything that suggests
> such. =A0Everything is an attack on "right wing nuts" but never say left
> wings are goofy, too.
>
Goofy? Left wingers are 'goofy'? LOL. I think the big difference is
that BOTH sides are goofy 'cept that extreme right-wingers cause a lot
more destruction and damage. The same damage that lefties bitch about
having to repair all the time.
Keep them divided. Keep them occupied with small bullshit and keep
harvesting a good percentage of their labour. The smart money goes off-
shore. The weather is always nice in the Caymans.
On Jul 24, 1:32=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> You certainly are, as are most of your empty headed socialist buddies...
What makes me, or my buddies, Socialists, Jack ?
Please.
Do tell.
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 14:40:51 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> > Fishermen in Mississippi say they are angry that under the terms of
>> > BP's $20 billion oil spill fund, money they earn doing clean-up will
>> > be subtracted from their claim against the company.
>>
>> Angry or not, you can't sue for lost income you didn't incur. That's
>> just a legal principle.
>
>I thought the plan was to clean up the mess. Now where is the
>motivation for anybody to help? If the claim is $ 10,000, why work to
>get less? If they get a job elsewhere at a reduced income, why should
>BP benefit?
They won't get less. The question is why should they *benefit*? They are
required to mitigate damages.
>(BTW, I am not suggesting it is illegal for BP to do this.)
>
>
>Well in the real world, some one is going to come in and do the clean up and
>most likely the time it takes will be considerable. More than likely they
>will stay after the clean up and become your competition. IMHO it would be
>to the fishermans advantage to do the cleanup themselves, stay employeed,
>and not have others coming in and possibly taking future business away from
>them.
Sure. Like you said, they remain employed, too.
>All in all the claims should not be a "prize" so much as a compensation to
>help you maintain your normal income level. You would have to work
>normally, you should continue to work.
Absolutely.
On Jul 25, 11:32=A0pm, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 25, 11:29 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Neil Brooks wrote:
> > > Go look on the Internet. THOUSANDS of people believe that the 2nd
> > > Amendment is critical -- in no small part -- to protect themselves
> > > from a government that THEY view as increasingly tyrannical.
>
> > You are correct in that many fear their own government. But I assert th=
eir
> > belief is not proof.
>
> Didn't say it was.
>
> Please ... note ... yet another example of putting words in somebody
> else's mouth.
>
> Bad habit.
>
> REALLY frightfully common, around here ... along with all-or-nothing
> (a/k/a black-or-white thinking, which -- despite one fucking idiot's
> inability to understand -- has NOTHING to do with race), assumptions
> NOT based on evidence, hasty generalizations, etc., etc., etc.
>
> The First Line (most vocal participants) of The Wreck -- GENUINELY --
> could USE a course in Logic.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- ------
> Or a High Colonic ...
Again .... it's NOT an either-or proposition ;-)
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
> Technically, the President of the US had absolutely no legal
> authority to impose an escrow, fine, or judgment.
Agreed. But he does have the authority, through the Justice Department, to
charge every BP executive under 18 USC 941 with Felonious Mopery (exposing
one's naughty bits to a blind person).
In the fullness of time, the government's case may collapse, but there's
always the possibility that a home-town jury will sentence them to ten years
of making little rock out of big rocks.
Michael Kenefick wrote:
> Is that a total? Because that is 9 to 5 thousand less than what I
> being taken for now.
>
> ...
No, it's IN ADDITION to the thousands you now pay.
>> You forgot the "free" healthcare which will now cost us between THREE
>> AND SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS APIECE PER YEAR when it goes into effect, IF
>> our government is still semi-solvent by that time...
"busbus:"
All your assumptions about me are unfounded, and -- not surprisingly
-- pure bullshit. Guessing, about that which you don't know ... must
put your mind at ease.
But it tends to lead you to be wrong a lot.
Your arguments, also -- almost without exception -- are arguments
about ME, rather than arguments about anything I say.
You avoid trying to put forward a coherent argument, and -- instead --
try to jump MY shit (looking like a seven year-old, in the process).
But that's what happens when you're such a sloppy, illogical thinker
who reasons backward from ... whatever conclusion makes them happy.
You seem among the worst of the worst, in that regard.
Please check with Jack(ass) Stein, to see if he'll be running bus
service, to a Logic course.
Seriously.
On Jul 25, 11:29=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > Go look on the Internet. =A0THOUSANDS of people believe that the 2nd
> > Amendment is critical -- in no small part -- to protect themselves
> > from a government that THEY view as increasingly tyrannical.
>
> You are correct in that many fear their own government. But I assert thei=
r
> belief is not proof.
Didn't say it was.
Please ... note ... yet another example of putting words in somebody
else's mouth.
Bad habit.
REALLY frightfully common, around here ... along with all-or-nothing
(a/k/a black-or-white thinking, which -- despite one fucking idiot's
inability to understand -- has NOTHING to do with race), assumptions
NOT based on evidence, hasty generalizations, etc., etc., etc.
The First Line (most vocal participants) of The Wreck -- GENUINELY --
could USE a course in Logic.
Seriously.
Start here ... or ... somewhere (, for fuck's sake !):
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Yet another GREAT example:
Jack-Ass Stein thinks he knows ALLLL about the political beliefs of me
and my friends.
He ... ironically ... doesn't know Jack.
Amazing, then, how -- because I ask for support for his arguments, or
point out the countless logical fallacies behind them -- he presumes
to know everything about what I believe, and about what others
believe, and ... is CERTAIN he is correct.
THAT's ... a fucking idiot -- an arrogant, presumptuous, ignorant
fucking idiot :-)
LOOK UP those words. Fits ... to a "T."
> > As to your comments about the military -- they're people ... just like
> > everybody else. =A0They don't really lend themselves well to nice neat
> > labels and descriptions.
>
> > Some is. =A0Some ain't.
>
> > Some will. =A0Some won't.
>
> > Those are about the only nice neat labels that work, across such a
> > large group as "The Military."
>
> Agreed there are exceptions within any group. Still, the "military" are n=
ot
> like the non-military. They are our warrior class and get their primary
> satisfaction in life from killing people and blowing things up.
I've sure met many for whom that description is apt, or not even
adequate ;-)
I don't assume from that, though, that they're all like that ... or
even that most of them are like that -- even if part of the training
and culture IS to reinforce those very qualities.
Well you are not up with the facts or acting reasonable.
They are highly used by scientific people on scientific tasks.
The pages of political / political (false)Science some History
are suspect. They are under oversight committees. They are from
the university level. They are charged to write and fix pages.
Not just anyone can do anything any more and that has been years.
The LEFT has abused the pages more than I can sense is logical.
It isn't a place for politics.
Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Originator & Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/
On 7/29/2010 5:39 PM, busbus wrote:
> On Jul 28, 8:55 am, Neil Brooks<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 28, 5:28 am, busbus<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> You know, I also ave a LOT of incredibly intelligent people in my
>>> family. Their IQs are off the scale. I, personally, am not one of
>>> them, I have also gotten to know a lot of other people who are
>>> extremely intelligent thru the years.
>>
>>> Here is an observation that I have noticed: most of these intelligent
>>> people don't have the sense to get in out of the rain. In other
>>> words, they lack common sense.
>>
>> Here ya' go:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>>
>>> They are also extremely immature and do no take criticism well. They
>>> are extremely myopic in their views even though they perceive
>>> themselves as having a very open mind.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>>
>>> And, worst of all, the are all like Cri-cri birds (which are creature
>>> who fly in concentrically smaller circle until their heads fly up
>>> their ass and they scream, "Cri, cri, cri, cri....CHRIST, is it dark
>>> up here!!!"
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>>
>>> Oh. Oops. I'm sorry: the only person who is allowed to observe and
>>> report is Neil. The only person who is allowed to have an opinion is
>>> Neil. The only person who should be listened to is Neil. The only
>>> person who knows what is going on is Neil.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>>
>> Your intellectual insecurities are showing, and ... for VERY good
>> reason.
>>
>> Have any interest in discussing ... well ... ANY of this, or are you
>> just going to launch ad hominem attacks ?
>>
>> I actually know the answer to that one. I'll just get out of your
>> way, and let YOU be a fucking idiot :-)
>>
>>> But, one more observation, if I may (until Neil tells me I am not
>>> worthy of having observations): Neil fits that mold to a tee. So does
>>> Obama.
>>
>>> Oops. I did it again. I had an observation. And it does not align
>>> with Neil's. Therefore, it is heresy. It is wrong because only one
>>> opinion is right.
>>
>> No. It's because you use horribly crafted and misleading arguments to
>> reach conclusions.
>>
>> You SHOULD work on that !
>>
>>> Personally, I agree Obama is intelligent. Who cares if he is
>>> intelligent. He has absolutely NO wisdom. And precious little common
>>> sense from what I have seen.
>>
>> Also irrelevant.
>>
>> Please ask Jack(ass) Stein to pick you up, with the bus he's going to
>> lease to attend a course in Logic.
>>
>> Seriously.
>
>
> Well, anybody who is "smart" and uses Wikipedia is an idiot
> themselves. The thing is, you say something and it is "true" because
> you have experienced it. I say something is true because I
> experienced it, and it is wrong. Seems like a double standard, if you
> ask me.
>
> You say you are centralist but you never say anything that suggests
> such. Everything is an attack on "right wing nuts" but never say left
> wings are goofy, too.
>
> I truly think it is time to put some dead baby jokes in this
> thread......
>
>
>
On Jul 22, 1:28=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 10:27=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > As it stands, Medicare is a failure. =A0Private insurance makes up for =
a
> > lot of the Medicare (and Medicaid) expenses when doctors and hospitals
> > charge private insurance more for services than paid by government
> > programs. Worse, government has no bottom line so they are ALWAYS
> > incompetent and expensive.
>
> Gosh. =A0I've been in 49 states. =A0I think they do an AMAZING job at MAN=
Y
> things.
>
> Maybe the goal of health, education, security, and ... things like
> clean drinking water ... shouldn't BE fiscal profit.
>
> In every other measure ... Medicare is viewed as a huge success.
>
> Start by (you're going to flip out. =A0I just know it) examining your
> own assumptions and definitions, Jack.
>
> What's failure. =A0What's success.
>
> I wonder if you ever asked those questions about the wars in
> Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
> I ... simply cannot imagine you did, though.
I have not been in 49 States but I do see a lot of waste in Government
and they have to follow what is stated in the law, even if it makes no
sense for an individual incident. Medicare is useful in a way but
very wasteful in others. It could and probably should be run more
efficiently. I am willing to bet that if a true, for-profit business
looked at Medicaid, it would come up with numerous improvements AND
would lower costs.
That said, it is STUPID to force everybody in the US into one plan
like that, even if it wee run like a business because it will
eventually be the only player in an entire industry--talk about a
monopoly. Then the masses are truly screwed.
As far as the wars go, there has certain been a lot more good that has
come about because of the wars than has been reported on the news,
including Fox. I have had the privilege of talking to many troops
because I work near an air base and they speak to me about the massive
infrastructure improvements that have benefited the average, everyday
person in Iraq and not just those at the top of the government. The
biggest change I have heard is that women are getting more and more
freedom over there (although Iraq was already probably the most
liberal of the Arab countries).
Please do not start the topic of was. It is nice to say that we
should not be involved in war and, in a perfect world, we wouldn't be
involved ever. But the fact of the matter is that sometimes you get
pushed into it. Just because you don't want to fight does not mean
the other side will back off.
On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> said:
> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed by
> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that didn't
> happen either.
Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
On 2010-07-18 00:03:14 -0400, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> said:
> ...I'm talking about the bare minimum policy, with
> massive co-pays, gigantic thresholds, enormous out-of-pocket expenses.
> Actuals, once they set them, will probably be half again more.
Talk is cheap.
On 2010-07-20 09:46:42 -0400, "Leon" <[email protected]> said:
> While there is no doubt there is some serious damage, the entire coast
> is not nearly as bad off as the media would have you believe.
OTOH, some of the clean-up workers will get to live in the notorious
FEMA trailers which had been in storage at the Jefferson Proving
Grounds in Jeffersonville, IN.
Somehow, I think formaldehyde ought to go quite nicely with oil spills.
On 2010-07-21 22:22:55 -0400, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> said:
> Therefore, as it turns out, being conservative is a good business
> decision... but we knew that.
Only if the demographics match the advertiser's desired audience.
"Lobby Dosser" wrote:
> That's right. Two Republicans. The Funny Farms were pretty much
> emptied before 1976.
---------------------------------
Personally, I could never forgive Ford for pardoning Nixon, while he
was still alive, but with perfect 20/20 hindsight, he obviously made
the best decision for the country.
It cost him the election, but he still made the right decision in
spite of it.
Lew
On 2010-07-24 10:58:13 -0400, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> said:
> If verbal gaffes are the measure of the man, then ... I'd sure hope I
> could go back on Usenet and see the shit you heaped on GW Bush.
Please, let's not forget "It's time for the human race to join the
solar system."
âDan Quayle
On Jul 17, 3:16=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Angela Sekeris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5164b3bf-39d6-4286-bdd3-b2c949ece164@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 17, 1:45 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:ab7acd4d-74ea-4a99-b0d4-7d0d0925e518@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com..=
.
>
> > > He did it!!
>
> > And right on the heels of his new book that also qualifies for the worl=
ds
> > shortest book.
>
> > How I earned the Nobel Piece Prize.
>
> I think it is wonderful to see BP step up to the plate to keep our
> Hummers humming... even though they consumed an American president in
> the process.
>
> Win, Win
Fishermen in Mississippi say they are angry that under the terms of
BP's $20 billion oil spill fund, money they earn doing clean-up will
be subtracted from their claim against the company.
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:48:10 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:51:03 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:47:24 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:55:51 -0400, Steve
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>> happen either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>>>>>Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would you hope for fines and judgements for something that was an
>>>>>> accident?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Same reason there are fines and judgments in auto accidents. There is
>>>>>the
>>>>>matter of culpability.
>>>>
>>>> Fines nor judgments are required after an auto accident. Fines are
>>>> levied
>>>> if
>>>> a law was broken. Judgements are only made if there is a loss. If
>>>> everyone
>>>> has been made whole there is nothing to judge.
>>>
>>>
>>>There IS a loss. BIGTIME!
>>
>> No, there isn't. Yet.
>
>
>Got your head firmly planted somewhere, if you really think there has been
>no loss.
If everyone is made whole, no.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:46:49 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:50:18 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:47:24 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:55:51 -0400, Steve
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are
>>>>>>>>> assessed
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>>>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>> happen either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>>>>>>Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would you hope for fines and judgements for something that was
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> accident?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Same reason there are fines and judgments in auto accidents. There is
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>matter of culpability.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fines nor judgments are required after an auto accident. Fines are
>>>>> levied
>>>>> if
>>>>> a law was broken. Judgements are only made if there is a loss. If
>>>>> everyone
>>>>> has been made whole there is nothing to judge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You read this?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10548872
>>>
>>> How many times are you going to post that link tonight?
>>
>>
>>As many as I feel like. Have you read it yet? Do you understand it?
>>
>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10548872
>
> Sure. Irrelevant, but I read it.
If you think that, you didn't read it or you have a serious comprehension
problem.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:48:10 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:51:03 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:47:24 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:55:51 -0400, Steve
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are
>>>>>>>>> assessed
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>>>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>> happen either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>>>>>>Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would you hope for fines and judgements for something that was
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> accident?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Same reason there are fines and judgments in auto accidents. There is
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>matter of culpability.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fines nor judgments are required after an auto accident. Fines are
>>>>> levied
>>>>> if
>>>>> a law was broken. Judgements are only made if there is a loss. If
>>>>> everyone
>>>>> has been made whole there is nothing to judge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There IS a loss. BIGTIME!
>>>
>>> No, there isn't. Yet.
>>
>>
>>Got your head firmly planted somewhere, if you really think there has been
>>no loss.
>
> If everyone is made whole, no.
But they are not and are unlikely to be made whole for decades.
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:46:49 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:50:18 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:47:24 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:55:51 -0400, Steve
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>> happen either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>>>>>Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would you hope for fines and judgements for something that was an
>>>>>> accident?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Same reason there are fines and judgments in auto accidents. There is
>>>>>the
>>>>>matter of culpability.
>>>>
>>>> Fines nor judgments are required after an auto accident. Fines are
>>>> levied
>>>> if
>>>> a law was broken. Judgements are only made if there is a loss. If
>>>> everyone
>>>> has been made whole there is nothing to judge.
>>>
>>>
>>>You read this?
>>>
>>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10548872
>>
>> How many times are you going to post that link tonight?
>
>
>As many as I feel like. Have you read it yet? Do you understand it?
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10548872
Sure. Irrelevant, but I read it.
On Jul 17, 1:45=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:ab7acd4d-74ea-4a99-b0d4-7d0d0925e518@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> > He did it!!
>
> And right on the heels of his new book that also qualifies for the worlds
> shortest book.
>
> How I earned the Nobel Piece Prize.
I think it is wonderful to see BP step up to the plate to keep our
Hummers humming... even though they consumed an American president in
the process.
On Jul 18, 9:39=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > Maybe The British System isn't the right system. Try the Canadian one.
> > I'm exposed to that every day. It works great.
>
> Yeah, it's well known how great it works every time a Canuck slithers
> across the boarder to get timely, quality health care...
>
The Canuck that goes to the US for timely, quality health care is
usually rich and doesn't want to wait those few extra days he feels
could be a threat to his wellbeing. Often the referring physician has
motives of her/his own.
The Americans we see come up here for specialty care, such as Sick
Children's Hospital in Toronto, are here for their specific reasons
and not as a reflection of the US system.
Now if I had a bullet wound, I'd want to be treated in Detroit where
they have lots of experience with that sort of thing.
The nice thing about healthcare here in Canada, is that even in
extreme cases, you get to keep your house and all those things you've
worked for all your life. You don't leave your loved ones holding the
bag for those greedy money grubbin bastards who at the golf course try
to stand out as pillars of the community. I have met decent doctors
though, not all are hard-wired to automated time clocks which show
they can see 150 patients per day.
On Jul 24, 4:03=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 12:06=A0pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > All I have seen from your posts is
> > to say that everybody else is totally wrong. =A0No matter what.
> > Whatever anybody says is wrong. =A0Not enough evidence or things are
> > preconceived or something: anything--just to say that they are wrong.
>
> Incidentally, thanks for yet another classic example of all-or-nothing
> thinking.
>
> "Everybody ?" =A0"Totally ?"
>
> Nah.
>
> Not hardly.
>
> I'm pointing out shit logic. =A0I'm CORRECTLY pointing out shit logic.
>
> Logic may not ALWAYS drive you toward "truth," but ... like the old
> saying .....
>
> The race isn't ALWAYS to the swift,
> Nor the battle to the strong,
>
> But it's a safe bet ;-)
I must have replied to you instead of to the group because I do not
see the post in here.
You were the guy who posted in here over the winter complaining about
the jokes and stuff that were being told. You took it upon yourself
to start policing the group and acted like a pompous ass back then.
You are doing the exact same thing now.
Remember: opinions are like noses--everybody has one. But whenever
you address people with aggressiveness, do you really think you will
foster any sort of relationship? You are living proof that sort of
thing doesn't work.
Actually, I am almost ready to go back and find that thread from the
wintertime. It may take me a while but I think I can find it. Maybe
I can post all of those baby jokes again for ya.
Geesh. Learn to live and let live.
On Jul 27, 11:26=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
Since I haven't seen the results of his IQ test, Mark, I'll freely
admit that ... my characterization of Obama as having a high IQ IS a
statement of opinion.
But ... that should have been obvious. That's a quantifiable number,
that, AFAIK, has NOT been released.
You just wasted a ton of typing ... making yourself look like an
idiot ... in the process of trying to discredit me.
NONE of the things YOU invoked, under the auspices of "defining" a
high IQ ... really ARE relevant.
He either has a high IQ, or ... he doesn't.
I think he does.
But ... keep typing yourself into a frenzy, over the subject. It's
amusing.
On Jul 24, 8:06=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've been in 57 states,
Not personal attacks, Jack.
You ARE a fucking idiot.
If you use the "57 states" line ... because you think BO believes that
to be a correct figure, then ... you're genuinely too stupid to
understand what intelligence is (a virtual certainty).
And/or so insecure about your own LACK OF intelligence as to prefer
morons in the WH -- certainly a very common position in the US.
If, OTOH, you spew that line because it's a gaffe, and you find it
laughable, then ... you're so blindly partisan (again: a virtual
certainty) that you cling to lines like this ... again ... as a by-
product of *starting* with your blind partisanship, and then reasoning
backward.
If verbal gaffes are the measure of the man, then ... I'd sure hope I
could go back on Usenet and see the shit you heaped on GW Bush.
But I won't ... because you won't have.
They're only worth repeating if they're made by somebody who's
politics do NOT agree with yours.
Which makes you a fucking idiot AND a fucking hypocrite. Person/party
before ANY semblance of principles.
On Jul 30, 10:21=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > Goofy? Left wingers are 'goofy'? LOL. I think the big difference is
> > that BOTH sides are goofy 'cept that extreme right-wingers cause a lot
> > more destruction and damage.
>
> The left has killed WAY over a 100 million over the last 100 years.
> Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Chiang Kai-shek, Pol Pot and a bunch more left
> wing, socialist bastards!
>
> http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
>
> Get a fucking clue you worthless piece of clueless excrement!
>
> (the last part was to insure you could hear me... douche-bag!
>
> PS, I've called a number of losers douche-bags before, none of them
> quite as deserving.
>
You are no longer relevant. It has dawned on me how pitiful you really
are. You have lost your cool. That means I win. <end>
On Jul 22, 8:40=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> You just make shit up as you go along. =A0Like all left wing butt heads,
THIS is just ONE example of why YOU are a total fucking asshole, Jack.
I'll call YOU an asshole.
YOU, on the other hand assume that nearly HALF the electorate can be
described by your self-serving, hate-filled, ideological idiocy.
YOU seem to need things/people to fall into nice, neat little boxes --
presumably because YOU (again: JUST you) can't figure out anything
more than that.
People are complicated, Jack.
Life's complicated, Jack.
Maybe if you TRIED to talk about things on a factual basis, instead of
assuming that anybody who holds a different opinion is a "left wing
butt head," you'd be LESS of an asshole.
I doubt it, though.
Seems to be in your DNA ... or something.
On Jul 24, 12:06=A0pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
> All I have seen from your posts is
> to say that everybody else is totally wrong. =A0No matter what.
> Whatever anybody says is wrong. =A0Not enough evidence or things are
> preconceived or something: anything--just to say that they are wrong.
Incidentally, thanks for yet another classic example of all-or-nothing
thinking.
"Everybody ?" "Totally ?"
Nah.
Not hardly.
I'm pointing out shit logic. I'm CORRECTLY pointing out shit logic.
Logic may not ALWAYS drive you toward "truth," but ... like the old
saying .....
The race isn't ALWAYS to the swift,
Nor the battle to the strong,
But it's a safe bet ;-)
On Jul 22, 12:27=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > The simplest and best solution to the health care problem would indeed
> > have been to extend Medicare to all. =A0It would have brought a younger
> > healthier group in and thus cut costs. =A0We might even have been able =
to
> > increase payment rates to doctors and hospitals because of that.
>
> > But it wasn't politically palatable.
>
> As it stands, Medicare is a failure. =A0Private insurance makes up for a
> lot of the Medicare (and Medicaid) expenses when doctors and hospitals
> charge private insurance more for services than paid by government
> programs. Worse, government has no bottom line so they are ALWAYS
> incompetent and expensive. =A0If a government worker does a poor job, he
> gets ignored or transferred to another supervisor that's incompetent
> enough to not care. =A0When the whole country is on Medicare, things will
> get worse, far worse.
>
> For example, when everyone in the country is on Medicaid, you end up
> with 50% of prostrate cancer patients dying instead of 10-15%.
>
> --
> Jack
> 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.http://jbstein.com
By the way, I agree calling people names is childish...BUT...to
continue the name-calling is even more childish. Who wins? The
person who calls the other person a name last? Or is it the person
who puts the name-calling behind them and tries to talk common sense?
Ahhhh, what's the use? I understand that conservative vs. liberal has
existed since the beginning of time but that does not mean two (or
more) adults with two polar-opposite points of view cannot have a
deep, meaningful conversation about many t hings that happen in this
world.
On Jul 21, 9:24=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0Robocop calling people douche-nozzles [blah, blah, blah]
First of all, it's Robatoy, second of all, you Jack, are the only one
who is a douche nozzle and I have never used that moniker on anybody
else. It does seem to be nigh impossible for you not to keep bringing
this up. That's a sign of bitterness which is quite common amongst
republicans.
On Jul 17, 11:50=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0The British National Health System is coming to America,
> welcome to rationing, waiting lists, and lack of care for everybody excep=
t
> the rich who will be able to afford to pay the tax and buy their own care=
.
>
Toeing the Party line again, eh Mark? Man they got you sold in a bad
way. No room for anything other than your extreme views. Extreme,
Mark. Radical fanatical non-compromising views. Unreal.
"Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 7/27/2010 1:37 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
> ... Snip ...
>>> No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>>>
>>> http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>>
>> Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
>> something besides some 'blog.'
>
> Here is Factcheck.org's comments on this topic.
>
> http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
Thanks, Dan.
Dave in Texas
On Jul 28, 12:46=A0am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0 Dan, I need to issue a Mea Culpa on this, I conflated factcheck with
> something else. =A0My apologies. =A0 I should have checked further to avo=
id that
> conflation of web sites. =A0
Realistically, if this NG had more gadflies, more of you would be
issuing MORE mea culpas.
If only .....
On Jul 28, 1:54=A0am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dan Coby wrote:
> > On 7/27/2010 9:47 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >> Dave in Texas wrote:
>
> >>> "Dan Coby"<[email protected]> =A0wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>> On 7/27/2010 1:37 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>
> >>>>> <[email protected]> =A0wrote in message
> >>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas"<[email protected]>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>> ... Snip ...
> >>>>>> No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>
> >>>>>>http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>
> >>>>> Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
> >>>>> something besides some 'blog.'
>
> >>>> Here is Factcheck.org's comments on this topic.
>
> >>>>http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
>
> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0Thanks, Dan.
>
> >>> Dave in Texas
>
> >> =A0 =A0reason.com is just some "blog", yet factcheck.org, a wholly own=
ed
> >> subsidiary of the Obama administration is just peachy with you as a
> >> source?
>
> >> Ohhhkay
>
> > You claim that factcheck.org is a "a wholly owned subsidiary of the Oba=
ma
> > administration". Please support that claim using some other reason besi=
des
> > the fact that you may not always agree with what they publish.
>
> > The factcheck.org web site says that it is a project of 'The Annenberg
> > Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania'.
>
> > The 'The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvan=
ia'
> > web site has this to say about their mission:
>
> > "When the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) was established in 1993=
,
> > its founders, Ambassadors Walter and Leonore Annenberg, sought to incre=
ase
> > the impact of the scholarship produced at Penn=92s Annenberg School for
> > Communication, the Policy Center=92s home. It was their hope that the A=
PPC
> > would apply its knowledge about communication to improve the well-being=
of
> > those in the U.S. and throughout the globe. In the subsequent years, AP=
PC
> > research has been put to use in studies of adolescent health, HIV and
> > AIDS, media content analysis and political civility."
>
> > More info: =A0http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/About.aspx
>
> > Walter Annenberg was Nixon's ambassador to the United Kingdom. =A0I hav=
e
> > never heard anyone describe him as a liberal.
>
> > More info: =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg
>
> > You may believe that Walter Annenberg sponsored a "a wholly owned
> > subsidiary of the Obama
> > administration" but I would like you to back up your statement. =A0I ha=
ve
> > read quite a few of factcheck.org's pieces over the years and I can tel=
l
> > you that they are happy to puncture claims from both the left and the
> > right.
>
> <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104053/posts>
>
> =A0 There are other references that can be found with a quick Bing search=
on
> "factcheck.org bias", but it's getting late, so I'll leave it with that o=
ne.
>
> --
>
> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>
> Rob Leatham
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh that explains everything. You're a FREEPER!!!!
Dan Coby wrote:
> On 7/27/2010 10:54 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Dan Coby wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/27/2010 9:47 PM, Mark& Juanita wrote:
>>>> Dave in Texas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dan Coby"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 7/27/2010 1:37 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas"<[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... Snip ...
>>>>>>>> No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
>>>>>>> something besides some 'blog.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is Factcheck.org's comments on this topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Dan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave in Texas
>>>>
>>>> reason.com is just some "blog", yet factcheck.org, a wholly owned
>>>> subsidiary of the Obama administration is just peachy with you as a
>>>> source?
>>>>
>>>> Ohhhkay
>>>>
>>>
>>> You claim that factcheck.org is a "a wholly owned subsidiary of the
>>> Obama administration". Please support that claim using some other reason
>>> besides the fact that you may not always agree with what they publish.
>>>
>>> The factcheck.org web site says that it is a project of 'The Annenberg
>>> Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania'.
>>>
>>> The 'The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of
>>> Pennsylvania' web site has this to say about their mission:
>>>
>>> "When the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) was established in 1993,
>>> its founders, Ambassadors Walter and Leonore Annenberg, sought to
>>> increase the impact of the scholarship produced at Pennââ¬â¢s Annenberg
>>> School for Communication, the Policy Centerââ¬â¢s home. It was their hope
>>> that the APPC would apply its knowledge about communication to improve
>>> the well-being of those in the U.S. and throughout the globe. In the
>>> subsequent years, APPC research has been put to use in studies of
>>> adolescent health, HIV and AIDS, media content analysis and political
>>> civility."
>>>
>>> More info: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/About.aspx
>>>
>>> Walter Annenberg was Nixon's ambassador to the United Kingdom. I have
>>> never heard anyone describe him as a liberal.
>>>
>>> More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg
>>>
>>> You may believe that Walter Annenberg sponsored a "a wholly owned
>>> subsidiary of the Obama
>>> administration" but I would like you to back up your statement. I have
>>> read quite a few of factcheck.org's pieces over the years and I can tell
>>> you that they are happy to puncture claims from both the left and the
>>> right.
>>
>>
>> <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104053/posts>
>>
>> There are other references that can be found with a quick Bing search
>> on
>> "factcheck.org bias", but it's getting late, so I'll leave it with that
>> one.
>
>
> I have read hundreds of articles on factcheck.org and have generally found
> that
> they are quite neutral. I have had small quibbles with individual
> articles but no more than I would expect from any analysis source.
>
Dan, I need to issue a Mea Culpa on this, I conflated factcheck with
something else. My apologies. I should have checked further to avoid that
conflation of web sites.
>
> Do you have any specific issues with their article on the GM payback?
> Please note that factcheck.org says quite clearly that the tax payers
> still have quite a bit of cash tied up in GM.
My issue with that particular item was stating that Grassley's objection
to GM claiming repayment of the loan as "opinion". The fact was that GM
used other taxpayer provided monies (TARP) to "re-pay" the loan "with
interest". Having done so is not evidence of a healthy company that could
repay its loans from earnings. This simply moved some taxpayer-funded money
from one account to another. The article is clear that GM is still
Government Motors.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave in Texas wrote:
>
>>
>> "Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 7/27/2010 1:37 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>> ... Snip ...
>>>>> No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
>>>> something besides some 'blog.'
>>>
>>> Here is Factcheck.org's comments on this topic.
>>>
>>> http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
>>
>> Thanks, Dan.
>>
>> Dave in Texas
>
> reason.com is just some "blog", yet factcheck.org, a wholly owned
> subsidiary of the Obama administration is just peachy with you as a
> source?
>
> Ohhhkay
You have the answer to everything. ~:o))))))))))))))))) <==== ROFLMAO!
On 7/27/2010 9:47 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Dave in Texas wrote:
>
>>
>> "Dan Coby"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 7/27/2010 1:37 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas"<[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>> ... Snip ...
>>>>> No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
>>>> something besides some 'blog.'
>>>
>>> Here is Factcheck.org's comments on this topic.
>>>
>>> http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
>>
>> Thanks, Dan.
>>
>> Dave in Texas
>
> reason.com is just some "blog", yet factcheck.org, a wholly owned
> subsidiary of the Obama administration is just peachy with you as a source?
>
> Ohhhkay
>
You claim that factcheck.org is a "a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama administration".
Please support that claim using some other reason besides the fact that you may not always
agree with what they publish.
The factcheck.org web site says that it is a project of 'The Annenberg Public Policy
Center of the University of Pennsylvania'.
The 'The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania' web site
has this to say about their mission:
"When the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) was established in 1993, its founders,
Ambassadors Walter and Leonore Annenberg, sought to increase the impact of the scholarship
produced at Penns Annenberg School for Communication, the Policy Centers home. It was
their hope that the APPC would apply its knowledge about communication to improve the
well-being of those in the U.S. and throughout the globe. In the subsequent years,
APPC research has been put to use in studies of adolescent health, HIV and AIDS, media
content analysis and political civility."
More info: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/About.aspx
Walter Annenberg was Nixon's ambassador to the United Kingdom. I have never heard
anyone describe him as a liberal.
More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg
You may believe that Walter Annenberg sponsored a "a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama
administration" but I would like you to back up your statement. I have read quite a few
of factcheck.org's pieces over the years and I can tell you that they are happy to
puncture claims from both the left and the right.
"Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 7/27/2010 10:54 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Dan Coby wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/27/2010 9:47 PM, Mark& Juanita wrote:
>>>> Dave in Texas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dan Coby"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 7/27/2010 1:37 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas"<[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... Snip ...
>>>>>>>> No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
>>>>>>> something besides some 'blog.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is Factcheck.org's comments on this topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Dan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave in Texas
>>>>
>>>> reason.com is just some "blog", yet factcheck.org, a wholly owned
>>>> subsidiary of the Obama administration is just peachy with you as a
>>>> source?
>>>>
>>>> Ohhhkay
>>>>
>>>
>>> You claim that factcheck.org is a "a wholly owned subsidiary of the
>>> Obama
>>> administration". Please support that claim using some other reason
>>> besides
>>> the fact that you may not always agree with what they publish.
>>>
>>> The factcheck.org web site says that it is a project of 'The Annenberg
>>> Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania'.
>>>
>>> The 'The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of
>>> Pennsylvania'
>>> web site has this to say about their mission:
>>>
>>> "When the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) was established in 1993,
>>> its founders, Ambassadors Walter and Leonore Annenberg, sought to
>>> increase
>>> the impact of the scholarship produced at Pennâs Annenberg School for
>>> Communication, the Policy Centerâs home. It was their hope that the
>>> APPC
>>> would apply its knowledge about communication to improve the well-being
>>> of
>>> those in the U.S. and throughout the globe. In the subsequent years,
>>> APPC
>>> research has been put to use in studies of adolescent health, HIV and
>>> AIDS, media content analysis and political civility."
>>>
>>> More info: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/About.aspx
>>>
>>> Walter Annenberg was Nixon's ambassador to the United Kingdom. I have
>>> never heard anyone describe him as a liberal.
>>>
>>> More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg
>>>
>>> You may believe that Walter Annenberg sponsored a "a wholly owned
>>> subsidiary of the Obama
>>> administration" but I would like you to back up your statement. I have
>>> read quite a few of factcheck.org's pieces over the years and I can tell
>>> you that they are happy to puncture claims from both the left and the
>>> right.
>>
>>
>> <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104053/posts>
>>
>> There are other references that can be found with a quick Bing search
>> on
>> "factcheck.org bias", but it's getting late, so I'll leave it with that
>> one.
>
>
> I have read hundreds of articles on factcheck.org and have generally found
> that
> they are quite neutral. I have had small quibbles with individual
> articles but
> no more than I would expect from any analysis source.
>
>
> Do you have any specific issues with their article on the GM payback?
> Please
> note that factcheck.org says quite clearly that the tax payers still have
> quite
> a bit of cash tied up in GM.
BULLSHIT! Obama's got a g-d printing press in the Oval office and he's
going to print brazillions and brazillions of money soes GM can make it look
like the [Bush administration] TARP program was a huge success and then
Obama's going to use it as a political talking point to steal the mid-term
elections. AND, if Obama can't print enough money fast enough he's going to
shake down BP [Chicago-style] for more brazillions soes he can spread the
money around to left-wing, liberal candidates thereby STEALING the
elections. I'll bet they heard it on Rush Limbaugh's radio show.
You just ask Mark and Jackenstein.
Dave in Texas
On 7/27/2010 10:54 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Dan Coby wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2010 9:47 PM, Mark& Juanita wrote:
>>> Dave in Texas wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Dan Coby"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 7/27/2010 1:37 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas"<[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ... Snip ...
>>>>>>> No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
>>>>>> something besides some 'blog.'
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is Factcheck.org's comments on this topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Dan.
>>>>
>>>> Dave in Texas
>>>
>>> reason.com is just some "blog", yet factcheck.org, a wholly owned
>>> subsidiary of the Obama administration is just peachy with you as a
>>> source?
>>>
>>> Ohhhkay
>>>
>>
>> You claim that factcheck.org is a "a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama
>> administration". Please support that claim using some other reason besides
>> the fact that you may not always agree with what they publish.
>>
>> The factcheck.org web site says that it is a project of 'The Annenberg
>> Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania'.
>>
>> The 'The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania'
>> web site has this to say about their mission:
>>
>> "When the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) was established in 1993,
>> its founders, Ambassadors Walter and Leonore Annenberg, sought to increase
>> the impact of the scholarship produced at Pennâs Annenberg School for
>> Communication, the Policy Centerâs home. It was their hope that the APPC
>> would apply its knowledge about communication to improve the well-being of
>> those in the U.S. and throughout the globe. In the subsequent years, APPC
>> research has been put to use in studies of adolescent health, HIV and
>> AIDS, media content analysis and political civility."
>>
>> More info: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/About.aspx
>>
>> Walter Annenberg was Nixon's ambassador to the United Kingdom. I have
>> never heard anyone describe him as a liberal.
>>
>> More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg
>>
>> You may believe that Walter Annenberg sponsored a "a wholly owned
>> subsidiary of the Obama
>> administration" but I would like you to back up your statement. I have
>> read quite a few of factcheck.org's pieces over the years and I can tell
>> you that they are happy to puncture claims from both the left and the
>> right.
>
>
> <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104053/posts>
>
> There are other references that can be found with a quick Bing search on
> "factcheck.org bias", but it's getting late, so I'll leave it with that one.
I have read hundreds of articles on factcheck.org and have generally found that
they are quite neutral. I have had small quibbles with individual articles but
no more than I would expect from any analysis source.
Do you have any specific issues with their article on the GM payback? Please
note that factcheck.org says quite clearly that the tax payers still have quite
a bit of cash tied up in GM.
Dave in Texas wrote:
>
> "Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 7/27/2010 1:37 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>> ... Snip ...
>>>> No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>>>>
>>>> http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>>>
>>> Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
>>> something besides some 'blog.'
>>
>> Here is Factcheck.org's comments on this topic.
>>
>> http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
>
> Thanks, Dan.
>
> Dave in Texas
reason.com is just some "blog", yet factcheck.org, a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Obama administration is just peachy with you as a source?
Ohhhkay
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The fact was that GM
> used other taxpayer provided monies (TARP) to "re-pay" the loan "with
> interest". Having done so is not evidence of a healthy company that
> could repay its loans from earnings. This simply moved some
> taxpayer-funded money from one account to another.
Not true. If I have 2 credit lines, one of $2,000 and one of $100,000, the
credit bureau says I have potential liabilities of $102,000. If I pay off
the $2,000 line and relinquish any claims on it, I "only" have potential
liabilities of $100,000.
Change the numbers to GM's.
> The article is clear that GM is still Government Motors.
To the extent that Treasury (?) owns a large majority of its shares. If yo
want to get GM out of government "control", go buy some Buicks and
Cadillacs. I'd applaud you!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 7/27/2010 1:37 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
... Snip ...
>> No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>>
>> http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>
> Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
> something besides some 'blog.'
Here is Factcheck.org's comments on this topic.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
On Jul 27, 11:54=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dan Coby wrote:
> > On 7/27/2010 9:47 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >> Dave in Texas wrote:
>
> >>> "Dan Coby"<[email protected]> =A0wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>> On 7/27/2010 1:37 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>
> >>>>> <[email protected]> =A0wrote in message
> >>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas"<[email protected]>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>> ... Snip ...
> >>>>>> No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>
> >>>>>>http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>
> >>>>> Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
> >>>>> something besides some 'blog.'
>
> >>>> Here is Factcheck.org's comments on this topic.
>
> >>>>http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
>
> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0Thanks, Dan.
>
> >>> Dave in Texas
>
> >> =A0 =A0reason.com is just some "blog", yet factcheck.org, a wholly own=
ed
> >> subsidiary of the Obama administration is just peachy with you as a
> >> source?
>
> >> Ohhhkay
>
> > You claim that factcheck.org is a "a wholly owned subsidiary of the Oba=
ma
> > administration". Please support that claim using some other reason besi=
des
> > the fact that you may not always agree with what they publish.
>
> > The factcheck.org web site says that it is a project of 'The Annenberg
> > Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania'.
>
> > The 'The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvan=
ia'
> > web site has this to say about their mission:
>
> > "When the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) was established in 1993=
,
> > its founders, Ambassadors Walter and Leonore Annenberg, sought to incre=
ase
> > the impact of the scholarship produced at Penn=92s Annenberg School for
> > Communication, the Policy Center=92s home. It was their hope that the A=
PPC
> > would apply its knowledge about communication to improve the well-being=
of
> > those in the U.S. and throughout the globe. In the subsequent years, AP=
PC
> > research has been put to use in studies of adolescent health, HIV and
> > AIDS, media content analysis and political civility."
>
> > More info: =A0http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/About.aspx
>
> > Walter Annenberg was Nixon's ambassador to the United Kingdom. =A0I hav=
e
> > never heard anyone describe him as a liberal.
>
> > More info: =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg
>
> > You may believe that Walter Annenberg sponsored a "a wholly owned
> > subsidiary of the Obama
> > administration" but I would like you to back up your statement. =A0I ha=
ve
> > read quite a few of factcheck.org's pieces over the years and I can tel=
l
> > you that they are happy to puncture claims from both the left and the
> > right.
>
> <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104053/posts>
>
> =A0 There are other references that can be found with a quick Bing search=
on
> "factcheck.org bias", but it's getting late, so I'll leave it with that o=
ne.
So ... right-wing blogs think FactCheck.org is biased.
Interesting.
Thanks for clearing that up, Mark.
On 7/27/2010 11:46 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Dan Coby wrote:
>>
>> Do you have any specific issues with their article on the GM payback?
>> Please note that factcheck.org says quite clearly that the tax payers
>> still have quite a bit of cash tied up in GM.
>
> My issue with that particular item was stating that Grassley's objection
> to GM claiming repayment of the loan as "opinion". The fact was that GM
> used other taxpayer provided monies (TARP) to "re-pay" the loan "with
> interest". Having done so is not evidence of a healthy company that could
> repay its loans from earnings. This simply moved some taxpayer-funded money
> from one account to another. The article is clear that GM is still
> Government Motors.
Yes. The article definitely makes it clear that GM is not a healthy company.
Indeed the concluding sentence of the article states:
"As for Treasurys equity stake, worth $40 billion-plus, the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office has said the Treasury wont fully recoup that money.
The total automaker bailout, including TARP money given to Chrysler, CBO estimates,
will cost taxpayers about $34 billion."
On Jul 27, 7:03=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 3:37=A0am, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>
> > >>"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >>news:[email protected]...
> > >>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >>>news:[email protected]...
>
> > >>>> Yeah, so lets give government control over 1/6th of the economy, a=
nd
> > >>>> our
> > >>>> health to boot. Government controlling your health care is not goi=
ng to
> > >>>> lead to smaller government anytime soon. You're lying or stupid.
>
> > >>> The government, by law, already controls more than 90% of the econo=
my.
> > >>> It
> > >>> chooses not to exercise day to day control in some instances. 10% i=
s
> > >>> either barter, or illegal.
>
> > >> =A0 =A0I doubt that 90% BS. =A0With all the financial
> > >> market/too-big-to-fail-bank
> > >>bailout of the last year it has come to light that the Wall Street
> > >>financiers and/or big banks account for more than 60% of U.S. GDP. =
=A0If you
> > >>think the government controls those institutions it's because they pa=
y the
> > >>government to do it the way they want. =A0You're not hearing much pis=
sing
> > >>and
> > >>moaning from the financial markets on the recent financial regulation=
bill
> > >>which passed. =A0IIRC the market went up substantially the day the bi=
ll
> > >>passed.
> > >> =A0 =A0And, GM has repaid it's government loan to the point that the=
Houston
> > >>Chronicle reported today that GM is jumping back into the subprime le=
nding
> > >>market buying some lending outfit so GM can start financing car loans
> > >>again.
>
> > > No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>
> > >http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>
> > =A0 =A0 Perhaps so. =A0But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news so=
urce,
> > something besides some 'blog.'
>
> Do your own search. =A0Run the numbers yourself. =A0They don't add up.
> IOW, Obamaniacs lie. =A0Nothing new here, though.
A POLITICIAN LIED ???
CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE GET THE PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIANS ON THE PHONE ...
PRONTO ??
PAGING MICHAEL BESCHLOSS !
So ... were YOU bitching, here, when the Bush Administration wove an
endless string of lies, or ... are you just FAR more partisan than
actually principled ?
Just curious.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, so lets give government control over 1/6th of the economy, and
>>>> our
>>>> health to boot. Government controlling your health care is not going to
>>>> lead to smaller government anytime soon. You're lying or stupid.
>>>
>>> The government, by law, already controls more than 90% of the economy.
>>> It
>>> chooses not to exercise day to day control in some instances. 10% is
>>> either barter, or illegal.
>>
>> I doubt that 90% BS. With all the financial
>> market/too-big-to-fail-bank
>>bailout of the last year it has come to light that the Wall Street
>>financiers and/or big banks account for more than 60% of U.S. GDP. If you
>>think the government controls those institutions it's because they pay the
>>government to do it the way they want. You're not hearing much pissing
>>and
>>moaning from the financial markets on the recent financial regulation bill
>>which passed. IIRC the market went up substantially the day the bill
>>passed.
>> And, GM has repaid it's government loan to the point that the Houston
>>Chronicle reported today that GM is jumping back into the subprime lending
>>market buying some lending outfit so GM can start financing car loans
>>again.
>
> No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>
> http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
something besides some 'blog.'
Dave in Texas
"Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 7/27/2010 9:47 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Dave in Texas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Dan Coby"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 7/27/2010 1:37 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas"<[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>> ... Snip ...
>>>>>> No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
>>>>> something besides some 'blog.'
>>>>
>>>> Here is Factcheck.org's comments on this topic.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
>>>
>>> Thanks, Dan.
>>>
>>> Dave in Texas
>>
>> reason.com is just some "blog", yet factcheck.org, a wholly owned
>> subsidiary of the Obama administration is just peachy with you as a
>> source?
>>
>> Ohhhkay
>>
>
> You claim that factcheck.org is a "a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama
> administration".
> Please support that claim using some other reason besides the fact that
> you may not always
> agree with what they publish.
>
> The factcheck.org web site says that it is a project of 'The Annenberg
> Public Policy
> Center of the University of Pennsylvania'.
>
> The 'The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania'
> web site
> has this to say about their mission:
>
> "When the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) was established in 1993,
> its founders,
> Ambassadors Walter and Leonore Annenberg, sought to increase the impact of
> the scholarship
> produced at Penns Annenberg School for Communication, the Policy Centers
> home. It was
> their hope that the APPC would apply its knowledge about communication to
> improve the
> well-being of those in the U.S. and throughout the globe. In the
> subsequent years,
> APPC research has been put to use in studies of adolescent health, HIV and
> AIDS, media
> content analysis and political civility."
>
> More info: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/About.aspx
>
> Walter Annenberg was Nixon's ambassador to the United Kingdom. I have
> never heard
> anyone describe him as a liberal.
>
> More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg
>
> You may believe that Walter Annenberg sponsored a "a wholly owned
> subsidiary of the Obama
> administration" but I would like you to back up your statement. I have
> read quite a few
> of factcheck.org's pieces over the years and I can tell you that they are
> happy to
> puncture claims from both the left and the right.
THE ANNEBERGS ARE FUCKING CLOSET COMMUNISTS! JUST ASK MARK AND JACKENSTEIN!
Those two know all about the great liberal conspiracy!
On Jul 27, 3:37=A0am, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> >>"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>>> Yeah, so lets give government control over 1/6th of the economy, and
> >>>> our
> >>>> health to boot. Government controlling your health care is not going=
to
> >>>> lead to smaller government anytime soon. You're lying or stupid.
>
> >>> The government, by law, already controls more than 90% of the economy=
.
> >>> It
> >>> chooses not to exercise day to day control in some instances. 10% is
> >>> either barter, or illegal.
>
> >> =A0 =A0I doubt that 90% BS. =A0With all the financial
> >> market/too-big-to-fail-bank
> >>bailout of the last year it has come to light that the Wall Street
> >>financiers and/or big banks account for more than 60% of U.S. GDP. =A0I=
f you
> >>think the government controls those institutions it's because they pay =
the
> >>government to do it the way they want. =A0You're not hearing much pissi=
ng
> >>and
> >>moaning from the financial markets on the recent financial regulation b=
ill
> >>which passed. =A0IIRC the market went up substantially the day the bill
> >>passed.
> >> =A0 =A0And, GM has repaid it's government loan to the point that the H=
ouston
> >>Chronicle reported today that GM is jumping back into the subprime lend=
ing
> >>market buying some lending outfit so GM can start financing car loans
> >>again.
>
> > No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>
> >http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>
> =A0 =A0 Perhaps so. =A0But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news sour=
ce,
> something besides some 'blog.'
Do your own search. Run the numbers yourself. They don't add up.
IOW, Obamaniacs lie. Nothing new here, though.
Dan Coby wrote:
> On 7/27/2010 9:47 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:
... snip
>>> Dave in Texas
>>
>> reason.com is just some "blog", yet factcheck.org, a wholly owned
>> subsidiary of the Obama administration is just peachy with you as a
>> source?
>>
>> Ohhhkay
>>
>
> You claim that factcheck.org is a "a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama
> administration". Please support that claim using some other reason besides
> the fact that you may not always agree with what they publish.
>
> The factcheck.org web site says that it is a project of 'The Annenberg
> Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania'.
>
> The 'The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania'
> web site has this to say about their mission:
>
> "When the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) was established in 1993,
> its founders, Ambassadors Walter and Leonore Annenberg, sought to increase
> the impact of the scholarship produced at Pennâs Annenberg School for
> Communication, the Policy Centerâs home. It was their hope that the APPC
> would apply its knowledge about communication to improve the well-being of
> those in the U.S. and throughout the globe. In the subsequent years, APPC
> research has been put to use in studies of adolescent health, HIV and
> AIDS, media content analysis and political civility."
>
> More info: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/About.aspx
>
> Walter Annenberg was Nixon's ambassador to the United Kingdom. I have
> never heard anyone describe him as a liberal.
>
> More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg
>
> You may believe that Walter Annenberg sponsored a "a wholly owned
> subsidiary of the Obama
> administration" but I would like you to back up your statement. I have
> read quite a few of factcheck.org's pieces over the years and I can tell
> you that they are happy to puncture claims from both the left and the
> right.
Let me add to my last post, the fact that they funded Bill Ayers for his
Annenburg challenge plan would pretty much make it difficult to claim to be
nonpartisan.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Dan Coby wrote:
> On 7/27/2010 9:47 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Dave in Texas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Dan Coby"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 7/27/2010 1:37 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas"<[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>> ... Snip ...
>>>>>> No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
>>>>> something besides some 'blog.'
>>>>
>>>> Here is Factcheck.org's comments on this topic.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
>>>
>>> Thanks, Dan.
>>>
>>> Dave in Texas
>>
>> reason.com is just some "blog", yet factcheck.org, a wholly owned
>> subsidiary of the Obama administration is just peachy with you as a
>> source?
>>
>> Ohhhkay
>>
>
> You claim that factcheck.org is a "a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama
> administration". Please support that claim using some other reason besides
> the fact that you may not always agree with what they publish.
>
> The factcheck.org web site says that it is a project of 'The Annenberg
> Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania'.
>
> The 'The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania'
> web site has this to say about their mission:
>
> "When the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) was established in 1993,
> its founders, Ambassadors Walter and Leonore Annenberg, sought to increase
> the impact of the scholarship produced at Pennâs Annenberg School for
> Communication, the Policy Centerâs home. It was their hope that the APPC
> would apply its knowledge about communication to improve the well-being of
> those in the U.S. and throughout the globe. In the subsequent years, APPC
> research has been put to use in studies of adolescent health, HIV and
> AIDS, media content analysis and political civility."
>
> More info: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/About.aspx
>
> Walter Annenberg was Nixon's ambassador to the United Kingdom. I have
> never heard anyone describe him as a liberal.
>
> More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg
>
> You may believe that Walter Annenberg sponsored a "a wholly owned
> subsidiary of the Obama
> administration" but I would like you to back up your statement. I have
> read quite a few of factcheck.org's pieces over the years and I can tell
> you that they are happy to puncture claims from both the left and the
> right.
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104053/posts>
There are other references that can be found with a quick Bing search on
"factcheck.org bias", but it's getting late, so I'll leave it with that one.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Dave in Texas wrote:
>> No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
> Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
> something besides some 'blog.'
Who did they pay it back too, themselves?
--
Jack
There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword,
the other is by debt. - John Adams
http://jbstein.com
Dan Coby wrote:
> On 7/27/2010 1:37 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
> ... Snip ...
>>> No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>>>
>>> http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>>
>> Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
>> something besides some 'blog.'
>
> Here is Factcheck.org's comments on this topic.
>
> http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/
Here's a factcheck for you, the government owns Government Motors.
Whether they paid back any money to themselves is a non-issue, they can,
and do, just print a few wheelbarrows more.
--
Jack
Got Change: General Motors =======> Government Motors!
http://jbstein.com
Dan Coby wrote:
factcheck.org says quite clearly that the tax payers still
> have quite a bit of cash tied up in GM.
They are certainly right about that. GM, aka Government Motors, aka,
the US government are in the tax payers pockets for TRILLIONS of
dollars. You do know the government OWNS Government Motors, right?
--
Jack
Got Change: Democratic Republic ======> Banana Republic!
http://jbstein.com
Dave in Texas wrote:
> THE ANNEBERGS ARE FUCKING CLOSET COMMUNISTS! JUST ASK MARK AND
> JACKENSTEIN! Those two know all about the great liberal conspiracy!
Jack Stein has no fucking idea who THE ANNEBERGS ARE, and never said a
thing about them...
Get a grip, dipshit!
--
Jack
What one person receives without working for, another person must work
for without receiving.
http://jbstein.com
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:54:29 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> You may believe that Walter Annenberg sponsored a "a wholly owned
>> subsidiary of the Obama
>> administration" but I would like you to back up your statement. I have
>> read quite a few of factcheck.org's pieces over the years and I can
>> tell you that they are happy to puncture claims from both the left and
>> the right.
>
>
> <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104053/posts>
>
> There are other references that can be found with a quick Bing search
> on
> "factcheck.org bias", but it's getting late, so I'll leave it with that
> one.
IOW, I'll see *your* biased web page and raise you with *my* biased web
page.
At least Factcheck *has* a description of their purpose - all I see on
freerepublic is a bunch of right leaning news articles - nothing on the
genesis or purpose of the website.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, so lets give government control over 1/6th of the economy, and our
>>> health to boot. Government controlling your health care is not going to
>>> lead to smaller government anytime soon. You're lying or stupid.
>>
>> The government, by law, already controls more than 90% of the economy. It
>> chooses not to exercise day to day control in some instances. 10% is
>> either barter, or illegal.
>
> I doubt that 90% BS. With all the financial market/too-big-to-fail-bank
>bailout of the last year it has come to light that the Wall Street
>financiers and/or big banks account for more than 60% of U.S. GDP. If you
>think the government controls those institutions it's because they pay the
>government to do it the way they want. You're not hearing much pissing and
>moaning from the financial markets on the recent financial regulation bill
>which passed. IIRC the market went up substantially the day the bill
>passed.
> And, GM has repaid it's government loan to the point that the Houston
>Chronicle reported today that GM is jumping back into the subprime lending
>market buying some lending outfit so GM can start financing car loans again.
No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
Swingman wrote:
> On 7/15/2010 3:29 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>> He did it!!
>
> And so he thinks ... note the imperial "we" in all his comments about
> the capping thus far.
>
You also noticed that "we". Arrogant little twerp, isn't he?
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Jul 22, 11:56=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 1:28=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 10:27=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > As it stands, Medicare is a failure. =A0Private insurance makes up fo=
r a
> > > lot of the Medicare (and Medicaid) expenses when doctors and hospital=
s
> > > charge private insurance more for services than paid by government
> > > programs. Worse, government has no bottom line so they are ALWAYS
> > > incompetent and expensive.
>
> > Gosh. =A0I've been in 49 states. =A0I think they do an AMAZING job at M=
ANY
> > things.
>
> > Maybe the goal of health, education, security, and ... things like
> > clean drinking water ... shouldn't BE fiscal profit.
>
> > In every other measure ... Medicare is viewed as a huge success.
>
> > Start by (you're going to flip out. =A0I just know it) examining your
> > own assumptions and definitions, Jack.
>
> > What's failure. =A0What's success.
>
> > I wonder if you ever asked those questions about the wars in
> > Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
> > I ... simply cannot imagine you did, though.
>
> I have not been in 49 States but I do see a lot of waste in Government
> and they have to follow what is stated in the law, even if it makes no
> sense for an individual incident. =A0Medicare is useful in a way but
> very wasteful in others. =A0It could and probably should be run more
> efficiently. =A0I am willing to bet that if a true, for-profit business
> looked at Medicaid, it would come up with numerous improvements AND
> would lower costs.
>
> That said, it is STUPID to force everybody in the US into one plan
> like that, even if it wee run like a business because it will
> eventually be the only player in an entire industry--talk about a
> monopoly. =A0Then the masses are truly screwed.
>
> As far as the wars go, there has certain been a lot more good that has
> come about because of the wars than has been reported on the news,
> including Fox. =A0I have had the privilege of talking to many troops
> because I work near an air base and they speak to me about the massive
> infrastructure improvements that have benefited the average, everyday
> person in Iraq and not just those at the top of the government. =A0The
> biggest change I have heard is that women are getting more and more
> freedom over there (although Iraq was already probably the most
> liberal of the Arab countries).
>
> Please do not start the topic of was. =A0It is nice to say that we
> should not be involved in war and, in a perfect world, we wouldn't be
> involved ever. =A0But the fact of the matter is that sometimes you get
> pushed into it.
And sometimes, you don't.
> =A0Just because you don't want to fight does not mean
> the other side will back off.
You didn't really ... at all ... directly engage in what I put
forward. Odd, considering your basic premise, here, huh ?
Re: healthcare.
I didn't suggest a monopoly.
I didn't suggest that there were NO inefficiencies in Medicare (or any
other system -- public OR private).
I suggested that ... it (Medicare) delivers a product that its
consumers, in aggregate, like, and that ... maybe ... just MAYBE ...
we shouldn't LOOK at basic health as a for-profit enterprise.
Seems you glossed RIGHT over that....
Re: war.
You manipulated MY point about wars: metrics. Definitions.
How are "success" or "failure" defined ?
[I raised that issue after ONE bonehead declared Medicare a
"failure."]
Half the idiots in THIS country spout out with those terms, and --
when pressed -- can't paint a picture of what EITHER looks like.
War is a happy way to get unquestioning taxpayers to open their
wallets, at the risk of being branded a "TRAITOR," or "bleeding
heart," or some such drivel.
I don't remember a war that we had ANY business participating in,
since WWII.
Maybe others disagree.
MY point ... is thinking.
My point is logic and facts, over dogma, ideology, and confirmation
bias.
I wasn't raised to hold any/many cows sacred. I've learned to learn,
and evaluate what I see ... through surprisingly little filtration/
prism.
Helps that I don't give a damn -- positive or negative -- about *who I
am, or others are* (ie, race, nationality, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, religion, etc., etc., etc.) but only about *what I, or
they, do*.
Frees ME from a lot of bullshit :-)
On Jul 26, 4:02=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 5:27=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 26, 3:19=A0pm, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > =A0 =A0 My favorite is, "OB-GYNs not being able to practice their lov=
e with
> > > women across America." or something close to that.
> > > Now, that there's funny; I don't care who you are.
>
> > LOL !
>
> > Agreed: Funny ... simply IS ... funny !
>
> > But to (not you, Dave) point to a (particularly a SINGLE) mis-
> > statement, after a POTUS candidate has been on the campaign trail
> > for ... what ... 1,000 years ... and then use that in a feeble attempt
> > to demonstrate some lack of intelligence ... makes the Conservatives
> > who USE that "example" look like absolute fucking idiots.
>
> > Literally. =A0Idiots.
>
> =A0That was Bush who said the OBGYN funny.
Please try to keep up.
I KNOW that.
It was Jack(ass) Stein, though, who tried to get extra miles out of
the "57 states" line, uttered by Obama.
THAT's what I was talking about.
On Jul 23, 8:41=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>
> > Perhaps, but more important is the "help" is not helping much, in
> > fact, the "help" is hurting, giving credence to Quinn's law that
> > liberalism
> > always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent. Being forced
> > to do something that doesn't work should not go over well, should it?
>
> Thanks for putting a name to something I've always held. My formulation i=
s:
> "Most of society's problems can be traced to an upstream liberal program
> that failed."
>
> Some examples are:
> * Emptying the insane asylums equals the homeless zombies walking our
> streets.
Be nice. They'd be republicans.
On Jul 22, 10:27=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> As it stands, Medicare is a failure. =A0Private insurance makes up for a
> lot of the Medicare (and Medicaid) expenses when doctors and hospitals
> charge private insurance more for services than paid by government
> programs. Worse, government has no bottom line so they are ALWAYS
> incompetent and expensive.
Gosh. I've been in 49 states. I think they do an AMAZING job at MANY
things.
Maybe the goal of health, education, security, and ... things like
clean drinking water ... shouldn't BE fiscal profit.
In every other measure ... Medicare is viewed as a huge success.
Start by (you're going to flip out. I just know it) examining your
own assumptions and definitions, Jack.
What's failure. What's success.
I wonder if you ever asked those questions about the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
I ... simply cannot imagine you did, though.
On Jul 29, 8:25=A0pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 7:03=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 4:39=A0pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Well, anybody who is "smart" and uses Wikipedia is an idiot
> > > themselves. =A0
>
> > Yet another ABSOLUTELY FUCKING IDIOTIC STATEMENT.
>
> > If the pages I linked to are correct, then ... they're correct.
> > That's just another ad hominem attack on your part, and ... further
> > evidence that you're an idiot.
>
> > > The thing is, you say something and it is "true" because
> > > you have experienced it. =A0
>
> > No. =A0I didn't say that.
>
> > > You say you are centralist but you never say anything that suggests
> > > such. =A0Everything is an attack on "right wing nuts" but never say l=
eft
> > > wings are goofy, too.
>
> > They are, ... to the extent that they reason backward FROM their
> > positions, but ... what POSSIBLE opportunity would there be to tackle
> > THAT problem, here ?
>
> > None.
>
> Wikipedia is certainly not anyplace anybody with half a brain would
> use as evidence to back up his or her point. =A0Even when my kids were
> in junior high school, the teachers said they would fail any paper
> that used that site as a reference.
If the Wikipedia page, to which I link, says that 2+2=3D4, then it's a
valid source.
The rest of your post was worthy ... only of being snipped.
Robatoy wrote:
>
> I thought the plan was to clean up the mess. Now where is the
> motivation for anybody to help? If the claim is $ 10,000, why work to
> get less? If they get a job elsewhere at a reduced income, why should
> BP benefit?
It depends upon what the claim for $10,000 is for. As was stated, if it's
for lost income it makes perfect sense.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
busbus wrote:
> On Jul 29, 10:39Â pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 29, 8:25Â pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
... snip
>
> Since you did not disagree with the other things I wrote, you must
> agree. You know it is absolutely true that people with superior
> itelligence do not have to use profanity and they do not call other
> people names, but you do that quite often, don't you, Neil?
>
> You have nothing to say so you spend your time ripping others. You
> are a troll of the lowest form. An intelligent person would also
> offer suggestions or solutions or at least alternatives to the things
> they do not agree with that others say or do but you don't, do you,
> Neil?
>
Speaking of trolling, I think I may have run across a picture elsewhere of
our master of logic:
<http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/demotivational-
posters-that-hot-girl-in-second-life.jpg>
/Childish? Yeah, but at this point, I really don't give a rip what the
troll thinks
> Is it because you are afraid that whatever you say may be proven
> wrong?
>
> You have added absolutely nothing to anything anybody has said here.
> You have not said anything constructive in the least. You have not
> made a difference at all. You have an extremely myopic and simplistic
> view of life but, of course, you don't see that.
>
> It is unfortunate. If you are the voice of reason that you claim to
> be that your time belittling others...
>
> http://www.dead-baby-joke.com/introduction.htm
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> : On 7/15/2010 4:37 PM, dpb wrote:
> : If obama could be 1/4 as successful as BP.
>
> Huh? You do understand that BP did several sleazy things to cut corners
> in building the rig, including warnings about blowouts, which actually led
> TO the blowout, right? And that BP has created one of the worst pollution
> fiascos ever?
I believe BP leased the rig. Bp however did request/demand throwing
caution to the wind to speed up production.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > Fishermen in Mississippi say they are angry that under the terms of
> > BP's $20 billion oil spill fund, money they earn doing clean-up will
> > be subtracted from their claim against the company.
>
> Angry or not, you can't sue for lost income you didn't incur. That's
> just a legal principle.
I thought the plan was to clean up the mess. Now where is the
motivation for anybody to help? If the claim is $ 10,000, why work to
get less? If they get a job elsewhere at a reduced income, why should
BP benefit?
(BTW, I am not suggesting it is illegal for BP to do this.)
Well in the real world, some one is going to come in and do the clean up and
most likely the time it takes will be considerable. More than likely they
will stay after the clean up and become your competition. IMHO it would be
to the fishermans advantage to do the cleanup themselves, stay employeed,
and not have others coming in and possibly taking future business away from
them.
All in all the claims should not be a "prize" so much as a compensation to
help you maintain your normal income level. You would have to work
normally, you should continue to work.
LOL
He has trouble reading big words if you don't place them in the right part
of his bifocals, too.
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
First of all, it's Robatoy, second of all, you Jack, are the only one
who is a douche nozzle and I have never used that moniker on anybody
else. It does seem to be nigh impossible for you not to keep bringing
this up. That's a sign of bitterness which is quite common amongst
republicans.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 21, 9:24 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robocop calling people douche-nozzles [blah, blah, blah]
Larry W wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> <...snipped...>
>> Uh, yeah, right. He just invited the BP CEO over to the White House for
>> a
>>beer, a few drinks with Eric Holder, some nice discussions and made the
>>CEO an offer he couldn't refuse.
>>
>> Please, even an Obama apologist can't be this dense or ignorant of "the
>>Chicago way"
>>
>>
>
> If a republican had done it, it would be praised as "speaking softly and
> carrying a big stick" and don't try any BS like a republican would never
> do anything like that.
>
Suuure. if a Republican had done this, it would have been the lead story
each night, every night on every main stream news show, above the fold on
the NYT, front page in Time, Newsweak, etc with headlines shouting:
'EXECUTIVE ABUSE OF POWER!? PRESIDENT LEVIES FINE, ASSESSES DAMAGES WITH NO
JUDICIAL JUDGMENT!" This story would have led, would be played by the
opposition, used in campaign ads, and would not have gone away until someone
was indicted or fired over it.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 24, 10:05 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>> > On Jul 22, 8:40 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
... snip
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I liked Billy Mays. Never bought any of the crap he peddled but it's
> always nice to watch someone who is number one in their field.
Billy Mays, one of the few people who could talk in all capital letters.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On 7/18/2010 12:05 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> The nice thing about healthcare here in Canada, is that even in
> extreme cases, you get to keep your house and all those things you've
> worked for all your life. You don't leave your loved ones holding the
> bag for those greedy money grubbin bastards who at the golf course try
> to stand out as pillars of the community. I have met decent doctors
> though, not all are hard-wired to automated time clocks which show
> they can see 150 patients per day.
In the process of filing suit against both the hospital, and the
insurance company, to try and get the $25k I was literally forced to
plunk down to the hospital, _in advance_, for the surgery to keep my
youngest daughter from going blind.
The entire procedure thus far has been in excess of $42K.
Just the hospital bill was $32K; the insurance company, after numerous
appeals, finally agreed to pay (Ha!), whittled the hospital's bill down
to $25K, paid $2400 of it, and left the "patients responsibility" at
$23k +/-. They are supposed to pay 75%, but have used every dodge in the
book to not pay, hoping to wear me down.
So far they have payed less than $4K of the total.
My advising attorney, whose best man and college roommate is the
attorney for the insurance company, claims this particular insurance
company will ONLY pay unless sued, then will settle out of court.
I'm trying to pull some strings behind the scenes, but have two assholes
waiting in the wings, on contingency, which means they (lawyers) will
also get to dip their beaks and gain monetarily from my daughters pain
and suffering.
Yeah ... I'm tired of the fucking "health care" racket in this country.
If I could just find someone responsible, face to face, for this
particular example of reprehensible "health care", I'd only need a few
seconds ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> Maybe I SHOULD start pointing out how you're an endless stream of
> illogic.
>
> Not every day, issue, confrontation, or even military action is the
> American Revolution.
>
> And ... the mere fact that you think your stash of small arms is going
> to stop The Greatest Military the Earth Has Ever Known from turning on
> its citizenry -- should it ever decide to (not MY paranoid delusion,
> by the way) is further evidence that ideology (if NOT fear) -- not
> rational thought -- drives you.
>
Speaking of logic...
I agree that a few small arms are useless, just like installing Punji stakes
would be silly to protect one's home from an elephant stampede. The small
arms are useless because the need for their use will never happen.
The U.S. Military will not and can not turn on its citizenry (except in
necessary cases like Kent State).
You may be projecting: The military is not made of mindless robots or cannon
fodder that blindly follow orders. Each member of the armed forces is a
professional. A four-star general recognizes the corporal running the radio
is as much an expert at his job as the general is at his.
A platoon of infantry simply will not follow orders to fire on civilians,
either Americans or Afghanis (unless, of course, the soldiers can be
persuaded the band of protesters are really dope-smoking hippies).
Neil Brooks wrote:
>>>
>>> In President Obama's defense, there WERE fifty-seven venues in
>>> which the Democrats held presidental-preference primaries.
>>
>> Equally in his defense is Heinz, which boasts 57 varieties. Problem
>> is he didn't say that, in fact said 57, plus one left to go to, plus
>> Alaska and Hawaii which he was not allowed to visit. That would be
>> 60 states, not even closely related to Heinz 57 or 57 venues or the
>> price of rice in China...
>
>
> Again, were you equally forthcoming/critical of REPUBLICAN gaffes,
> or ... are you JUST an absolute fucking hypocrite ?
>
> I mean ... either spoken gaffes are funny/obnoxious to you or ... they
> aren't.
>
> If they're only funny when one party makes them, then ... you're an
> absolute fucking hypocrite.
>
> Don't worry, Jack. This is what's called "rhetorical."
>
> You needn't answer.
>
> Your words speak for themselves.
You're giving hypocrisy a bad rap. 90% of gynecologists are males.
Some hold that when a Democrat "misspeaks" (as in Obama's case) it's
evidence sufficient of mental disease or defect. When a Republican,
conversely, does the same (as in Bushes "misunderestimate"), it's merely
charming. Some say endearing.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote
> All in all the claims should not be a "prize" so much as a compensation to
> help you maintain your normal income level. You would have to work
> normally, you should continue to work.
That's very un-American of you. Get my lawyer on the phone!
Seems to me, if you earned $1000 a week on your boat and now you can't you
deserve compensation. If BP pays you that $1000 a week to keep on working,
albeit cleaning, not fishing, you are still OK and don't deserve any
additional compensation. The down side, of course, that that many will
sit on their ass and do nothing and still get that $1000 you are getting to
work for a week. There is no incentive to work. Same argument you get for
welfare and long term unemployment compensation. Maybe the working crew
should get a 20% bonus.
Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> Surveys show that most left-wingers consider themselves to be
>> "centrists." For example, virtually all liberals consider the NY
>> Times to be a middle-of-the-road newspaper.
>>
> Yabbut none wear their passion on their sleeves like a totally
> committed close-minded right winger. I like to poke a stick at them
> and watch them go off and laugh as they start chanting the party line.
> Truth is, many a right-winger will deliberately antagonize a lefti-
> winger as well.
> My personal political leanings are a mixed bag. I understand, actually
> understand, the plight of the less fortunate, the need for a minimal
> protection for those who get sick, etc. Yet I have always run my own
> businesses under very conservative helmsmanship and I vote against
> bigger government and more taxes. I vote conservative (republican
> without the fringe lunatic hypocrisy of those who scream 'right-to-
> life' but send other people's kids to die in a war based on lies.)
> I am more like the people I poke at in here than not and that is why I
> know their soft spots on their underbellies. In fact I'm to the right
> of centrist. But in here? As soon as you say anything in support of a
> national health care system, you're hit with labels of socialist,
> communist and that rot. That, to me, gives me the oxygen to poke at
> them. I have no problem with 'the right', I have a problem with blind
> fanaticism. That crew that puts a gun in your face because you
> disagree with them.
>
> Your brand of conservatism is a pleasure to read and the fact that
> there is always a thread of humour woven into it augments the
> intelligent presentation. (You don't wanna see the shit I can write
> when I kiss ass.)
Don't concern yourself about sending other people's kids to die in a foreign
war. Those "kids" want to be there, they need to be there. These "kids" are
not cannon-fodder; they are our volunteer warrior class.
A recent survey found that 85% of those who've served in Afghanistan or Iraq
reenlisted at the first opportunity. The remaining 15%, I suppose, retired,
were invalided out, or married harridans.
And, of course, a national health system is communism (with a small "c").
If it were up to me, I'd close the VA hospitals by tomorrow.
"Angela Sekeris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5164b3bf-39d6-4286-bdd3-b2c949ece164@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 17, 1:45 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:ab7acd4d-74ea-4a99-b0d4-7d0d0925e518@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> > He did it!!
>
> And right on the heels of his new book that also qualifies for the worlds
> shortest book.
>
> How I earned the Nobel Piece Prize.
I think it is wonderful to see BP step up to the plate to keep our
Hummers humming... even though they consumed an American president in
the process.
Win, Win
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:36:03 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>You have to also consider how much the economy in general is affecting the
>>tourism. Because not all beaches are affected and they too have a decline
>>in tourists, one has to think that the down turn in the economy may be
>>playing a large part also. You can start blaming wreckless sensational
>>reporting for that and maybe the media should also be held accountable.
>
> Read an article recently on how the real estate market has been
> affected ~ particularly so with Canadian snow birds. Every local with
> an oil infected beach within 100 miles or more has had the snow birds
> drop their purchase negotiations completely.
While there is no doubt there is some serious damage, the entire coast is
not nearly as bad off as the media would have you believe. The coast line
is hundreds upon hundreds of mile long. The media shows hundreds up on
hundreds of yards of shore line. Imagine what a dream story it would be for
the reporters if they had something to back up their insinuations.
Because the belief is that the entire shore is affected, because of out of
context reporting by the media, the entire region suffers.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:50:18 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:47:24 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:55:51 -0400, Steve
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>>>>>said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>> happen either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>>>>Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you hope for fines and judgements for something that was an
>>>>> accident?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Same reason there are fines and judgments in auto accidents. There is
>>>>the
>>>>matter of culpability.
>>>
>>> Fines nor judgments are required after an auto accident. Fines are
>>> levied
>>> if
>>> a law was broken. Judgements are only made if there is a loss. If
>>> everyone
>>> has been made whole there is nothing to judge.
>>
>>
>>You read this?
>>
>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10548872
>
> How many times are you going to post that link tonight?
As many as I feel like. Have you read it yet? Do you understand it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10548872
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:51:03 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:47:24 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:55:51 -0400, Steve
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>>>>>said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>> happen either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>>>>Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you hope for fines and judgements for something that was an
>>>>> accident?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Same reason there are fines and judgments in auto accidents. There is
>>>>the
>>>>matter of culpability.
>>>
>>> Fines nor judgments are required after an auto accident. Fines are
>>> levied
>>> if
>>> a law was broken. Judgements are only made if there is a loss. If
>>> everyone
>>> has been made whole there is nothing to judge.
>>
>>
>>There IS a loss. BIGTIME!
>
> No, there isn't. Yet.
Got your head firmly planted somewhere, if you really think there has been
no loss.
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:36:03 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>You have to also consider how much the economy in general is affecting the
>tourism. Because not all beaches are affected and they too have a decline
>in tourists, one has to think that the down turn in the economy may be
>playing a large part also. You can start blaming wreckless sensational
>reporting for that and maybe the media should also be held accountable.
Read an article recently on how the real estate market has been
affected ~ particularly so with Canadian snow birds. Every local with
an oil infected beach within 100 miles or more has had the snow birds
drop their purchase negotiations completely.
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:36:03 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> But that is then, this is now. Perhaps claims can and should be made for
>> future losses, but if a boat is working today and no money is lost, they
>> should not be able to collect double. They are made whole. If BP keeps
>> that boat working at the regular rate plus inflation for the next 30
>> years, there is still no loss of income.
>>
>> I talked to a friend in Alabama tonight. He said the beaches are still
>> good where he is, but the tourists are staying away in droves. Many
>> businesses will be affected by the lack of tourists dollars. How do you
>> compensate the second tier businesses such as convenience stores, gas
>> stations, hotel suppliers, Laundromat, etc.
>
>
>You have to also consider how much the economy in genereal is affecting the
>tourism. Because not all beaches are affected and they too have a decline
>in tourists, one has to think that the down turn in the economy may be
>playing a large part also. You can start blaming wreckless sensational
>reporting for that and maybe the media should also be held accountable.
>
>I recall watching a reporter mentioning that the beach cleanup crews are
>working in the "blazing sun and hot temperatures" and have to take 30 minute
>breaks after each 15 minutes of work.
>IIRC this is the spot the locals want the tourists to hang out. How is it
>that tourists are not or will not be affected by the "blazing sun and
>temps"?
>
Because they will be relaxing and swimming, not digging mountains of
oil soaked sand with shovels.
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:50:18 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:47:24 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:55:51 -0400, Steve
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>>>>said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed by
>>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>> happen either.
>>>>>
>>>>>Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>>>Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>>
>>>>>The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>>
>>>> Why would you hope for fines and judgements for something that was an
>>>> accident?
>>>
>>>
>>>Same reason there are fines and judgments in auto accidents. There is the
>>>matter of culpability.
>>
>> Fines nor judgments are required after an auto accident. Fines are levied
>> if
>> a law was broken. Judgements are only made if there is a loss. If
>> everyone
>> has been made whole there is nothing to judge.
>
>
>You read this?
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10548872
How many times are you going to post that link tonight?
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:51:03 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:47:24 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:55:51 -0400, Steve
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>>>>said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed by
>>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>> happen either.
>>>>>
>>>>>Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>>>Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>>
>>>>>The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>>
>>>> Why would you hope for fines and judgements for something that was an
>>>> accident?
>>>
>>>
>>>Same reason there are fines and judgments in auto accidents. There is the
>>>matter of culpability.
>>
>> Fines nor judgments are required after an auto accident. Fines are levied
>> if
>> a law was broken. Judgements are only made if there is a loss. If
>> everyone
>> has been made whole there is nothing to judge.
>
>
>There IS a loss. BIGTIME!
No, there isn't. Yet.
"Rob Budd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:36:03 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>>
>
> Because they will be relaxing and swimming, not digging mountains of
> oil soaked sand with shovels.
>
Are you a reporter? I have seen nothing more in clean up measures than a
shovel slightly scraping the surface of the beach. I do however see lots of
kids digging deep with their plastic sand shovels.
Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> Ahhhhhh. You DO make this easy ;-)
>
>
> On Jul 26, 10:11Â pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> RE: Obama.
>
>
>> ... and your evidence that BHO has an extremely high IQ, is, what
>> exactly?
>
>
> Having come from a family FULL of people with genius IQs, and ...
> having spent my entire life in the company of people with genius IQs,
> I -- in much the way I'm well equipped to judge a woodworker as "very
> talented --" can figure out who does and who doesn't have a high IQ.
>
Oh gads! You are a riot! He's smart, because doggoneit! I know smart when
I see it! ... and he's smart! Because I say so!
>
>> He has sealed all of his academic records by executive order,
>
>
> I didn't assert that he got good grades.
>
i.e., that doesn't provide any evidence to support you conclusion
>
>> there is no
>> existing evidence of any of his test scores,
>
>
> I didn't say that he did well on standardized tests.
>
i.e., that doesn't provide any evidence to support your conclusion
>
>> he wrote no papers while editor
>> at Harvard Law Review. Â Â His speeches? Â Take away the teleprompter and
>> the induced reverb for "godlike quality" and you get a bunch of "ahhhs",
>> "Uhhhs", and "ummms".
>
>
> I didn't say he was a perfect public speaker. Verbal place-holders,
> by the way, have NO bearing on the IQ of the speaker.
>
i.e., that doesn't provide any evidence to support your conclusion
>
>> Hardly genius quality off-teleprompter.
>
>
> I've read a lot of your posts, Mark. I put NO weight on YOUR proof by
> assertion.
>
This is where your statements fall into rolling in the aisle absolutely
hilarious. You have zero proof or evidence of the "genius IQ" of The One
other than by saying, "I've been exposed to people with genius IQ's and by
golly, I know one when I see one!" thus arguing by vigorous assertion that
this guy is one. Then, you turn around and accuse ME of proof by assertion!
> Surprised ?
>
> I doubt it.
>
> You're also a rabid right-winger. You reason backward, FROM THAT
> position. I've seen you do it ... time and again.
>
Uh, yeah, you start with the conclusion that this guy is a genius and then
can't even reason backwards to a position -- your reasoning is "I know it
when I see it" Somehow, your approbations just don't seem to be something
with which I should concern myself.
>
>> This is a
>> guy with a paper-thin resume
>
>
> I didn't comment on any "resume."
>
>
>> who voted "present" in his stint in the
>
>
> I didn't make any statements about his voting record.
>
>
>> Illinois legislature in order to avoid having a record, who won most of
>> his elections not through electoral victory but by clearing the playing
>> field before the election.
>
>
> I don't recall making ANY statements about his past elections.
>
>
>> There seems to be no recollection of anyone he knew
>> while he was at Occidental college, no former classmates, professors, or
>> anyone else who has provided any information whatever regarding his
>> academic capabilities or lack thereof.
>
>
> I didn't say anything about his long history with friends, or lack
> thereof.
>
>
> Wow. You're AWFUL at this, Mark !
>
You know, somehow having you say that doesn't really bother me. Given
your ability to only defend your positions by vigorous assertion and by
pulling phrases from your freshman logic textbook, can you see why that
might be?
Didn't think so.
>
>> You, the consummate logician, should be a bit more demanding of hard
>> evidence than the fact "he attended Harvard" as evidence that he "has an
>> extremely high IQ".
>
>
> I don't recall using his alma mater as evidence ... of ... anything.
>
That's true, as you've stated above, you aren't using any evidence at all
to demonstrate your assertion. But you're funny while you are doing it.
>
>> After all, so did GW. Â Â Argument by vigorous assertion
>> is not a generally accepted approach to logical argumentation.
>
>
> But you use it, blithely. Hmmm.
>
Really? Please shown in the above where I have done so. I have merely
stated clearly demonstrable evidence of the clear lack of evidence for YOUR
assertion. An assertion which you have just admitted is based solely upon
your own internal "feeling" about the genius of the POTUS. In this, you
demonstrate the typical liberal (progressive, leftist, statist, radica,
whatever ya'll are calling yourselves these days) approach to logic, you
don't think, you feel.
>
>> As far as the "ahhs, umms, and uhhs", that is not necessarily evidence of
>> someone not very bright, it can also be evidence of someone heavily self-
>> censoring what they are saying so as not to betray their core beliefs by
>> saying something completely antithetical to the American way of life.
>> Thus he uses those verbal crutches while he desperately struggles for
>> words to not sound quite as statist and totalitarian as he really is.
>
>
> You sound ridiculously vapid, making comments like that.
>
... and you sound ridiculous period.
> In my decades of experience with highly intelligent people, I've
> learned one thing about them: they choose their words; they're
> thoughtful.
>
Dang! Another one of those arguments by vigorous assertion things again!
But then, I guess that's only wrong if I do it, not if you do it.
It's a shame leftists don't get irony because your arguments are one of
the most hilarious examples of irony one could ever hope to find. You just
can't make stuff like what you are writing up!
> I can readily see how this would be confusing (and foreign) for you.
>
>
>> If he said
>> what he was really thinking, it might come out as, "It's not that I want
>> to punish success, I just think that when you spread the wealth around,
>> everybody benefits". [Oh, wait, he did say that].
>
>
> How is that:
>
> a) relevant (hint: it isn't), or
>
The above is an example of someone making an assertion and then
demonstrating that assertion with what is called evidence or backup data to
bolster that assertion. I realize this is a little different than your
method of argumentation by vigorous assertion, but this is what most people
attempting to demonstrate a position do to show others the reasoning or path
to achieve a certain conclusion. That's probably a few chapters into that
freshman logic text you have on your bookshelf. Take a look when you have
some time. I will leave as an exercise how one goes from what happens when
a statist like Obama self-censors (his "ahhhs and ummms" while he finds
politically palatable words to hide his strong statist positions that would
cost him support because most Americans don't share those beliefs) to an
example of what happened when he failed to self-censor. That should be a
fairly simple exercise, I'm sure even you can follow that line.
> b) different from the notion of supply side economics, or the "rising
> tide lifts all boats" idea ?
>
Well, you b) is completely irrelevant to this discussion. For the sake of
an aside, let's just say that most Americans support the idea that being
able to keep the fruits of one's labors is a reasonable position and that it
makes sense that when someone is able to do that, the wealth gets spread
around without funneling it through a government middleman who uses other
peoples' money to enrich himself either monetarily or by buying votes to
gain more power.
> But let's focus on (a).
>
> You're reasoning backward, again, from a starting position of hatred
> for Obama.
>
Umm, no, not at all. YOU are reasoning backwards from the viewpoint that
all people who disagree with you or Obama start from hatred and reason
backward to a position. In this case, the flaw in your logic is that I
START from the position that it is good and right that people who work hard
should be able to benefit from the fruits of that labor. Thus, when a
politician expresses a position that taking those fruits to spread to others
is a good thing, that politician is demonstrating via *his* conclusion that
his positions are antithetical to my position. The thing is that my
position has been historically demonstrated to provide the greatest benefit
to people while his position has been demonstrated to provide the greatest
damage to nations and people.
> Sense ... has gone RIGHT out the window.
>
> Shame.
>
>> BTW, the 57 states wasn't the only gaffe, just one of the more memorable
>> ones. Â Look up "Obama and Breathalyzer" for another example.
>
>
> The POTUS ... has made (at least) TWO verbal gaffes ??
>
> WHERE ARE THE PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIANS ???
>
> GET MICHAEL BESCHLOSS ON THE TELEPHONE ... PRONTO !!
>
> Awww, Mark. Sad commentary on you.
>
> Guaranteed George Washington, and all who came after him, made
> numerous verbal gaffes.
>
> But you don't care, because ... you're a thoughtless knee-jerk blindly
> partisan right-winger.
>
> One of the handful that gives THIS newsgroup its
> foul stench :-)
Like I said, it's too bad leftists don't get irony. You are one funny
dude.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:41:47 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>If it were up to me, I'd close the VA hospitals by tomorrow.
Nice way to support those who have served.
Mark
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:22:43 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Don't bird need both wings to actually fly?
>
>Ever heard of an eagle?
Yeah. HEARD of one.
But I'm a lousy golfer....
Markem wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:41:47 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> If it were up to me, I'd close the VA hospitals by tomorrow.
>
> Nice way to support those who have served.
>
> Mark
I didn't say those who served shouldn't be supported, I said the VA
hospitals should be closed.
Under my plan, Veterans could still get treatment at any competent medical
facility and the VA picks up the tab. This has a couple of advantages over
the current system.
1. For many, even most, veterans, there is a perfectly capable medical
facility closer than their assigned VA hospital. By having treatment
locally, the veteran stands a better chance of complying with the treatment
regimen and cuts down on the expense and time of travel.
2. Local hospitals could use the business, thereby being better able to
serve their local community.
Oooops.... Now you belong to the outcast group of the trolling club. You
know the one where one person attempts to convince the real posters he has
some friends?
I see you have been trolled quite well by this aussie, canuck, USanian,
Dutch or whatever hole he has doug (sp?) in this group?
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Yeah. HEARD of one.
But I'm a lousy golfer....
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:22:43 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Don't bird need both wings to actually fly?
>
>Ever heard of an eagle?
On Jul 29, 10:50=A0am, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oooops.... Now you belong to the outcast group of the trolling club. You
> know the one where one person attempts to convince the real posters he ha=
s
> some friends?
Ouch.
Do you and Doug Miller write EACH OTHER's material ?
I have been writing his for some time now.
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c20b210c-70bd-4e6d-86d2-4ea1b1109f35@s17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Do you and Doug Miller write EACH OTHER's material ?
On Jul 29, 10:50 am, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oooops.... Now you belong to the outcast group of the trolling club. You
> know the one where one person attempts to convince the real posters he has
> some friends?
Ouch.
Markem wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:41:47 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> If it were up to me, I'd close the VA hospitals by tomorrow.
>
> Nice way to support those who have served.
>
Agreed. At one time the VA was a pretty valuable benefit for having served.
There were periods where going to the VA might not be the best advised move,
but for those who needed it, it was there. The VA has been revamped quite a
bit and friends who use it rave about it now. Except for the fact that
now - it does not matter if you're a vet - you go through income analysis
and you may not qualify for any real amount of benefit. For older vets that
are in very low income brackets - they love it. Why would we want to close
VA hospitals? I have to believe that HeyBub is not a vet and has never
served in conflict.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> Agreed. At one time the VA was a pretty valuable benefit for having
> served. There were periods where going to the VA might not be the
> best advised move, but for those who needed it, it was there. The VA
> has been revamped quite a bit and friends who use it rave about it
> now. Except for the fact that now - it does not matter if you're a vet -
> you go through income
> analysis and you may not qualify for any real amount of benefit. For
> older vets that are in very low income brackets - they love it. Why
> would we want to close VA hospitals?
See above. I have what I think is a better alternative.
> I have to believe that HeyBub
> is not a vet and has never served in conflict.
Correct. I was 4-F'ed. I did serve in Vietnam as an FSO and am an "honorary"
Marine (I got at least seven of the little yellow fuckers!).
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> But that is then, this is now. Perhaps claims can and should be made for
> future losses, but if a boat is working today and no money is lost, they
> should not be able to collect double. They are made whole. If BP keeps
> that boat working at the regular rate plus inflation for the next 30
> years, there is still no loss of income.
>
> I talked to a friend in Alabama tonight. He said the beaches are still
> good where he is, but the tourists are staying away in droves. Many
> businesses will be affected by the lack of tourists dollars. How do you
> compensate the second tier businesses such as convenience stores, gas
> stations, hotel suppliers, Laundromat, etc.
You have to also consider how much the economy in genereal is affecting the
tourism. Because not all beaches are affected and they too have a decline
in tourists, one has to think that the down turn in the economy may be
playing a large part also. You can start blaming wreckless sensational
reporting for that and maybe the media should also be held accountable.
I recall watching a reporter mentioning that the beach cleanup crews are
working in the "blazing sun and hot temperatures" and have to take 30 minute
breaks after each 15 minutes of work.
IIRC this is the spot the locals want the tourists to hang out. How is it
that tourists are not or will not be affected by the "blazing sun and
temps"?
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> : On 7/15/2010 4:37 PM, dpb wrote:
> : If obama could be 1/4 as successful as BP.
>
> Huh? You do understand that BP did several sleazy things to cut corners
> in building the rig, including warnings about blowouts, which actually led
> TO the blowout, right? And that BP has created one of the worst pollution
> fiascos ever?
>
> Or are you too focused on making snarky remarks about the President to
> care?
>
> -- Andy Barss
Nope, plenty of blame for both sides there. BP was a huge supporter of
The One's election as well.
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/05/obama-was-top-recipient-of-
bp-related-dollars-in-2008/?fbid=ahPbi1IQPj-> It is looking like BP was
instrumental in in getting the Locherbie bomber released to enhance the
potential for getting drilling rights in Libya.
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/senator-questions-tie-bp-oil-
contract-libya-lockerbie-bombers-release/>
The administration OTOH did a number of things making this worse than it
needed to be:
1) Dragged their feet on allowing LA to set up sand berms to protect the
beaches and inlands because they weren't happy with where the sand was being
dredged from
2) Halted skimmers and other boats in order to perform inspections for fire
extinguishers and life vests, thereby delaying cleanup efforts and worsening
the spill's effect on beaches
3) Insistence upon treating treated ocean water from skimmers as "hazardous
waste" instead of suspending EPA rules and allowing the skimmers to work.
The reason? Skimmers only get 95% of the oil, thus discharging the skimmed
seawater with 5% oil (95% less than they took in) would be discharging
pollution into the ocean. A bit of common sense here would recognize that
5% is a darn site better than 100% oil, but it was better to either not have
the skimmers work (leaving 100% oil in the gulf) or limit their efficiency
because they had to collect both oil and treated water for disposal inland.
Not to mention the limitations on the press covering the cleanup effort,
hiring Blackwater or Blackwater-like guards to keep news crews away from
those beaches hardest hit. Yeah, great transparency you've got there Chief.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> "Thos" wrote:
>
>> How's that hope and change working for ya?
> -----------------------
> You tell me Sarah.
>
> Lew
Don't mind Lew, he's one of the 17% that still strongly approve of the job
The One is doing. He probably doesn't even want one of these:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eODr63uDwM>
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Steve wrote:
> On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> said:
>
>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed by
>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that didn't
>> happen either.
>
> Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
> Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>
> The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
Technically, the President of the US had absolutely no legal authority to
impose an escrow, fine, or judgment.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:27:37 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:a689c162-7f96-4f06-9ab6-045525d7bc8a@d17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>On Jul 23, 2:34 am, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> messagenews:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>> >> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >>news:[email protected]...
>> >>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>> >>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:[email protected]...
>> >>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>> >>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita
>> >>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
>> >>>>>>>> said:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are
>> >>>>>>>>> assessed
>> >>>>>>>>> by
>> >>>>>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by
>> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>> >>>>>>>>> didn't
>> >>>>>>>>> happen either.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>> >>>>>>>> Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the
>> >>>>>>>> set-aside.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Technically, the President of the US had absolutely no legal
>> >>>>>>> authority
>> >>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>> impose an escrow, fine, or judgment.
>>
>> >>>>>> And he didn't.
>>
>> >>>>> Uh, yeah, right.
>>
>> >>>> Yeah, Right! I detest the man and can't wait until he's out of
>> >>>> office,
>> >>>> but making up shit is counter productive. Just as it was when W was
>> >>>> in
>> >>>> office.
>>
>> >>> Making up what? You think that any CEO would just walk into the White
>> >>> House, drop $20B of their own free will?
>>
>> >> Yep and that's EXACTLY what he did.
>>
>> > If that is the case, the Board of Directors and the stockholder of BP
>> > should be screaming bloody murder and oust the guy. Company assets are
>> > not
>> > a stash of walking around money for the CEO to dole out has he pleases.
>>
>> I suspect the BOD is relieved they got off that light. Though the meetings
>> must have been interesting.
>
>You mean "light" in that they're not charged with "conspiracy" or
>"RICO". Yet.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>But the co-operation will help when it comes to deciding what, if any,
>charges are filed.
"Pay us, or pay your lawyer, and then pay us *and* go to jail."
>The entire exercise was PR for both the WH and BP and
>likely agreed to prior to the official meeting.
No, the message was probably delivered face-to-face; no witnesses and
certainly no evidence.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Neil Brooks wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In President Obama's defense, there WERE fifty-seven venues in
>>>> which the Democrats held presidental-preference primaries.
>>>
>>> Equally in his defense is Heinz, which boasts 57 varieties. Problem
>>> is he didn't say that, in fact said 57, plus one left to go to, plus
>>> Alaska and Hawaii which he was not allowed to visit. That would be
>>> 60 states, not even closely related to Heinz 57 or 57 venues or the
>>> price of rice in China...
>>
>>
>> Again, were you equally forthcoming/critical of REPUBLICAN gaffes,
>> or ... are you JUST an absolute fucking hypocrite ?
>>
>> I mean ... either spoken gaffes are funny/obnoxious to you or ... they
>> aren't.
>>
>> If they're only funny when one party makes them, then ... you're an
>> absolute fucking hypocrite.
>>
>> Don't worry, Jack. This is what's called "rhetorical."
>>
>> You needn't answer.
>>
>> Your words speak for themselves.
>
> You're giving hypocrisy a bad rap. 90% of gynecologists are males.
>
> Some hold that when a Democrat "misspeaks" (as in Obama's case) it's
> evidence sufficient of mental disease or defect. When a Republican,
> conversely, does the same (as in Bushes "misunderestimate"), it's merely
> charming. Some say endearing.
My favorite is, "OB-GYNs not being able to practice their love with
women across America." or something close to that.
Now, that there's funny; I don't care who you are.
~:o))))))))))
Dave in Texas
"Keith Nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 7/16/2010 1:30 PM, ChairMan wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Swingman<[email protected]>spewed forth:
>>> On 7/15/2010 3:29 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>>> He did it!!
>>>
>>> And so he thinks ... note the imperial "we" in all his comments about
>>> the capping thus far.
>>
>> whadda ya mean?
>> I saw him on the video feed with a wrench in his hand and now with all
>> the
>> oil in the gulf, it will make it much easier for him to walk on water<g>
>>
>>
> For me obama has stopped being a source of amusement. 18 months after
> pelosi killed the bailout bill the economy is in the worse condition it
> has been since the 1930's. Every time the economy thinks of recovering
> obama and his gang comes up with another way of thwarting it. His latest
> was the banking bill. Ever since the Senate took up the bill in the
> middle of April the Stock Market has been declining. There appeared to be
> a start of a recovery, then the Senate pass the financial takeover. The
> stock market restarted its downward decent and has lost 300 points in two
> days since its passage. The market ignores the good news and continues to
> shrink.
>
> For four years, I went to college during the day and worked at night to
> get a degree; I spent the rest of my life scrimping and saving. Now in 18
> months obama and the social democrats have destroyed every thing I worked
> for. No one realized this is what change meant. I guess obama
> definition of equality is bread lines for every one.
Please, by all means, elaborate. List, if you will, all those things
for which you've worked and acquired, that are now gone - destroyed as you
say.
Lost your job? Wife and kids left because you can't support them any
more? Automobile repossessed? How about the vacation home and boat? Did
the BATF take your guns [and destroy them]? IRA dried up? I see you've
still got a computer and internet access so I think it's safe to say you're
not standing at some intersection panhandling for spare change though I
guess it could be that all you have left is the laptop and wi-fi. I'll bet
your health insurance company dropped you, too, account your pre-existing
condition.
Here's what you do; write a letter of apology to those poor, poor banks
and tell them you're ashamed to live in a country that would perpetrate a
Chicago-style shakedown like that big, bad financial bill which could cut
those poor, poor bank executives' bonus compensation in half. You can model
it after the apology Congressman Joe what's-his-face (Barton?) from Texas
made to BP's CEO. Now, there's a congressional representative that's worth
everything they pay him (not to mention his congressional salary!).
Yeah, me, too. My life is in the fucking toilet because of Obama. And,
if it weren't already, it will be. You just wait. I'm warning you.
--
Dave in Texas
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:92c8f2e4-0674-4df2-9639-6d3c1bac18d0@m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 26, 4:02 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 5:27 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 26, 3:19 pm, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > My favorite is, "OB-GYNs not being able to practice their love with
> > > women across America." or something close to that.
> > > Now, that there's funny; I don't care who you are.
>
> > LOL !
>
> > Agreed: Funny ... simply IS ... funny !
>
> > But to (not you, Dave) point to a (particularly a SINGLE) mis-
> > statement, after a POTUS candidate has been on the campaign trail
> > for ... what ... 1,000 years ... and then use that in a feeble attempt
> > to demonstrate some lack of intelligence ... makes the Conservatives
> > who USE that "example" look like absolute fucking idiots.
>
> > Literally. Idiots.
>
> That was Bush who said the OBGYN funny.
Please try to keep up.
I KNOW that.
It was Jack(ass) Stein, though, who tried to get extra miles out of
the "57 states" line, uttered by Obama.
THAT's what I was talking about.
"Fool me once . . . uh . . . shame on . . . fool me me twice . . . uh .
. . uh . . . won't get fooled again." ~:o)))))))))
And, no, that was a quote from a WHO song.
Dave in Texas
"busbus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f2de2d42-ddfb-4193-bb3f-4a68d9393f1c@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 22, 5:53 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> No. You have a handle on what YOUR doctors and dentists believe will
> or will not help them make more money.
>
> Period.
>
>Well, right: they are in the business of making a living. Should they
>simply break even or lose money in the end? These are real,
>breathing people who put a whole heck of a lot of time and effort and
>money into their profession. Is it the fault of the doctors out there
>that costs are so high?
But, the fact of the matter is that doctors, the insurance companies,
and the corporate hospitals comprise the three-headed profit monster which
IMO drives American health care costs. What part of the animal does that
leave for big pharma?
Underlying that is what [seemingly] has become the American business
model: make as much as you can, any way you can short of going to jail.
Buy a few congressmen if you have to; you have to spend money to make
money - right?
Cynical me.
Dave in Houston
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 27, 11:26Â pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Since I haven't seen the results of his IQ test, Mark, I'll freely
> admit that ... my characterization of Obama as having a high IQ IS a
> statement of opinion.
>
> But ... that should have been obvious. That's a quantifiable number,
> that, AFAIK, has NOT been released.
>
> You just wasted a ton of typing ... making yourself look like an
> idiot ... in the process of trying to discredit me.
>
> NONE of the things YOU invoked, under the auspices of "defining" a
> high IQ ... really ARE relevant.
>
I mentioned standardized test scores and YOU indicated that you didn't say
he did well on standardized tests and then assert that you know he has a
high IQ. Know how IQ is measured? That's right, via a standardized test.
To use a method that seems to be all the rage:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq_test>
> He either has a high IQ, or ... he doesn't.
>
> I think he does.
>
> But ... keep typing yourself into a frenzy, over the subject. It's
> amusing.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
busbus wrote:
>
> I think one of the biggest things that divide us is that the liberals
> seem to worry far too much about the people who are living on and
> beyond the fringe at the expense of the vast, vast majority. On the
> other hand, many conservatives say those people on the fringe should
> simply be ignored, which isn't the right thing to do, either.
> Everybody deserves help until they prove otherwise...BUT...you can't
> bankrupt the masses for the few.
Oh yes you can...
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 28, 5:28Â am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You know, I also ave a LOT of incredibly intelligent people in my
>> family. Â Their IQs are off the scale. Â I, personally, am not one of
>> them, Â I have also gotten to know a lot of other people who are
>> extremely intelligent thru the years.
>>
>> Here is an observation that I have noticed: most of these intelligent
>> people don't have the sense to get in out of the rain. Â In other
>> words, they lack common sense.
>
>
> Here ya' go:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>
>
>> They are also extremely immature and do no take criticism well. Â They
>> are extremely myopic in their views even though they perceive
>> themselves as having a very open mind.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>
>> And, worst of all, the are all like Cri-cri birds (which are creature
>> who fly in concentrically smaller circle until their heads fly up
>> their ass and they scream, "Cri, cri, cri, cri....CHRIST, is it dark
>> up here!!!"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>
Alright, that's it, he's either a flippin' troll or extreme leftwinger.
i.e., he is someone with the "do as I say, not as I do" mindset. This very
subthread is brought about by Neil's anecdotal evidence: "I've got lots of
high-IQ people in my family, therefore, I know what it looks like" , thus
using this anecdotal "evidence" (quotes on evidence, since WE haven't seen
those members of Neil's family and we certainly can tell from his postings
that this observation does not apply to himself) he asserts that Obama looks
like those members of his family (not sure who that insults more, Obama, or
Neil's family, but we'll let that one lie).
Good heavens, you really don't get irony, do you?
Alright, I'm done getting muddy.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>> Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>
>>>> The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>
>>> Technically, the President of the US had absolutely no legal authority
>>> to
>>> impose an escrow, fine, or judgment.
>>
>>
>> And he didn't.
>
> Uh, yeah, right. He just invited the BP CEO over to the White House for
> a
> beer, a few drinks with Eric Holder, some nice discussions and made the
> CEO
> an offer he couldn't refuse.
>
> Please, even an Obama apologist can't be this dense or ignorant of "the
> Chicago way"
Pretty much what happened. The Prez had to do something to look like he is
in power and control. BP had to do something to counteract bad publicity.
They know it will be far more than the $20B in the end. Now it looks as
both really care. They probably played 9 holes after and had lunch.
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> All in all the claims should not be a "prize" so much as a compensation
>>> to help you maintain your normal income level. You would have to work
>>> normally, you should continue to work.
>>
>> That's very un-American of you. Get my lawyer on the phone!
>>
>> Seems to me, if you earned $1000 a week on your boat and now you can't
>> you deserve compensation. If BP pays you that $1000 a week to keep on
>> working, albeit cleaning, not fishing, you are still OK and don't deserve
>> any additional compensation. The down side, of course, that that many
>> will sit on their ass and do nothing and still get that $1000 you are
>> getting to work for a week. There is no incentive to work. Same
>> argument you get for welfare and long term unemployment compensation.
>> Maybe the working crew should get a 20% bonus.
>
> Have you considered the DECADES ahead?
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10548872
But that is then, this is now. Perhaps claims can and should be made for
future losses, but if a boat is working today and no money is lost, they
should not be able to collect double. They are made whole. If BP keeps
that boat working at the regular rate plus inflation for the next 30 years,
there is still no loss of income.
I talked to a friend in Alabama tonight. He said the beaches are still good
where he is, but the tourists are staying away in droves. Many businesses
will be affected by the lack of tourists dollars. How do you compensate the
second tier businesses such as convenience stores, gas stations, hotel
suppliers, Laundromat, etc.
Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in news:i1nsie$cm7$1
@speranza.aioe.org:
> If obama could be 1/4 as successful as BP. But all obama comes out with
> is more regulations, and high taxes that do nothing for helping the
> economy out of the pelosi/obama depression.
I+t i=s no
Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in news:i1nsie$cm7$1
@speranza.aioe.org:
> On 7/15/2010 4:37 PM, dpb wrote:
>> pear to be cautiously good news; we can only hope that pressure holds
>> indefinitely and don't have/cause another blowout somewhere along the
>> bore hole.
> If obama could be 1/4 as successful as BP. But all obama comes out with
> is more regulations, and high taxes that do nothing for helping the
> economy out of the pelosi/obama depression.
It is no
Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> For me obama has stopped being a source of amusement. 18 months after
> pelosi killed the bailout bill the economy is in the worse condition
> it has been since the 1930's. Every time the economy thinks of
> recovering obama and his gang comes up with another way of thwarting
> it.
It is not without irony that your name is "Nuttle."
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Steve wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed by
>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that didn't
>>>> happen either.
>>>
>>> Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>> Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>
>>> The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>
>> Technically, the President of the US had absolutely no legal authority
>> to
>> impose an escrow, fine, or judgment.
>
>
> And he didn't.
Uh, yeah, right. He just invited the BP CEO over to the White House for a
beer, a few drinks with Eric Holder, some nice discussions and made the CEO
an offer he couldn't refuse.
Please, even an Obama apologist can't be this dense or ignorant of "the
Chicago way"
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Jul 28, 1:26=A0am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> > Ahhhhhh. =A0You DO make this easy ;-)
>
> > On Jul 26, 10:11=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > RE: Obama.
>
> >> ... and your evidence that BHO has an extremely high IQ, is, what
> >> exactly?
>
> > Having come from a family FULL of people with genius IQs, and ...
> > having spent my entire life in the company of people with genius IQs,
> > I -- in much the way I'm well equipped to judge a woodworker as "very
> > talented --" can figure out who does and who doesn't have a high IQ.
>
> =A0 Oh gads! You are a riot! =A0He's smart, because doggoneit! I know sma=
rt when
> I see it! =A0... and he's smart! =A0Because I say so!
>
>
You know, I also ave a LOT of incredibly intelligent people in my
family. Their IQs are off the scale. I, personally, am not one of
them, I have also gotten to know a lot of other people who are
extremely intelligent thru the years.
Here is an observation that I have noticed: most of these intelligent
people don't have the sense to get in out of the rain. In other
words, they lack common sense.
They are also extremely immature and do no take criticism well. They
are extremely myopic in their views even though they perceive
themselves as having a very open mind.
And, worst of all, the are all like Cri-cri birds (which are creature
who fly in concentrically smaller circle until their heads fly up
their ass and they scream, "Cri, cri, cri, cri....CHRIST, is it dark
up here!!!"
Oh. Oops. I'm sorry: the only person who is allowed to observe and
report is Neil. The only person who is allowed to have an opinion is
Neil. The only person who should be listened to is Neil. The only
person who knows what is going on is Neil.
But, one more observation, if I may (until Neil tells me I am not
worthy of having observations): Neil fits that mold to a tee. So does
Obama.
Oops. I did it again. I had an observation. And it does not align
with Neil's. Therefore, it is heresy. It is wrong because only one
opinion is right.
Personally, I agree Obama is intelligent. Who cares if he is
intelligent. He has absolutely NO wisdom. And precious little common
sense from what I have seen.
But, I digress. My fingers will be a bloody mess when Sister Neil
gets done whacking them with a ruler. But that's okay. I have
withstood it before when Sister Eustacia would rap mine. Severely.
Funny thing is that she is also the person who taught me how to play
marbles and poker (best darn poker player I have ever seen).
On Jul 29, 8:59=A0pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
> Another "intelligent" reply. =A0Nothing substantial to say. =A0Nothing
The SHIT you write is so ignorant as to be a total waste of my time.
If you say that 2+2 =3D 5, then ... I won't spend a lot of time trying
to show you the error of your ways.
You seem in worse shape than Jack Stein, in terms of being able to
frame a coherent argument. That's NOT good.
> that does anything except to put somebody else down. =A0And nothing
> except that since Neil thinks something is right, then it is right.
> If it is wrong, then it is wrong.
I chimed in on ONE matter of pure opinion (Obama's IQ), and GAVE
mine. The rest ... IS fact.
Your intellectual insecurities are showing.
> Since you did not disagree with the other things I wrote, you must
> agree. =A0
You're an idiot, for believing that.
But ... I'd already figured that out.
>You know it is absolutely true that people with superior
> itelligence do not have to use profanity and they do not call other
> people names,
"Have to ?"
What sort of fucked up statement, on your part, is THAT ?
That's just as bad as whichever person cited Obama's "verbal
placeholders" as some sort of "evidence" that HE's not highly
intelligent.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/
Seriously. Go TAKE a logic course. You rant, rave, and ramble.
You should be embarrassed.
Just because you don't consider it constructive to point out to others
where their facts and/or their logic are crap ... doesn't mean it's
NOT constructive.
It just means you don't like it.
And that's a shame. You're fighting, desperately, to remain ignorant
-- literally.
I'm sure you'll win THAT fight.
>>On Jul 21, 9:24=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
Wow. Too much to comment on. :o)
I think you missed what I was trying to say. I, myself, am very
conservative. You are right: I will probably not change but I wasn't
talking about people changing their stripes or spots.
I was trying to say that unless people from both sides talk TO each
other instead of trying to drown out the other side all the time, then
we will forever be polarized. Both sides go to the extremes whenever
they try to point out the weaknesses in the other side's arguments.
I think one of the biggest things that divide us is that the liberals
seem to worry far too much about the people who are living on and
beyond the fringe at the expense of the vast, vast majority. On the
other hand, many conservatives say those people on the fringe should
simply be ignored, which isn't the right thing to do, either.
Everybody deserves help until they prove otherwise...BUT...you can't
bankrupt the masses for the few.
It is a fine line that we need to walk. One thing is for sure: if you
have a government who wants to take over everything, you will create a
monster that will not be stopped easily. It is far, far better to
have people to WANT to help those in need on their own instead of
being FORCED to do so. Whenever people are FORCED to do something,
there will be massive push back. And that is what you are seeing now.
It is amazing that one of the biggest things I brought up was
completely ignored and that was the health care insurance debate.
There is a way to appease both sides to a point and that would be to
create a government insurance agency (well, there is already some
there: Medicare and Medicaid) and allow people to purchase their
health insurance thru them if they cannot find a better price on the
open market. They would benefit because of the commodities of scale
but you won't be forcing everybody in the country to pitch, just those
who choose to do so. We all pay for the people who don't have
insurance now anyways in the form of higher insurance premiums, high
hospital bills, high doctor bills, and high prescription costs. The
thing is, we aren't going to save SQUAT because the costs will shift
from things like I listed into taxes. Short sightedness abounds in
this whole discussion.
And, to fuel the fire, I guess, Obama is great at shooting from the
hip but has no solid plans in mind whenever he does things. All the
crap that he is trying to get pushed thru is so darn open-ended and
will be completed on the fly. My question to the liberals out there
is: Doesn't this scare the crap out of you?? What happens if these
open-ended policies are still in effect whenever a conservative
Congress and President get into office, these "laws" will take a
violent turn!
More of my two-cents, I guess. I am sure some will be pissed what I
said from both sides. Whatever. Let us talk about them in a civil
manner and not jump around like Daffy Duck.
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:35:15 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>
>> That's right. Two Republicans. The Funny Farms were pretty much
>> emptied before 1976.
>---------------------------------
Note that it was not the feds that opened the doors.
>Personally, I could never forgive Ford for pardoning Nixon, while he
>was still alive, but with perfect 20/20 hindsight, he obviously made
>the best decision for the country.
>
>It cost him the election, but he still made the right decision in
>spite of it.
I thought so at the time (and I never liked Ford - a do-nothing wuss). There
was nothing positive that could have come from dragging that mess out.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:35:15 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>
>>> That's right. Two Republicans. The Funny Farms were pretty much
>>> emptied before 1976.
>>---------------------------------
>
> Note that it was not the feds that opened the doors.
They made it Possible.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/ssi.pdf
>
>>Personally, I could never forgive Ford for pardoning Nixon, while he
>>was still alive, but with perfect 20/20 hindsight, he obviously made
>>the best decision for the country.
>>
>>It cost him the election, but he still made the right decision in
>>spite of it.
>
> I thought so at the time (and I never liked Ford - a do-nothing wuss).
> There
> was nothing positive that could have come from dragging that mess out.
Jack Stein wrote:
>
> Calling you an asshole or an idiot would be a personal attack. Pointing
> out that you saying Medicare works because you were in "49
> states" is about as stupid as our president stating there are 57
> states, not including Alaska and Hawaii, complete with the
> appropriate video link
In President Obama's defense, there WERE fifty-seven venues in which the
Democrats held presidental-preference primaries.
They were:
* The fifty states,
* The District of Columbia,
* Guam,
* The U.S. Virgin Islands,
* Patagonia,
* Shangri-La,
* Rhodesia, and, er,
* Atlantis
On Jul 17, 5:43=A0pm, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 3:16 pm, "Leon"<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> "Angela Sekeris"<[email protected]> =A0wrote in message
>
> >>news:5164b3bf-39d6-4286-bdd3-b2c949ece164@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.=
..
> >> On Jul 17, 1:45 pm, "Leon"<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >>> "Robatoy"<[email protected]> =A0wrote in message
>
> >>>news:ab7acd4d-74ea-4a99-b0d4-7d0d0925e518@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com=
...
>
> >>>> He did it!!
>
> >>> And right on the heels of his new book that also qualifies for the wo=
rlds
> >>> shortest book.
>
> >>> How I earned the Nobel Piece Prize.
>
> >> I think it is wonderful to see BP step up to the plate to keep our
> >> Hummers humming... even though they consumed an American president in
> >> the process.
>
> >> Win, Win
>
> > =A0 Fishermen in Mississippi say they are angry that under the terms of
> > BP's $20 billion oil spill fund, money they earn doing clean-up will
> > be subtracted from their claim against the company.
>
> Angry or not, you can't sue for lost income you didn't incur. =A0That's
> just a legal principle.
I thought the plan was to clean up the mess. Now where is the
motivation for anybody to help? If the claim is $ 10,000, why work to
get less? If they get a job elsewhere at a reduced income, why should
BP benefit?
(BTW, I am not suggesting it is illegal for BP to do this.)
On Jul 30, 6:41=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Don't concern yourself about sending other people's kids to die in a fore=
ign
> war. Those "kids" want to be there, they need to be there. These "kids" a=
re
> not cannon-fodder; they are our volunteer warrior class.
Still their civilian overlords use them as a tool to protect and
advance their interests in oil, poppy fields etc. I'm not sure the
military are supposed to work for Big Oil. (Then again, I am aware
that Hannibal rounded the Alps to steal the Italians' pesto, so
nothing new here..)
> A recent survey found that 85% of those who've served in Afghanistan or I=
raq
> reenlisted at the first opportunity. The remaining 15%, I suppose, retire=
d,
> were invalided out, or married harridans.
Many soldiers become fighters for what's right, to stomp out bad, or
just to play with fun equipment. The direction they're pointed at
isn't really up to them. They don't ask questions. I do.
> And, of course, a national health system is communism (with a small "c").
Unfortunately, free enterprise doesn't know how to control itself when
presented with an opportunity to plunder a sick person's coffers.
Our daughter had a concussion she incurred during a rugby match in
Columbus Ohio. Fortunately, we had insurance coverage to the max (now
THERE's another trustworthy bunch) so we didn't get screwed over too
badly. BUT, we did see all the bills come across our desk and I tell
you, somebody is screwing somebody in a huge way. $ 834.60 for a 15
minute ride from the field to the emerg, =B1 6 miles? $ 600 to take an x-
ray and $ 400 for somebody to look at it? Could the real culprit be
the rates to support the litigious/insurance complex?
Anyway, I see healthcare like air and water, we should be allowed to
live.
> If it were up to me, I'd close the VA hospitals by tomorrow.
How so?
On Jul 23, 2:34=A0am, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:h-CdnbXdVaHX=
[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> >> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> >>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]=
om>
> >>>>>>>> said:
>
> >>>>>>>>> =A0 It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are
> >>>>>>>>> assessed
> >>>>>>>>> =A0 by
> >>>>>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by =
the
> >>>>>>>>> legislative branch of government. =A0In the case of the $20B, t=
hat
> >>>>>>>>> didn't
> >>>>>>>>> happen either.
>
> >>>>>>>> Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
> >>>>>>>> Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-asi=
de.
>
> >>>>>>>> The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>
> >>>>>>> =A0Technically, the President of the US had absolutely no legal
> >>>>>>> authority
> >>>>>>> =A0to
> >>>>>>> impose an escrow, fine, or judgment.
>
> >>>>>> And he didn't.
>
> >>>>> =A0Uh, yeah, right.
>
> >>>> Yeah, Right! =A0I detest the man and can't wait until he's out of of=
fice,
> >>>> but making up shit is counter productive. Just as it was when W was =
in
> >>>> office.
>
> >>> =A0Making up what? =A0You think that any CEO would just walk into the=
White
> >>> House, drop $20B of their own free will?
>
> >> Yep and that's EXACTLY what he did.
>
> > =A0If that is the case, the Board of Directors and the stockholder of B=
P
> > should be screaming bloody murder and oust the guy. =A0Company assets a=
re
> > not
> > a stash of walking around money for the CEO to dole out has he pleases.
>
> I suspect the BOD is relieved they got off that light. Though the meeting=
s
> must have been interesting.
You mean "light" in that they're not charged with "conspiracy" or
"RICO". Yet.
On Jul 29, 6:32=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 10:25 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Alright, that's it, he's either a flippin' troll or extreme
> >> leftwinger.
>
> > Or ... neither.
>
> > Pretty centrist, actually.
>
> Surveys show that most left-wingers consider themselves to be "centrists.=
"
> For example, virtually all liberals consider the NY Times to be a
> middle-of-the-road newspaper.
Here's but ONE problem with your thinking: I don't place myself on
that continuum *relative to Americans* but ... relative to the world.
We're a right-wing country in the context of the world, so ... it's
much more likely that conservatives, here, think anybody to the left
of THEM is some sort of commie pinko socialist enviro-nazi.
> > I'll say it again: it's my opinion, based on lots of factors.
>
> Which is it? An "opinion" is a firmly held belief NOT based on facts.
Re-read it.
It seems like an inability to correctly read what's right in front of
you .... ALSO plagues quite a few of you.
I'll wait right here.
On Jul 29, 7:03=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 4:39=A0pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Well, anybody who is "smart" and uses Wikipedia is an idiot
> > themselves. =A0
>
> Yet another ABSOLUTELY FUCKING IDIOTIC STATEMENT.
>
> If the pages I linked to are correct, then ... they're correct.
> That's just another ad hominem attack on your part, and ... further
> evidence that you're an idiot.
>
> > The thing is, you say something and it is "true" because
> > you have experienced it. =A0
>
> No. =A0I didn't say that.
>
> > You say you are centralist but you never say anything that suggests
> > such. =A0Everything is an attack on "right wing nuts" but never say lef=
t
> > wings are goofy, too.
>
> They are, ... to the extent that they reason backward FROM their
> positions, but ... what POSSIBLE opportunity would there be to tackle
> THAT problem, here ?
>
> None.
Wikipedia is certainly not anyplace anybody with half a brain would
use as evidence to back up his or her point. Even when my kids were
in junior high school, the teachers said they would fail any paper
that used that site as a reference.
Again, you say that if YOU say something then it HAS to be correct
because YOU say so. (And I quote: "If the pages I linked to are
correct, then ... they're correct. That's just another ad hominem
attack on your part, and ... further evidence that you're an idiot.")
Funny. You really are a hypocrite. But, of course, I forgot: if you
say something is correct then it IS correct because YOU say it is.
Silly me.
Oh, and one more thing: You cannot tell me what I have seen and
experienced. If you know which of my cousins I am talking about,
please tell me some of their names and how you know them. You can
also tell me about the people I have worked with who were so smart
they were stupid. You prove what I said was wrong. And not Wikipedia
but I don't know how even that site could help you prove I am wrong
about my experiences...
Neil, I have to admit: I have gone back thru this thread and I can
honestly say that absolutely nothing you say makes any sense. You
blabber on and on and on and never say a doggone thing. All you do is
blast people, especially those who lean toward the right, and say you
are a centralist? HA!!
Instead of trying to make fools out of other people, why not give us
some of your high-brow ideas? Lay them out. Let us discuss. I don't
think you have nay except what is contrary to others.
Here is the thing, there are others in this group who lean to the left
who don't makes arses out of themselves and who write thoughtful
replys. One is the guy who started this thread: Rotoboy. He and I
differ as much as anybody politically but I believe I can sit down and
have a beer with him. I could be wrong but I honestly believe that to
be true. You? I think you would frustrate your mother to the point
that she would tell you to leave. If anybody could ake the Pope
swear, it would be you. But then, you would be proud of that, so what
good would it do?
This is for Jack: I, unfortunately, do believe Obama is intelligent.
But intelligence without wisdom is dangerous, as we are seeing.
Another huge problem with him is that he shoots fromt he hip all the
time with no regard to unintended circumstances. He (and all extreme
liberals) worry about the few on the tattered edges with total
disregard to those of us, the vast majority, who reside in the
middle. He is a politican and nothing else. The thing is, you have
to be extremely intelligent to get thru the political BS and become
president. Which also means that Bush is intelligent, too. Sorry to
all those people out there who think he is nothing but a bumbling
idiot because he doesn't read off a teleprompter. Somebody in this
thread (probably Neil because it sounds like something he would say)
said that Bush couldn't speak well and that means he is an idiot. I
bet you a dollar to a donut that he would also say that Reagan was
dumb as a stump even though he could speak better than any president I
ever heard speak.
Anyways, I think it is time to stop feeding the troll. Neil has no
life except to spout off on others and offers precious little else.
He certainly does like to use profanity, especially the "F" word, but
that is a sign of his spectacular intelligence because we all know
that using profanity and calling people names are a sign of
intellect.
See ya, Neil. Why don't you come back whenever you have someting to
really say?
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 7/15/2010 4:37 PM, dpb wrote:
>> If obama could be 1/4 as successful as BP.
>
> Huh? You do understand that BP did several sleazy things to cut
> corners in building the rig, including warnings about blowouts, which
> actually led TO the blowout, right? And that BP has created one of
> the worst pollution fiascos ever?
>
> Or are you too focused on making snarky remarks about the President to
> care?
>
You got something against multi-tasking?
On Jul 22, 2:56=A0pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 4:31=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You didn't really ... at all ... directly engage in what I put
> > forward. =A0Odd, considering your basic premise, here, huh ?
>
> Okay, I will bite: What is my basic premise here?
a) Your "basic premise" was outlined here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/tree/browse_frm/thread/9ee55=
fa26c2c1b99/04701dba1785bdbe?rnum=3D41&_done=3D%2Fgroup%2Frec.woodworking%2=
Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F9ee55fa26c2c1b99%2F7e86848dab42d634%3F#doc_e2e47a69d=
45c4b35
> > Re: healthcare.
>
> > I didn't suggest a monopoly.
>
> > I didn't suggest that there were NO inefficiencies in Medicare (or any
> > other system -- public OR private).
>
> > I suggested that ... it (Medicare) delivers a product that its
> > consumers, in aggregate, like, and that ... maybe ... just MAYBE ...
> > we shouldn't LOOK at basic health as a for-profit enterprise.
>
> > Seems you glossed RIGHT over that....
>
> Basic health is the individual's responsibility. =A0
And ... despite the best efforts OF those individuals ... they often
get sick, and need health care.
Sometimes, in fact, it seems to happen as a result of working to hard
at jobs people hate, in order to try not to far TOO far behind the
cost of living....
> Just because a lot
> of people "like" does not mean we should force all of us to go that
> route. =A0
I STILL didn't say we should, but ... repeating that MAY get Jack
Stein to believe that I did ;-)
> There is no good reason why we SHOULDN'T look at basic health
> care INSURANCE as a for-profit enterprise. =A0
I gave you one ... a HUGE one:
For profit changes the fundamental alignment of the two major
players. The cheapest model for health care emphasized (WAY above
anything else) ... staying healthy.
Everything else is almost certainly more expensive.
> Actually, you sort of
> proved my point that government does not care about how a "business"
> is run as long as the users are happy. =A0
I didn't actually say that.
> Of course the users of
> Medicaid are happy because it is funded by everybody and only used by
> some. =A0Once everybody pays into one pot and everybody uses from one
> pot, things all around will more than likely take a nosedive and it
> will cost a LOT more per individual than it does now and services will
> be lessened. =A0We are already hearing of doctors who are not taking on
> new MediCare patients. =A0Same will happen with MedicAid (if it is not
> happening already). =A0Then when doctors will be forced to take what the
> government will give them, they will close up and there will be less
> health care available. =A0How is that helping things as a whole? =A0
Nicely loaded question: propose a scenario that has NO evidence to
support it, and then ask how it will help WHEN it comes to pass.
Bravo !
> I make
> sure I ask these sorts of questions whenever I go see a doctor or my
> dentist, so I think I have at least a little handle on what I am
> saying.
No. You have a handle on what YOUR doctors and dentists believe will
or will not help them make more money.
Period.
> > MY point ... is thinking.
>
> > My point is logic and facts, over dogma, ideology, and confirmation
> > bias.
>
> I agree but many times logic causes two people to go down two separate
> paths. =A0There is nothing to say that just because logic is used, even
> with facts, that two people will necessarily come to the exact same
> conclusion for a multitude of reasons. =A0
Who said they should ?
Not I.
Everybody IS entitled to their own opinion (I call it values + facts),
but they are NOT entitled to their own facts.
So many people -- painfully obvious on THIS ng -- are in love with
their own facts.
> Just look at how you and I
> disagree about government run health care insurance (remember: it is
> NOT health care).
You're making MY point. We manage disease, at HUGE expense.
> > I wasn't raised to hold any/many cows sacred. =A0I've learned to learn,
> > and evaluate what I see ... through surprisingly little filtration/
> > prism.
>
> > Helps that I don't give a damn -- positive or negative -- about *who I
> > am, or others are* (ie, race, nationality, ethnicity, sexual
> > orientation, religion, etc., etc., etc.) but only about *what I, or
> > they, do*.
>
> > Frees ME from a lot of bullshit :-)
>
> Actually, I don't give a hoot about what others really think of me,
> either!
That's ... not what I said, either, actually.
But ... you keep using *your* approach to discussion, and ... I'll try
to stick with that 'logic' thing ;-)
On Jul 28, 8:55=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 5:28=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You know, I also ave a LOT of incredibly intelligent people in my
> > family. =A0Their IQs are off the scale. =A0I, personally, am not one of
> > them, =A0I have also gotten to know a lot of other people who are
> > extremely intelligent thru the years.
>
> > Here is an observation that I have noticed: most of these intelligent
> > people don't have the sense to get in out of the rain. =A0In other
> > words, they lack common sense.
>
> Here ya' go:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>
> > They are also extremely immature and do no take criticism well. =A0They
> > are extremely myopic in their views even though they perceive
> > themselves as having a very open mind.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>
> > And, worst of all, the are all like Cri-cri birds (which are creature
> > who fly in concentrically smaller circle until their heads fly up
> > their ass and they scream, "Cri, cri, cri, cri....CHRIST, is it dark
> > up here!!!"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
>
> > Oh. =A0Oops. =A0I'm sorry: the only person who is allowed to observe an=
d
> > report is Neil. =A0The only person who is allowed to have an opinion is
> > Neil. =A0The only person who should be listened to is Neil. =A0The only
> > person who knows what is going on is Neil.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>
> Your intellectual insecurities are showing, and ... for VERY good
> reason.
>
> Have any interest in discussing ... well ... ANY of this, or are you
> just going to launch ad hominem attacks ?
>
> I actually know the answer to that one. =A0I'll just get out of your
> way, and let YOU be a fucking idiot :-)
>
> > But, one more observation, if I may (until Neil tells me I am not
> > worthy of having observations): Neil fits that mold to a tee. =A0So doe=
s
> > Obama.
>
> > Oops. =A0I did it again. =A0I had an observation. =A0And it does not al=
ign
> > with Neil's. =A0Therefore, it is heresy. =A0It is wrong because only on=
e
> > opinion is right.
>
> No. =A0It's because you use horribly crafted and misleading arguments to
> reach conclusions.
>
> You SHOULD work on that !
>
> > Personally, I agree Obama is intelligent. =A0Who cares if he is
> > intelligent. =A0He has absolutely NO wisdom. =A0And precious little com=
mon
> > sense from what I have seen.
>
> Also irrelevant.
>
> Please ask Jack(ass) Stein to pick you up, with the bus he's going to
> lease to attend a course in Logic.
>
> Seriously.
Well, anybody who is "smart" and uses Wikipedia is an idiot
themselves. The thing is, you say something and it is "true" because
you have experienced it. I say something is true because I
experienced it, and it is wrong. Seems like a double standard, if you
ask me.
You say you are centralist but you never say anything that suggests
such. Everything is an attack on "right wing nuts" but never say left
wings are goofy, too.
I truly think it is time to put some dead baby jokes in this
thread......
On Jul 22, 4:31=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> You didn't really ... at all ... directly engage in what I put
> forward. =A0Odd, considering your basic premise, here, huh ?
>
Okay, I will bite: What is my basic premise here?
> Re: healthcare.
>
> I didn't suggest a monopoly.
>
> I didn't suggest that there were NO inefficiencies in Medicare (or any
> other system -- public OR private).
>
> I suggested that ... it (Medicare) delivers a product that its
> consumers, in aggregate, like, and that ... maybe ... just MAYBE ...
> we shouldn't LOOK at basic health as a for-profit enterprise.
>
> Seems you glossed RIGHT over that....
>
Basic health is the individual's responsibility. Just because a lot
of people "like" does not mean we should force all of us to go that
route. There is no good reason why we SHOULDN'T look at basic health
care INSURANCE as a for-profit enterprise. Actually, you sort of
proved my point that government does not care about how a "business"
is run as long as the users are happy. Of course the users of
Medicaid are happy because it is funded by everybody and only used by
some. Once everybody pays into one pot and everybody uses from one
pot, things all around will more than likely take a nosedive and it
will cost a LOT more per individual than it does now and services will
be lessened. We are already hearing of doctors who are not taking on
new MediCare patients. Same will happen with MedicAid (if it is not
happening already). Then when doctors will be forced to take what the
government will give them, they will close up and there will be less
health care available. How is that helping things as a whole? I make
sure I ask these sorts of questions whenever I go see a doctor or my
dentist, so I think I have at least a little handle on what I am
saying.
> Re: war.
>
> You manipulated MY point about wars: metrics. Definitions.
>
> How are "success" or "failure" defined ?
>
> [I raised that issue after ONE bonehead declared Medicare a
> "failure."]
>
> Half the idiots in THIS country spout out with those terms, and --
> when pressed -- can't paint a picture of what EITHER looks like.
>
> War is a happy way to get unquestioning taxpayers to open their
> wallets, at the risk of being branded a "TRAITOR," or "bleeding
> heart," or some such drivel.
>
> I don't remember a war that we had ANY business participating in,
> since WWII.
>
> Maybe others disagree.
>
Yes, I disagree, but that is an issue for another thread.
> MY point ... is thinking.
>
> My point is logic and facts, over dogma, ideology, and confirmation
> bias.
>
I agree but many times logic causes two people to go down two separate
paths. There is nothing to say that just because logic is used, even
with facts, that two people will necessarily come to the exact same
conclusion for a multitude of reasons. Just look at how you and I
disagree about government run health care insurance (remember: it is
NOT health care).
> I wasn't raised to hold any/many cows sacred. =A0I've learned to learn,
> and evaluate what I see ... through surprisingly little filtration/
> prism.
>
> Helps that I don't give a damn -- positive or negative -- about *who I
> am, or others are* (ie, race, nationality, ethnicity, sexual
> orientation, religion, etc., etc., etc.) but only about *what I, or
> they, do*.
>
> Frees ME from a lot of bullshit :-)
Actually, I don't give a hoot about what others really think of me,
either!
On Jul 24, 3:26=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
. =A0
>
> What you say doesn't matter. =A0
Typical Stein response.
On Jul 24, 8:05=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> I know, like all the rest of you left wing butt heads, you can't muster
> much more than personal attacks.
I can.
I've tried ... around here.
It doesn't go over well, though. Seems to frighten most of you.
Sad.
On Jul 26, 5:27=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 3:19=A0pm, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > =A0 =A0 My favorite is, "OB-GYNs not being able to practice their love =
with
> > women across America." or something close to that.
> > Now, that there's funny; I don't care who you are.
>
> LOL !
>
> Agreed: Funny ... simply IS ... funny !
>
> But to (not you, Dave) point to a (particularly a SINGLE) mis-
> statement, after a POTUS candidate has been on the campaign trail
> for ... what ... 1,000 years ... and then use that in a feeble attempt
> to demonstrate some lack of intelligence ... makes the Conservatives
> who USE that "example" look like absolute fucking idiots.
>
> Literally. =A0Idiots.
>
That was Bush who said the OBGYN funny.
On Jul 24, 3:05=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've learned long ago the more complicated things get, the less likely
> they are correct or even working. =A0Simpleis good, convoluted is bad.
> Think E=3DMC=B2
NOW you're sounding even WORSE -- more like a "Creationist."
The human body is STAGGERINGLY complicated, yet ... for the most
part ... it works amazingly well.
Yeah: YOU need things simple because THAT's what YOU can get your head
around.
But you do a lot of damage with that process of yours -- at LEAST ...
to truth, facts, logic, and intellect ;-)
On Jul 24, 8:55=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> How about 50% of prostrate cancer victims die under socialized medicine
> vs 15% in the USSA? =A0That sure beats I've been to '49 states and
> Medicaid/Medicare works'!
Thanks for putting words into my mouth. No surprise, there.
Busbus ? If you were at all objective, you'd also call people out for
this sort of bullshit, but ... not holding my breath.
Does prostate cancer define the efficacy, or cost-effectiveness, of an
entire health care system ?
I don't HAVE to have answers. It IS hugely useful to point out to
people that -- while they THINK that THEY DO have answers -- those
answers are based on shit logic and bad information.
Case in point: judging two health care systems -- in their entirety --
based on a single metric.
Bad. Not smart.
> > Arguing that the politics of one major party in this country are the
> > reason for all of our ills ... is like watching a couple of five year
> > old kids argue about whose crayon it is, on the kindergarten
> > playground.
> > Pathetic.
>
> What is "pathetic" is watching the democratic party, once a semi-fine
> American entity turn into an Anti-Amerikan, left wing, socialist group
> hell bent on "fundamentally changing" (destroying) the only country on
> earth that recognized and empowered the individual.
As always ... thanks for proving MY point.
Black/white, all-or-nothing thinking.
Any problems with your own party, Jack -- whomever/whatever that might
be ?
Hard to imagine.....
Easier to believe that ALL the ills in the world are the sole
responsibility of the Democrats, isn't it.
Maybe you need to challenge yourself, more ... avoiding easy answers
-- particularly where they really don't exist.
On Jul 26, 8:59=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
> > Jack Stein wrote:
> >> Calling you an asshole or an idiot would be a personal attack. Pointin=
g
> >> out that you saying Medicare works because you were in "49
> >> states" is about as stupid as our president stating there are 57
> >> states, not including Alaska and Hawaii, complete with the
> >> appropriate video link
>
> > In President Obama's defense, there WERE fifty-seven venues in which th=
e
> > Democrats held presidental-preference primaries.
>
> Equally in his defense is Heinz, which boasts 57 varieties. =A0Problem is
> he didn't say that, in fact said 57, plus one left to go to, plus Alaska
> and Hawaii which he was not allowed to visit. =A0That would be 60 states,
> not even closely related to Heinz 57 or 57 venues or the price of rice
> in China...
Again, were you equally forthcoming/critical of REPUBLICAN gaffes,
or ... are you JUST an absolute fucking hypocrite ?
I mean ... either spoken gaffes are funny/obnoxious to you or ... they
aren't.
If they're only funny when one party makes them, then ... you're an
absolute fucking hypocrite.
Don't worry, Jack. This is what's called "rhetorical."
You needn't answer.
Your words speak for themselves.
On Jul 25, 7:16=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > On Jul 24, 1:32 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> You certainly are, as are most of your empty headed socialist buddies.=
..
> > What makes me, or my buddies, Socialists, Jack ?
>
> You support a strong centralized government that controls the means of
> production. =A0You fight individualism at every turn. =A0You support the
> progressive (socialist) mantra. =A0You denigrate capitalism every chance
> you get. =A0You don't believe in the 1st, 2nd, 10th amendments, nor in th=
e
> constitution for that matter. =A0You quote hate filled murdering mother
> fuckers like G.B. Shaw who thought people with little to contribute to
> the collective should be killed painlessly with gas.
>
> Thanks for asking.
Nicely done, Jack.
That's nothing BUT an endless stream of unsupported assumptions.
That's ALL you are, though, and ALL you have -- isn't it ???
Thanks -- AGAIN -- for proving MY point.
On Jul 18, 4:46=A0pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> =A0The down side, of course, that that many will
> sit on their ass and do nothing and still get that $1000 you are getting =
to
> work for a week. =A0There is no incentive to work. =A0Same argument you g=
et for
> welfare and long term unemployment compensation. =A0 =A0Maybe the working=
crew
> should get a 20% bonus.
Yup, and extra for those folks who still need to pay insurance on
their boats, fishing licenses etc.
My whole point of raising this issue was not to try to get a reading
on what is fair, but how does one motivate anybody if their net gain
is zero?
I also get Leon's point and I agree, but shouldn't be there any
punitive damages? Not just a labour/labour compensation?
On Jul 24, 12:06=A0pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 10:38=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Most of you ... hell, most PEOPLE ... start with their preconceived
> > position, and then reason backward ... if at all.
>
> > This place ... is a stellar example of that.
>
> Gee, Neil.
>
> Good thing you don't do that!!!! =A0All I have seen from your posts is
> to say that everybody else is totally wrong. =A0No matter what.
> Whatever anybody says is wrong. =A0Not enough evidence or things are
> preconceived or something: anything--just to say that they are wrong.
>
> What are some solutions? =A0Give some examples. =A0Then don't whine if
> somebody else here disagrees.
>
> I guess it is because you are "enlightened" and just know all. =A0I
> don't know what your problem is but there is certainly a huge chip on
> your shoulder. =A0One thing is for sure: you do not want any healthy,
> constructive dialog. =A0You just want to jump on others with as little
> or less "evidence" than you are looking for from others.
>
> I have an idea: why don't we talk about woodworking again? =A0Somehow, I
> doubt of you have done much more than possibly build a popsicle house
> as a kid but maybe I am wrong and you can come up with something good.
>
> I sort of miss the days of JOAT...
I don't claim to have all the answers.
Think about that. Seriously.
I'm quite comfortable knowing that -- despite being hugely
inquisitive, and a student of politics and current events -- I don't
HAVE many answers.
The shit's hugely complicated, and intractable to simple solutions --
no matter HOW badly others crave them.
In fact, that's another real point of differentiation: I KNOW that
there's a TON that I DON'T know.
But ... so many of you ... have it all figured out. It's just the
goddamned liberals' faults.
Your accusation better fits your comrades, in truth.
Better to be silent, and thought a fool, than to speak up and remove
all doubt.
On Jul 26, 3:19=A0pm, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0 =A0 My favorite is, "OB-GYNs not being able to practice their love wi=
th
> women across America." or something close to that.
> Now, that there's funny; I don't care who you are.
LOL !
Agreed: Funny ... simply IS ... funny !
But to (not you, Dave) point to a (particularly a SINGLE) mis-
statement, after a POTUS candidate has been on the campaign trail
for ... what ... 1,000 years ... and then use that in a feeble attempt
to demonstrate some lack of intelligence ... makes the Conservatives
who USE that "example" look like absolute fucking idiots.
Literally. Idiots.
A few years ago, I finally became a proficient enough skier to
understand *just how good* the best *really are*.
I'm also finally getting the woodworking chops to know JUST HOW
TALENTED the good ones really are.
That's not an automatic. It takes a certain vantage point that MAY
not be easily attained.
What scares me is what % of Americans are *genuinely too stupid*
(read: low IQ) to recognize that -- like them or hate them -- people
like WJ Clinton and BH Obama ... have extremely high IQs.
Like him or hate him ... nobody really ever said (and seriously meant)
that about GW Bush.
GHW Bush, OTOH, was/is a very bright man.
That ... for those still paying attention (!) is called honesty,
objectivity, and principle before partisanship/personality :-)
Pass it on !
On Jul 23, 6:51=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> > Maybe I SHOULD start pointing out how you're an endless stream of
> > illogic.
>
> > Not every day, issue, confrontation, or even military action is the
> > American Revolution.
>
> > And ... the mere fact that you think your stash of small arms is going
> > to stop The Greatest Military the Earth Has Ever Known from turning on
> > its citizenry -- should it ever decide to (not MY paranoid delusion,
> > by the way) is further evidence that ideology (if NOT fear) -- not
> > rational thought -- drives you.
>
> Speaking of logic...
>
> I agree that a few small arms are useless, just like installing Punji sta=
kes
> would be silly to protect one's home from an elephant stampede. The small
> arms are useless because the need for their use will never happen.
>
> The U.S. Military will not and can not turn on its citizenry (except in
> necessary cases like Kent State).
>
> You may be projecting: The military is not made of mindless robots or can=
non
> fodder that blindly follow orders. Each member of the armed forces is a
> professional. A four-star general recognizes the corporal running the rad=
io
> is as much an expert at his job as the general is at his.
>
> A platoon of infantry simply will not follow orders to fire on civilians,
> either Americans or Afghanis (unless, of course, the soldiers can be
> persuaded the band of protesters are really dope-smoking hippies).
Not projecting ... anything.
Go look on the Internet. THOUSANDS of people believe that the 2nd
Amendment is critical -- in no small part -- to protect themselves
from a government that THEY view as increasingly tyrannical.
I ain't making this shit up. I COULDN'T make this shit up....
As to your comments about the military -- they're people ... just like
everybody else. They don't really lend themselves well to nice neat
labels and descriptions.
Some is. Some ain't.
Some will. Some won't.
Those are about the only nice neat labels that work, across such a
large group as "The Military."
On Jul 24, 10:38=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Most of you ... hell, most PEOPLE ... start with their preconceived
> position, and then reason backward ... if at all.
>
> This place ... is a stellar example of that.
Gee, Neil.
Good thing you don't do that!!!! All I have seen from your posts is
to say that everybody else is totally wrong. No matter what.
Whatever anybody says is wrong. Not enough evidence or things are
preconceived or something: anything--just to say that they are wrong.
What are some solutions? Give some examples. Then don't whine if
somebody else here disagrees.
I guess it is because you are "enlightened" and just know all. I
don't know what your problem is but there is certainly a huge chip on
your shoulder. One thing is for sure: you do not want any healthy,
constructive dialog. You just want to jump on others with as little
or less "evidence" than you are looking for from others.
I have an idea: why don't we talk about woodworking again? Somehow, I
doubt of you have done much more than possibly build a popsicle house
as a kid but maybe I am wrong and you can come up with something good.
I sort of miss the days of JOAT...
Jack Stein wrote:
>
> Perhaps, but more important is the "help" is not helping much, in
> fact, the "help" is hurting, giving credence to Quinn's law that
> liberalism
> always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent. Being forced
> to do something that doesn't work should not go over well, should it?
>
Thanks for putting a name to something I've always held. My formulation is:
"Most of society's problems can be traced to an upstream liberal program
that failed."
Some examples are:
* Emptying the insane asylums equals the homeless zombies walking our
streets.
* The entire fabric of public education.
* Uncertainty of government action coupled with lifetime unemployment
benefits equals massive idleness.
* Canceling our participation in the Olympics caused Russia to feel shame
over the invasion of Afghanistan.
On Jul 29, 8:32=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 10:25 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Alright, that's it, he's either a flippin' troll or extreme
> >> leftwinger.
>
> > Or ... neither.
>
> > Pretty centrist, actually.
>
> Surveys show that most left-wingers consider themselves to be "centrists.=
"
> For example, virtually all liberals consider the NY Times to be a
> middle-of-the-road newspaper.
>
Yabbut none wear their passion on their sleeves like a totally
committed close-minded right winger. I like to poke a stick at them
and watch them go off and laugh as they start chanting the party line.
Truth is, many a right-winger will deliberately antagonize a lefti-
winger as well.
My personal political leanings are a mixed bag. I understand, actually
understand, the plight of the less fortunate, the need for a minimal
protection for those who get sick, etc. Yet I have always run my own
businesses under very conservative helmsmanship and I vote against
bigger government and more taxes. I vote conservative (republican
without the fringe lunatic hypocrisy of those who scream 'right-to-
life' but send other people's kids to die in a war based on lies.)
I am more like the people I poke at in here than not and that is why I
know their soft spots on their underbellies. In fact I'm to the right
of centrist. But in here? As soon as you say anything in support of a
national health care system, you're hit with labels of socialist,
communist and that rot. That, to me, gives me the oxygen to poke at
them. I have no problem with 'the right', I have a problem with blind
fanaticism. That crew that puts a gun in your face because you
disagree with them.
Your brand of conservatism is a pleasure to read and the fact that
there is always a thread of humour woven into it augments the
intelligent presentation. (You don't wanna see the shit I can write
when I kiss ass.)
On Jul 30, 12:17=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 8:59=A0pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Another "intelligent" reply. =A0Nothing substantial to say. =A0Nothing
>
> The SHIT you write is so ignorant as to be a total waste of my time.
>
> If you say that 2+2 =3D 5, then ... I won't spend a lot of time trying
> to show you the error of your ways.
>
> You seem in worse shape than Jack Stein, in terms of being able to
> frame a coherent argument. =A0That's NOT good.
>
> > that does anything except to put somebody else down. =A0And nothing
> > except that since Neil thinks something is right, then it is right.
> > If it is wrong, then it is wrong.
>
> I chimed in on ONE matter of pure opinion (Obama's IQ), and GAVE
> mine. =A0The rest ... IS fact.
>
> Your intellectual insecurities are showing.
>
> > Since you did not disagree with the other things I wrote, you must
> > agree. =A0
>
> You're an idiot, for believing that.
>
> But ... I'd already figured that out.
>
> >You know it is absolutely true that people with superior
> > itelligence do not have to use profanity and they do not call other
> > people names,
>
> "Have to ?"
>
> What sort of fucked up statement, on your part, is THAT ?
>
> That's just as bad as whichever person cited Obama's "verbal
> placeholders" as some sort of "evidence" that HE's not highly
> intelligent.
>
> http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/
>
> Seriously. =A0Go TAKE a logic course. =A0You rant, rave, and ramble.
>
> You should be embarrassed.
>
> Just because you don't consider it constructive to point out to others
> where their facts and/or their logic are crap ... doesn't mean it's
> NOT constructive.
>
> It just means you don't like it.
>
> And that's a shame. =A0You're fighting, desperately, to remain ignorant
> -- literally.
>
> I'm sure you'll win THAT fight.
You still don't make an ounce of sense, Neil. :o) You think you do
but, really, your logic just sends you in those concentrically smaller
circles--but I already said that.
Based upon the "opinions" you share in this group, you are at least as
far left as anybody I have ever talked to.
And, no matter what you yell back, spewing profanity and names and
being out-and-out ignorant to others shows a lack of intelligence. Of
course, you don't tink so, but I can care less about what you think
because you tink yourself in circles. Rotoboy told you that in plain
English as did Josepi but, of course, it blew right past you.
I don't care if you don't think I am a "worthy " opponent because
nobody can follow your so-called logic but it is funny watching you
get all wrapped up in your underwear.
It is fun watching a person who thinks the person who screams the
loudest or says the nastiest things or running around looking like
Herman Munster whenever he didn't get what he wanted.
Of course, I am terrible at logic but you use it until there is never
an answer. It's "Yeah, but..." forever.
Whatever. You love Obama. You love "giving away" free health
insurance. You talk like an elitist who puts down anybody who does not
agree with him. You are so tolerant that you are intolerant.
On Jul 29, 10:39=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 8:25=A0pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 7:03=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 29, 4:39=A0pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Well, anybody who is "smart" and uses Wikipedia is an idiot
> > > > themselves. =A0
>
> > > Yet another ABSOLUTELY FUCKING IDIOTIC STATEMENT.
>
> > > If the pages I linked to are correct, then ... they're correct.
> > > That's just another ad hominem attack on your part, and ... further
> > > evidence that you're an idiot.
>
> > > > The thing is, you say something and it is "true" because
> > > > you have experienced it. =A0
>
> > > No. =A0I didn't say that.
>
> > > > You say you are centralist but you never say anything that suggests
> > > > such. =A0Everything is an attack on "right wing nuts" but never say=
left
> > > > wings are goofy, too.
>
> > > They are, ... to the extent that they reason backward FROM their
> > > positions, but ... what POSSIBLE opportunity would there be to tackle
> > > THAT problem, here ?
>
> > > None.
>
> > Wikipedia is certainly not anyplace anybody with half a brain would
> > use as evidence to back up his or her point. =A0Even when my kids were
> > in junior high school, the teachers said they would fail any paper
> > that used that site as a reference.
>
> If the Wikipedia page, to which I link, says that 2+2=3D4, then it's a
> valid source.
>
> The rest of your post was worthy ... only of being snipped.- Hide quoted =
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Another "intelligent" reply. Nothing substantial to say. Nothing
that does anything except to put somebody else down. And nothing
except that since Neil thinks something is right, then it is right.
If it is wrong, then it is wrong.
Since you did not disagree with the other things I wrote, you must
agree. You know it is absolutely true that people with superior
itelligence do not have to use profanity and they do not call other
people names, but you do that quite often, don't you, Neil?
You have nothing to say so you spend your time ripping others. You
are a troll of the lowest form. An intelligent person would also
offer suggestions or solutions or at least alternatives to the things
they do not agree with that others say or do but you don't, do you,
Neil?
Is it because you are afraid that whatever you say may be proven
wrong?
You have added absolutely nothing to anything anybody has said here.
You have not said anything constructive in the least. You have not
made a difference at all. You have an extremely myopic and simplistic
view of life but, of course, you don't see that.
It is unfortunate. If you are the voice of reason that you claim to
be that your time belittling others...
http://www.dead-baby-joke.com/introduction.htm
On Jul 18, 9:39=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On Jul 18, 9:39 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Robatoy wrote:
> > > > Maybe The British System isn't the right system. Try the Canadian o=
ne.
> > > > I'm exposed to that every day. It works great.
>
> > > Yeah, it's well known how great it works every time a Canuck slithers
> > > across the boarder to get timely, quality health care...
>
> > The Canuck that goes to the US for timely, quality health care is
> > usually rich and doesn't want to wait those few extra days he feels
> > could be a threat to his wellbeing.
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
---- ----
> > -
> > Nope. Washington state got a bunch of Canadian pregnant women deliverin=
g
> > there because of a lack of beds in Canada. Then there was the governor =
of
> > the Newfies ...
>
> I know a family here in Canada that was facing a 6-12 month wait to
> have tubes put in their young son's ears to drain fluid and give him
> back his hearing.
>
> A bit of research, a couple of phone calls, and they took a family
> vacation to Disney Land that included the day surgery for their son.
>
> Waiting time? "When can you be here? How about next Thursday?"
>
> AND, because they were paying cash the anaesthetist gave them a 40%
> discount, citing a 270 day average time for payment from the HMOs.
>
> --
> =93The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peo=
ple=92s
> money.=94 - Margaret Thatcher
And I know a family (my sister's) who, when stationed on Aruba, flew
my nieces and nephew to Canada to have their tubes put in their ears
because the wait through their HMO in the US was too long. Fact!
You see, there are many anecdotes to offset other anecdotes. I also
know stories which make the US system look good. All depends on what I
am willing to support at the time. Situational bullshit, I guess.
On Jul 27, 4:07=A0am, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Could you give a heads up next time we'll need hip waders?
Certainly.
On Jul 26, 5:35=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:27:51 -0700, Neil Brooks wrote:
> > What scares me is what % of Americans are *genuinely too stupid* (read:
> > low IQ) to recognize that -- like them or hate them -- people like WJ
> > Clinton and BH Obama ... have extremely high IQs.
>
> "The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the
> average voter." =A0That may not be an exact quote, but it's close :-).
Churchill, IIRC.
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jul 17, 5:43 pm, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>> > On Jul 17, 3:16 pm, "Leon"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> "Angela Sekeris"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:5164b3bf-39d6-4286-bdd3-b2c949ece164@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Jul 17, 1:45 pm, "Leon"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>> "Robatoy"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >>>news:ab7acd4d-74ea-4a99-b0d4-7d0d0925e518@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >>>> He did it!!
>>
>> >>> And right on the heels of his new book that also qualifies for the worlds
>> >>> shortest book.
>>
>> >>> How I earned the Nobel Piece Prize.
>>
>> >> I think it is wonderful to see BP step up to the plate to keep our
>> >> Hummers humming... even though they consumed an American president in
>> >> the process.
>>
>> >> Win, Win
>>
>> > Fishermen in Mississippi say they are angry that under the terms of
>> > BP's $20 billion oil spill fund, money they earn doing clean-up will
>> > be subtracted from their claim against the company.
>>
>> Angry or not, you can't sue for lost income you didn't incur. That's
>> just a legal principle.
>
>I thought the plan was to clean up the mess. Now where is the
>motivation for anybody to help? If the claim is $ 10,000, why work to
>get less? If they get a job elsewhere at a reduced income, why should
>BP benefit?
>
>(BTW, I am not suggesting it is illegal for BP to do this.)
You know damn well Obama want's those fishermen to work cleaning up
this mess. If they don't do the clean-up the fool in the White House
won't be able to claim he created even more jobs.
When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both.
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:50:19 -0700, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Dave in Texas wrote:
>
>>
>> "Michael Kenefick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Is that a total? Because that is 9 to 5 thousand less than what I being
>>> taken for now.
>>
>> No shit! I'll gladly pay another ten thou in annual income taxes for
>> the public option and be [at minimum] ten thou ahead of the private
>> insurance curve.
>>
>> Dave in Houston
>
> That is what you will pay. What you will receive in benefits will be
>considerably less. The British National Health System is coming to America,
>welcome to rationing, waiting lists, and lack of care for everybody except
>the rich who will be able to afford to pay the tax and buy their own care.
Welcome the "death panels". Berwick will be the first ghoul. ...I thought it
might be Kevorkian.
On Jul 23, 6:41=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>
> > Perhaps, but more important is the "help" is not helping much, in
> > fact, the "help" is hurting, giving credence to Quinn's law that
> > liberalism
> > always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent. Being forced
> > to do something that doesn't work should not go over well, should it?
>
> Thanks for putting a name to something I've always held. My formulation i=
s:
> "Most of society's problems can be traced to an upstream liberal program
> that failed."
>
> Some examples are:
> * Emptying the insane asylums equals the homeless zombies walking our
> streets.
> * The entire fabric of public education.
> * Uncertainty of government action coupled with lifetime unemployment
> benefits equals massive idleness.
> * Canceling our participation in the Olympics caused Russia to feel shame
> over the invasion of Afghanistan.
I have NO idea what those "examples" are supposed to indicate, but ...
you have a sample size issue.
In other words, your 'arguments' are just about as compelling (read:
juvenile and worthless) as the "I've got a cousin, who has a friend
who's Canadian, and HE lost a leg, waiting for a surgery, blah, blah,
blah" arguments that somebody else launched earlier.
Arguing that the politics of one major party in this country are the
reason for all of our ills ... is like watching a couple of five year
old kids argue about whose crayon it is, on the kindergarten
playground.
Pathetic.
On Jul 22, 5:53=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> No. =A0You have a handle on what YOUR doctors and dentists believe will
> or will not help them make more money.
>
> Period.
>
Well, right: they are in the business of making a living. Should they
simply break even or lose money in the end? These are real,
breathing people who put a whole heck of a lot of time and effort and
money into their profession. Is it the fault of the doctors out there
that costs are so high? Aren't they forced to have insurance out the
wahzoo because people sue for any little thing these days? And what
other costs are there? They have to pay the people who work for
them. They even pay extra for the privilege of having employees in
the form of extra taxes. They certainly do not get all their
equipment for free, especially a dentist. How far in hock do you
think these guys start out?
But I think I need to stop now. :o) I am beginning to see the
light. There is an undertow of pretentiousness in your posts. The
funny thing is that it is very similar to Jack's but you seem to get
annoyed by his posts!
It is a shame that instead of working together and encouraging each
other that people have more fun frustrating others.
On Jul 22, 12:27=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > The simplest and best solution to the health care problem would indeed
> > have been to extend Medicare to all. =A0It would have brought a younger
> > healthier group in and thus cut costs. =A0We might even have been able =
to
> > increase payment rates to doctors and hospitals because of that.
>
> > But it wasn't politically palatable.
>
> As it stands, Medicare is a failure. =A0Private insurance makes up for a
> lot of the Medicare (and Medicaid) expenses when doctors and hospitals
> charge private insurance more for services than paid by government
> programs. Worse, government has no bottom line so they are ALWAYS
> incompetent and expensive. =A0If a government worker does a poor job, he
> gets ignored or transferred to another supervisor that's incompetent
> enough to not care. =A0When the whole country is on Medicare, things will
> get worse, far worse.
>
> For example, when everyone in the country is on Medicaid, you end up
> with 50% of prostrate cancer patients dying instead of 10-15%.
>
> --
> Jack
> 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.http://jbstein.com
I wasn't saying to put EVERYBODY on Medicaid! LOL Just those who
want to go on it. Of course, that is available ALREADY to people
below a certain income level. I get sick of those people who do not
"qualify" for it but are screaming to be put on government-run health
insurance.
I agree that government-tun ANYTHING will not be efficient or good.
The government does not know how to run a business and they shouldn't
have to worry about doing so. Government only knows how to control
costs two ways: cutting things willy-nilly or raising taxes (but
raising taxes wins more times than not). The only "incentive"
government cares about is making sure *ALL* the customers are happy.
Not the TAXPAYERS, mind you, they focus on the USERS only. The
incentive for a business is *GASP* that new dirty word: PROFIT.
Businesses want to get as much of their product to as many consumers
as they can butt hey want to make money on it. As such, they will
trim the fat whenever possible and charge what the market will bear.
Plain and simple. Price it too low and you will go out of business
because you can't cover costs. Price it too high and the consumer
will not buy it.
Oh, know. That last sentence is where liberals start to lose it.
Many think that health care costs are too high and the public simply
has no choice but to pay what these businesses charge. Agreed. To a
point. There NEEDS to be more competition but if you let the
government in and allow the government to be in charge of all the
rules, then that is not competition: government will become the
monopoly and then you will end up with a system where the costs ARE
too high and you will not have any other recourse because there will
not be any other players in the market.
Getting back to the original topic of this thread, Obama is filled
with more hot air than anybody I have ever heard before. Of course,
just turning 50 means that I am just a child in the eyes of many here
and I am sure there may have been others who were as bad but I bet not
many. He goes out and talks like HE did this and HE did that and
whenever something HE did gets screwed up in any way, shape, or form,
HE blames Bush. Or the evil BP. I am not saying that BP or Bush were
above reproach. BP has been aloof in many ways throughout this entire
oil spill crisis and Bush started this "too big to fail" crap, so they
both have some big black marks against them, YMMV.
Bottom line is this: Reagan got a whole hell of a lot accomplished in
his two terms and he had to deal with a Democratic Congress the whole
time. There was cooperation back then and we have not seen it
since.
As far as when I said Obama has no plan, I still stick by that. He is
a very shallow man, I fear. He skims the surface and believes he can
read everything from that and he is wrong. He may be incredibly
intelligent but he lacks wisdom. Maybe that is one reason Reagan was
a good President: He was not a Rhodes scholar or a lawyer or a
professor but he did have a lot of wisdom. Good old-fashioned wisdom
is sorely lacking today everywhere.
On Jul 26, 6:50=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> >> You are correct in that many fear their own government. But I assert
> >> their belief is not proof.
>
> > Didn't say it was.
>
> > Please ... note ... yet another example of putting words in somebody
> > else's mouth.
>
> > Bad habit.
>
> I didn't put words in anybody's mouth (except my own).
>
> In point of fact, I was agreeing with you - to the extent that many peopl=
e
> believe strange things. Impossible things. Crazy things.
Learning about quoting and attribution would go a long way, around
here, too ;-)
On Jul 28, 12:50=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> busbus wrote:
>
> =A0 > And, worst of all, the are all like Cri-cri birds (which are creatu=
re
>
> > who fly in concentrically smaller circle until their heads fly up
> > their ass and they scream, "Cri, cri, cri, cri....CHRIST, is it dark
> > up here!!!"
>
> Now that was funny!
>
> > Personally, I agree Obama is intelligent. =A0
>
> Out of curiosity, what makes you say that? =A0All evidence points to the
> opposite, he is a George Soros puppet, has never accomplished a thing
> other than beating the only person on earth not likely to beat say Bob
> Dole... =A0He barely managed that even with gross voter apathy combined
> with great ACORN voter fraud and full support of the state run media.
>
> About the only evidence that Obama is intelligent is a bunch of lemmings
> saying it.
>
> Who cares if he is intelligent. =A0He has absolutely NO wisdom. =A0And
> precious little common
>
> > sense from what I have seen.
>
> Intelligence with no wisdom and common sense is called a tape
> recorder... OK, a cd recorder...DVR?
>
> --
> Jack
> If Guns Kill then Pencils Miss Spel Words!http://jbstein.com
Hey Jack! Here's somebody who sees things your way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DsDkhzHQO7jY
Don't bird need both wings to actually fly?
Ever heard of an eagle?
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:a7b2050e-6198-49cd-bf51-f954d394d2be@p11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
We're a right-wing country in the context of the world, so ... it's
much more likely that conservatives, here, think anybody to the left
of THEM is some sort of commie pinko socialist enviro-nazi.
On Jul 19, 10:12=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>=A0I can't wait to have a system
> where "my" doc spends 3 minutes with me...
I spent less than 10 seconds with you....prognosis? You're a fucking
idiot.
On Jul 24, 6:06=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's possible the prism through which you darkly view contrarian views is
> broke.
I look at the merits -- or lack of -- of an argument.
Not much of a prism, here.
Not many merits to your arguments.
Most of you ... hell, most PEOPLE ... start with their preconceived
position, and then reason backward ... if at all.
This place ... is a stellar example of that.
On Jul 24, 4:16=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jul 24, 10:05 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Neil Brooks wrote:
> >>> THIS is just ONE example of why YOU are a total fucking asshole, Jack=
.
> >> Robocop lies about calling ONLY me a douche-nozzle, I point out he has
> >> called others douche-nozzles, research it first, and I'm an asshole...
> > =A0You and Billy Mays. Mays is dead.
>
> So you were lying... =A0Who knew?
>
> > That leaves YOU as the only one
> > left that *I* called Douche Nozzle.
>
> Once we established you are full of shit, there is no way to take
> anything you say as true. =A0
>
That is a weak argument as truth is something you wouldn't recognize
if it hit you in the face. (was going to say 'hit you in the nads' but
I don't see much chance of that.)
And once we have established that your political leanings are of the
skin-head variety, we can't take anything you say seriously.
Your kind probably has a McVey poster over your bed. Maybe calling you
a douche nozzle is too kind of me. Let's change it to Enema Nozzle,
shall we?
THEN you may fuck off.
"He" (assuming ur talking about BHO) didn't do anything, except put off any
help we could have had week one to help contain the spill. "He" continues to
show he has no executive experience (duh)
and is a complete looser. He makes Carter look like a good deal. Glad the
Dem's rule will be over soon. Guess it's time for HIM to take another
vacation....
How's that hope and change working for ya?
What a bunch of crap.
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:ab7acd4d-74ea-4a99-b0d4-7d0d0925e518@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>> He did it!!
>
>
> BP is justifiably being very conservative about the news. A very welcome
> step, but a long way yet to go - years at least, probably decades.
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>> happen either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>>>>> Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Technically, the President of the US had absolutely no legal
>>>>>> authority
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> impose an escrow, fine, or judgment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And he didn't.
>>>>
>>>> Uh, yeah, right.
>>>
>>> Yeah, Right! I detest the man and can't wait until he's out of office,
>>> but making up shit is counter productive. Just as it was when W was in
>>> office.
>>
>> Making up what? You think that any CEO would just walk into the White
>> House, drop $20B of their own free will?
>
> Yep and that's EXACTLY what he did.
If that is the case, the Board of Directors and the stockholder of BP
should be screaming bloody murder and oust the guy. Company assets are not
a stash of walking around money for the CEO to dole out has he pleases.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You are correct in that many fear their own government. But I
>>>> assert their belief is not proof.
>>>
>>>
>>> Didn't say it was.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please ... note ... yet another example of putting words in somebody
>>> else's mouth.
>>>
>>> Bad habit.
>>
>> I didn't put words in anybody's mouth (except my own).
>>
>> In point of fact, I was agreeing with you - to the extent that many
>> people believe strange things. Impossible things. Crazy things.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Except I didn't write that which you attribute to me.
I have confidence you'll come around.
Robatoy wrote:
> He did it!!
Now if only Algor were as successful... :)
Does appear to be cautiously good news; we can only hope that pressure
holds indefinitely and don't have/cause another blowout somewhere along
the bore hole.
At least even if so, they can now capture virtually all if not all
instead of only a fraction while finish up the bottom kill process.
--
On 7/15/2010 4:37 PM, dpb wrote:
> pear to be cautiously good news; we can only hope that pressure holds
> indefinitely and don't have/cause another blowout somewhere along the
> bore hole.
If obama could be 1/4 as successful as BP. But all obama comes out with
is more regulations, and high taxes that do nothing for helping the
economy out of the pelosi/obama depression.
In article <[email protected]>,
Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>If obama could be 1/4 as successful as BP. But all obama comes out with
>is more regulations, and high taxes that do nothing for helping the
>economy out of the pelosi/obama depression.
Ha Ha! that's rich!
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ab7acd4d-74ea-4a99-b0d4-7d0d0925e518@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> He did it!!
BP is justifiably being very conservative about the news. A very welcome
step, but a long way yet to go - years at least, probably decades.
On 7/16/2010 1:30 PM, ChairMan wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Swingman<[email protected]>spewed forth:
>> On 7/15/2010 3:29 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>> He did it!!
>>
>> And so he thinks ... note the imperial "we" in all his comments about
>> the capping thus far.
>
> whadda ya mean?
> I saw him on the video feed with a wrench in his hand and now with all the
> oil in the gulf, it will make it much easier for him to walk on water<g>
>
>
For me obama has stopped being a source of amusement. 18 months after
pelosi killed the bailout bill the economy is in the worse condition it
has been since the 1930's. Every time the economy thinks of recovering
obama and his gang comes up with another way of thwarting it. His
latest was the banking bill. Ever since the Senate took up the bill in
the middle of April the Stock Market has been declining. There appeared
to be a start of a recovery, then the Senate pass the financial
takeover. The stock market restarted its downward decent and has lost
300 points in two days since its passage. The market ignores the good
news and continues to shrink.
For four years, I went to college during the day and worked at night to
get a degree; I spent the rest of my life scrimping and saving. Now in
18 months obama and the social democrats have destroyed every thing I
worked for. No one realized this is what change meant. I guess obama
definition of equality is bread lines for every one.
On Jul 26, 9:20=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > Wanna' explain to me ... yet ... the basis for all your assumptions
> > about MY politics, and the politics of my friends ?
>
> Obviously I only know the views that you, and your friends post here.
> You could be lying, you could be straw men, I don't know, and don't
> really care much. =A0My responses to your drivel are solely for my
> personal entertainment, and anyone that chooses to participate. =A0I'm no=
t
> trying to enlighten you or anyone else, and when it gets too old or
> boring or not entertaining enough for me, I'll simply ignore you.
>
> > Or ... is that just a textbook example of you talking out your Jack
> > Ass ??
>
> I will admit that most of your drivel, and your buddies Beavis and
> Butthead are void of content other than childish, empty headed name
> calling, so it requires some effort to sort through the gibberish to get
> a handle on your views. =A0I'm fairly patient though and enjoy the
> occasional romp in the mud.
Pretty much ... ALL of which ... further validates my position that
you're a fucking idiot.
After that chimerical Logic course ... maybe you should sit down, list
all of your closely-held beliefs, and then ... challenge each and
every one of them.
No 'maybe' about it, actually. You SHOULD.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave in Texas wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, so lets give government control over 1/6th of the economy, and
>>>> our
>>>> health to boot. Government controlling your health care is not going to
>>>> lead to smaller government anytime soon. You're lying or stupid.
>>>
>>> The government, by law, already controls more than 90% of the economy.
>>> It
>>> chooses not to exercise day to day control in some instances. 10% is
>>> either barter, or illegal.
>>
>> I doubt that 90% BS. With all the financial
>> market/too-big-to-fail-bank
>> bailout of the last year it has come to light that the Wall Street
>> financiers and/or big banks account for more than 60% of U.S. GDP. If
>> you
>> think the government controls those institutions it's because they pay
>> the
>> government to do it the way they want. You're not hearing much pissing
>> and moaning from the financial markets on the recent financial regulation
>> bill
>> which passed. IIRC the market went up substantially the day the bill
>> passed.
>> And, GM has repaid it's government loan to the point that the Houston
>> Chronicle reported today that GM is jumping back into the subprime
>> lending
>> market buying some lending outfit so GM can start financing car loans
>> again.
>>
>> Dave in Texas
>
> BTW, those eeevil bankers and Wall Street dudes? Overwhelmingly Democrat
> and contributed heavily to The One during 2008 election cycle as well as
> Reid, Pelosi, et al.
>
> Believe it or not, those of us who support free market economics also
> despise the use of government by large institutions to legislate laws
> favorable to those large institutions and, by such regulations, through
> the
> high cost of regulatory compliance, make the ability of smaller businesses
> to compete. That's not capitalism, that's fascism (the real meaning of
> fascism).
It's part of the modern-day American business model.
On Jul 25, 9:09=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>. =A0There are exceptions, but not many. =A0For example, I've not
> noticed one left wing MF'er turn into a right winger due to arguments
> put forth in this newsgroup.
>
You couldn't be more wrong. But having said that.....
You are probably somewhat accurate in making that assumption as most
extremists, right or left, have their heads so far up their respective
asses that cannot hear or see. Those loons you will never change.
There are, many like me, who aren't that hard-core left or right.
People who at least try to fix a broken health-care system.... which
in turn causes the extreme right to howl like stuck pigs, not because
they understand the issues but because that's what they are trained to
do.
People like me also like to see the taxes being lowered as that is
likely to stimulate the economy. Smaller government is a good idea.
Prayer in school is a good thing. And above all, I read and listen. I
have come away many times from here with a different perspective on
some issues once it was explained in a rational and understandable
way.
And you'll never believe who some of those 'contributors' (for want of
another word) have been. No Jack, you're not one of them.
But I NEVER pull a 'Stein' by ramming my fingers in my ears and
yelling: "I can't hear you, lalalalalalalalalalalalal."... and then
pull out your gun and shoot those with whom you disagree.
THAT is what makes you wrong, Jack AND an Enema Nozzle to boot. But
extremists like you eventually self-destruct because the hate will eat
you from the inside out.
"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Robatoy" wrote:
>>
>>> Prayer in school is a good thing.
>> ----------------------------
>> That has proved to be a very slippery slope.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
> There is no law that prevents prayer in school. I never prayed more than
> when orals or comps were upon me.
>
> If you need structured or group prayers, I will volunteer to write them
> along with my friends Wong and Achmed. What say?
Go into your homes and pray to the father behind closed doors. Those who
pray in public already have their reward.
Or somesuch. Attributed to Jesus speaking to the deciples.
Dave in Prague
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:20:36 -0700 (PDT), Neil Brooks <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jul 25, 9:02 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>> > On Jul 25, 5:48 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 25, 7:42 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > "Robatoy" wrote:
>> >> > >Only because the extreme Left are a Godless bunch and want to shove
>>
>> >> > their agenda down the throats of those kids who DO have a belief of
>> >> > their own.
>> >> > ------------------------------
>> >> > Oh please.
>>
>> >> > There is a time and a place for everything.
>>
>> >> > Practicing religion during the school day doesn't meet that
>> >> > requirement.
>>
>> >> > Lew
>>
>> >> Look at all the old bastards around you. They all grew up in that
>> >> environment. Didn't turn out too bad, did they?
>>
>> > And ... THAT one would be known as "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc."
>>
>> > Here:
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
>>
>> Umm, no, that comment would not be known by that logical fallacy. Note
>> Robatoy did not say that *because* they were exposed to public prayer in
>> school and *because* they turned out OK, therefore, it was the exposure to
>> public prayer that caused them to turn out OK.
>
>Ohhhhhhhhhh, it was SURELY implicit.
inference <> implication
>[rest snipped]
>
>Robatoy merely stated that
>> *even though* they were exposed to religious beliefs which they may not have
>> held while they were in public school, they turned out OK. i.e. that
>> exposure was neither causative nor detrimental to the final condition at
>> which they arrived. Look that up in your college logic text and get back
>> with us on that one.
>>
>> For someone who has taken it upon himself to lecture this group on proper
>> application of logic, you don't seem to have a real firm grasp of the
>> concept.
>
>Actually, ... yeah ... I do.
Not so much.
On Jul 26, 5:01=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> inference <> implication
>
> >[rest snipped]
>
> >Robatoy merely stated that
> >> *even though* they were exposed to religious beliefs which they may no=
t have
> >> held while they were in public school, they turned out OK. =A0i.e. tha=
t
> >> exposure was neither causative nor detrimental to the final condition =
at
> >> which they arrived. =A0Look that up in your college logic text and get=
back
> >> with us on that one.
>
> >> =A0 For someone who has taken it upon himself to lecture this group on=
proper
> >> application of logic, you don't seem to have a real firm grasp of the
> >> concept.
>
> >Actually, ... yeah ... I do.
>
> Not so much.
Yeah. So much.
He drew the correlation -- the BASIS OF the "correlation does not
equal causation" fallacy.
Read it again. Here:
[QUOTE]Look at all the old bastards around you. They all grew up in
that environment. Didn't turn out too bad, did they?"[/QUOTE]
The correlation is actually quite EXplicit, in that statement.
Whether you're saying it's positive causation (DID cause it) OR
negative causation (neither caused NOR contributed TO it), either is a
plain old, garden-variety logical fallacy.
Go find a logician, if need be, or ... look into it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Or find your own source.
BTW ... IF there were a moderate/Liberal who participated on this
site ... one who ignored facts, spewed logical fallacies, and or
reasoned backward from conclusion to "support FOR" that conclusion ...
I might be inclined to jump THEIR shit, too.
But ... the more moderate the Wreck contributor, it seems, the more
valid their positions, the better thought-through their reasoning, and
the more sound their logic.
Coincidence ?
Oh ... I don't think so.
"Robatoy" wrote:
>Only because the extreme Left are a Godless bunch and want to shove
their agenda down the throats of those kids who DO have a belief of
their own.
------------------------------
Oh please.
There is a time and a place for everything.
Practicing religion during the school day doesn't meet that
requirement.
Lew
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:15:02 -0700 (PDT), Neil Brooks <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jul 26, 5:01 pm, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> inference <> implication
>>
>> >[rest snipped]
>>
>> >Robatoy merely stated that
>> >> *even though* they were exposed to religious beliefs which they may not have
>> >> held while they were in public school, they turned out OK. i.e. that
>> >> exposure was neither causative nor detrimental to the final condition at
>> >> which they arrived. Look that up in your college logic text and get back
>> >> with us on that one.
>>
>> >> For someone who has taken it upon himself to lecture this group on proper
>> >> application of logic, you don't seem to have a real firm grasp of the
>> >> concept.
>>
>> >Actually, ... yeah ... I do.
>>
>> Not so much.
>
>
>
>Yeah. So much.
>
>He drew the correlation -- the BASIS OF the "correlation does not
>equal causation" fallacy.
>
>Read it again. Here:
>
>[QUOTE]Look at all the old bastards around you. They all grew up in
>that environment. Didn't turn out too bad, did they?"[/QUOTE]
>
>The correlation is actually quite EXplicit, in that statement.
No, your inference.
>Whether you're saying it's positive causation (DID cause it) OR
>negative causation (neither caused NOR contributed TO it), either is a
>plain old, garden-variety logical fallacy.
...or in it didn't matter; no causation.
Fact: They grew up around...
Fact: They turned out fine...
Your inference: Robocop thinks one had something to do with the other.
>Go find a logician, if need be, or ... look into it:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
>
>Or find your own source.
>
>BTW ... IF there were a moderate/Liberal who participated on this
>site ... one who ignored facts, spewed logical fallacies, and or
>reasoned backward from conclusion to "support FOR" that conclusion ...
>I might be inclined to jump THEIR shit, too.
>
>But ... the more moderate the Wreck contributor, it seems, the more
>valid their positions, the better thought-through their reasoning, and
>the more sound their logic.
>
>Coincidence ?
No. Nonsense.
>Oh ... I don't think so.
You don't.
On Jul 25, 5:48=A0pm, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
> >>> Prayer in school is a good thing.
> >> ----------------------------
> >> That has proved to be a very slippery slope.
>
> >> Lew
>
> > There is no law that prevents prayer in school. =A0I never prayed more =
than
> > when orals or comps were upon me.
>
> > If you need structured or group prayers, I will volunteer to write them
> > along with my friends Wong and Achmed. =A0What say?
>
> Go into your homes and pray to the father behind closed doors. =A0Those w=
ho
> pray in public already have their reward.
> Or somesuch. =A0Attributed to Jesus speaking to the deciples.
>
> Dave in Prague
I want to visit Prague. friends of mine were there last winter and
were blown away with all the things to see and do there. Are the
prices as nuts as Vienna?
On Jul 25, 5:48=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 7:42=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Robatoy" wrote:
> > >Only because the extreme Left are a Godless bunch and want to shove
>
> > their agenda down the throats of those kids who DO have a belief of
> > their own.
> > ------------------------------
> > Oh please.
>
> > There is a time and a place for everything.
>
> > Practicing religion during the school day doesn't meet that
> > requirement.
>
> > Lew
>
> Look at all the old bastards around you. They all grew up in that
> environment. Didn't turn out too bad, did they?
And ... THAT one would be known as "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc."
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
You DO fit in with this bunch ;-)
On Jul 21, 8:01=A0am, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:24:16 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, thats life. =A0You are not likely to make any left wingers right, o=
r
> >right wingers left. =A0You must enjoy the fight. =A0Anyone that thinks t=
hey
> >are going to infuse Robocop or Upscale with wisdom, they are delusional.
>
> The only problem with your premises is that the more you blather on,
> the more people come to the conclusion that you really are an
> ignorant, delusional redneck. Then, they really do fully realize that
> *anything* you have to say is a complete waste time.
Thank you.
I was ONLY going to take enough time to point out that ... I was NOT
going to take the time TO point out ... the innumerable logical
fallacies in his post, and simply recommend that Jack TAKE a course in
Logic.
But you said it SOOOooooo much better :-)
On Jul 25, 11:50=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Lalalalalalalala I can't hear youuuuuuuu
> I got my ears in my fingers and my eyes closed.
> LalalalalalalalalalastoppitIcan't hear youuuuuu
There. Fixed your response.
BTW, what's with you and 12-year olds anyway? Boys? Are you just as
sick as those other Righwing Nutbars?
I also don't want to be seen in public with the likes of you... you
know, when you lie down with dog you wake up with fleas and all
that.... so I have to cut this convo off. You have nothing positive to
contribute. You are empty. Have a nice life, Enema Nozzle.
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 25, 5:48Â pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 25, 7:42Â pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Robatoy" wrote:
>> > >Only because the extreme Left are a Godless bunch and want to shove
>>
>> > their agenda down the throats of those kids who DO have a belief of
>> > their own.
>> > ------------------------------
>> > Oh please.
>>
>> > There is a time and a place for everything.
>>
>> > Practicing religion during the school day doesn't meet that
>> > requirement.
>>
>> > Lew
>>
>> Look at all the old bastards around you. They all grew up in that
>> environment. Didn't turn out too bad, did they?
>
>
> And ... THAT one would be known as "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc."
>
> Here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
>
Umm, no, that comment would not be known by that logical fallacy. Note
Robatoy did not say that *because* they were exposed to public prayer in
school and *because* they turned out OK, therefore, it was the exposure to
public prayer that caused them to turn out OK. Robatoy merely stated that
*even though* they were exposed to religious beliefs which they may not have
held while they were in public school, they turned out OK. i.e. that
exposure was neither causative nor detrimental to the final condition at
which they arrived. Look that up in your college logic text and get back
with us on that one.
For someone who has taken it upon himself to lecture this group on proper
application of logic, you don't seem to have a real firm grasp of the
concept.
> You DO fit in with this bunch ;-)
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Han wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Believe it or not, those of us who support free market economics
>> also
>> despise the use of government by large institutions to legislate laws
>> favorable to those large institutions and, by such regulations,
>> through the high cost of regulatory compliance, make the ability of
>> smaller businesses to compete. That's not capitalism, that's fascism
>> (the real meaning of fascism).
>
> I think there is a typo above since I do not believe you mean "make the
> ability of smaller businesses to compete."
Yeah, something in there either got garbled or lost, that should have
read, "make the ability of smaller businesses to compete more difficult if
not impossible."
>
> But finally something to agree on! Congress has most definitely overdone
> the regulation of almost everything (especially tax-related). If only we
> could foresee the effects of ditching all the special regulations and tax
> advantages of all those rules and laws and regulations. One of the
> reasons I am retiring now I can, is that I resent to the nth degree the
> filling out of forms, recertifications, and repeating exams for compliance
> here there
> and everywhere in biomedical research. Especially because the penalties
> on those who transgress seem puny, and the efforts of the good guys hugely
> time-consuming.
>
Yep, something we can both agree on. That is one of the reasons that I
cannot support statists running for office -- their idea of "solving
problems" means creating more laws and more government regulations so that
folks like you and I spend more time following processes and paperwork than
being productive.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:c1d662b8-c95f-49f5-9732-
[email protected]:
> On Jul 25, 7:42 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" wrote:
>> >Only because the extreme Left are a Godless bunch and want to shove
>>
>> their agenda down the throats of those kids who DO have a belief of
>> their own.
>> ------------------------------
>> Oh please.
>>
>> There is a time and a place for everything.
>>
>> Practicing religion during the school day doesn't meet that
>> requirement.
>>
>> Lew
>
> Look at all the old bastards around you. They all grew up in that
> environment. Didn't turn out too bad, did they?
I don't think I turned out too bad, except that my right side limbs break
too easily. Never had prayer in schools - public Dutch education. But
then the society I grew up in had a very judeo-christian value set.
Praying (and cursing) was for the various christian sects' schools.
Please pardon the ravings of an old man.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Believe it or not, those of us who support free market economics
> also
> despise the use of government by large institutions to legislate laws
> favorable to those large institutions and, by such regulations,
> through the high cost of regulatory compliance, make the ability of
> smaller businesses to compete. That's not capitalism, that's fascism
> (the real meaning of fascism).
I think there is a typo above since I do not believe you mean "make the
ability of smaller businesses to compete."
But finally something to agree on! Congress has most definitely overdone
the regulation of almost everything (especially tax-related). If only we
could foresee the effects of ditching all the special regulations and tax
advantages of all those rules and laws and regulations. One of the reasons
I am retiring now I can, is that I resent to the nth degree the filling out
of forms, recertifications, and repeating exams for compliance here there
and everywhere in biomedical research. Especially because the penalties on
those who transgress seem puny, and the efforts of the good guys hugely
time-consuming.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Jul 25, 3:21=A0pm, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > "Robatoy" wrote:
>
> >> Prayer in school is a good thing.
> > ----------------------------
> > That has proved to be a very slippery slope.
>
> > Lew
>
> There is no law that prevents prayer in school. =A0I never prayed more
> than when orals or comps were upon me.
>
> If you need structured or group prayers, I will volunteer to write them
> along with my friends Wong and Achmed. =A0What say?
Bring Mordecai along, too, and you got my vote ;-)
On Jul 25, 7:12=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bigotry is still alive and well.
>
> Our generation leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to toleration
> of our fellow man.
Amen.
Annnnnnnnnnd ... cue Neil.
Paradoxically ... HORRIBLY intolerant of ... intolerance.
;-)
On Jul 25, 7:42=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> >Only because the extreme Left are a Godless bunch and want to shove
>
> their agenda down the throats of those kids who DO have a belief of
> their own.
> ------------------------------
> Oh please.
>
> There is a time and a place for everything.
>
> Practicing religion during the school day doesn't meet that
> requirement.
>
> Lew
Look at all the old bastards around you. They all grew up in that
environment. Didn't turn out too bad, did they?
On Jul 22, 9:30=A0am, Douglas Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I think people get there information from the media they watch, but they
> >come up with there own conclusions. =A0If their conclusions conflict wit=
h
> >the media they watch they will quit watching or find an outlet that
> >agrees, if at all possible. =A0
>
> You're right. =A0But that's part of the problem. =A0The more important th=
ose
> conclusions are, the more you should seek out and understand contrary
> conclusions. =A0 It will either strengthen your conclusions or change the=
m. =A0In
> almost every instance, there are people of good sense and character that =
hold
> different opinions. =A0
>
> Just looking for news that supports your conclusions is just a way of pat=
ting
> yourself on the back and telling yourself how smart you are. =A0(I'm usin=
g "you"
> in the general sense, not personally.) =A0It also contributes to polariza=
tion on
> issues. =A0"Everything I hear supports my point of view, so it must be ri=
ght." =A0
>
> -- Doug
In two words:
Confirmation bias.
What I've seen ... RAMPANT, here (not ONLY here) is example after
example of just that -- confirmation bias.
Wanna' know the one thing that I'm willing to say "is a huge problem
for this country" (just so much old-guy blather, usually) ?
Confirmation bias.
In other words ... well said, Douglas !
On Jul 25, 5:00=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> > Prayer in school is a good thing.
>
> ----------------------------
> That has proved to be a very slippery slope.
>
> Lew
Only because the extreme Left are a Godless bunch and want to shove
their agenda down the throats of those kids who DO have a belief of
their own. I think people should be allowed to worship and not have
their prayers outlawed by some legislative body. It's similar to the
abortion issue. I don't believe in abortions (other than for difficult
medical issues) but I DO believe a woman should be able to decide her
path for herself. You cannot legislate morals. You cannot legislate
the freedom to practise religion/prayer away from where kids
congregate. Whatcha gonna do? rewrite that line: One Nation Under FSM?
You see, in my world a person is a complicated blend of right and left-
wing views. Just because I don't believe in solving all my problem
with a gun, doesn't mean that the guy who rapes my kid isn't going to
die by my gun.
On Jul 25, 9:02=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > On Jul 25, 5:48=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Jul 25, 7:42=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > "Robatoy" wrote:
> >> > >Only because the extreme Left are a Godless bunch and want to shove
>
> >> > their agenda down the throats of those kids who DO have a belief of
> >> > their own.
> >> > ------------------------------
> >> > Oh please.
>
> >> > There is a time and a place for everything.
>
> >> > Practicing religion during the school day doesn't meet that
> >> > requirement.
>
> >> > Lew
>
> >> Look at all the old bastards around you. They all grew up in that
> >> environment. Didn't turn out too bad, did they?
>
> > And ... THAT one would be known as "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc."
>
> > Here:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
>
> =A0 Umm, no, that comment would not be known by that logical fallacy. =A0=
Note
> Robatoy did not say that *because* they were exposed to public prayer in
> school and *because* they turned out OK, therefore, it was the exposure t=
o
> public prayer that caused them to turn out OK. =A0
Ohhhhhhhhhh, it was SURELY implicit.
[rest snipped]
Robatoy merely stated that
> *even though* they were exposed to religious beliefs which they may not h=
ave
> held while they were in public school, they turned out OK. =A0i.e. that
> exposure was neither causative nor detrimental to the final condition at
> which they arrived. =A0Look that up in your college logic text and get ba=
ck
> with us on that one.
>
> =A0 For someone who has taken it upon himself to lecture this group on pr=
oper
> application of logic, you don't seem to have a real firm grasp of the
> concept.
Actually, ... yeah ... I do.
On Jul 25, 7:09=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> All I need is accurate information.
Obviously.
What's even MORE obvious, though, is that it doesn't need to be
*factually* accurate.
It ONLY needs to fit with your closely held world view.
Ergo: fucking idiot.
Wanna' explain to me ... yet ... the basis for all your assumptions
about MY politics, and the politics of my friends ?
Or ... is that just a textbook example of you talking out your Jack
Ass ??
Exactly :-)
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 21, 8:01 am, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:24:16 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, thats life. You are not likely to make any left wingers right, or
>>> right wingers left. You must enjoy the fight. Anyone that thinks they
>>> are going to infuse Robocop or Upscale with wisdom, they are delusional.
>> The only problem with your premises is that the more you blather on,
>> the more people come to the conclusion that you really are an
>> ignorant, delusional redneck. Then, they really do fully realize that
>> *anything* you have to say is a complete waste time.
>
> Thank you.
> I was ONLY going to take enough time to point out that ... I was NOT
> going to take the time TO point out ... the innumerable logical
> fallacies in his post, and simply recommend that Jack TAKE a course in
> Logic.
Don't worry, no one is smart enough to be able to figure out you fools
have nothing worthwhile to say. Attack the messenger rather than the
message is a common defense that no one ever notices.
> But you said it SOOOooooo much better :-)
You're not the only one that enjoys Beavis and Buttheads childish,
meaningless responses.
--
Jack
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.
http://jbstein.com
Douglas Johnson wrote:
> Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I think people get there information from the media they watch, but they
>> come up with there own conclusions. If their conclusions conflict with
>> the media they watch they will quit watching or find an outlet that
>> agrees, if at all possible.
>
> You're right. But that's part of the problem. The more important those
> conclusions are, the more you should seek out and understand contrary
> conclusions.
All I need is accurate information. I don't needed any conclusions from
some damned media person.
It will either strengthen your conclusions or change them.
Nope, won't do either. I, like most everyone, have developed a value
set that all information must pass through. This value set is close to
impossible to change, and may have been fine tuned a bit since I was 12,
but not much else. When I get others opinions, it is mostly for
entertainment. I've rarely to never seen anyone change their views on
anything. There are exceptions, but not many. For example, I've not
noticed one left wing MF'er turn into a right winger due to arguments
put forth in this newsgroup.
> In
> almost every instance, there are people of good sense and character that hold
> different opinions.
Nobody agrees on everything but changing someones mindset is very, very
difficult, near impossible.
> Just looking for news that supports your conclusions is just a way of patting
> yourself on the back and telling yourself how smart you are. (I'm using "you"
> in the general sense, not personally.) It also contributes to polarization on
> issues. "Everything I hear supports my point of view, so it must be right."
Sorry, but I don't agree. Yes, information must be factual. You get a
ton of lies from the lame stream media propaganda machine, so watching
it is not very productive. It certainly is good to get your information
from a variety of sources. When it comes to someone else's
interpretation and opinions on those facts, it's mostly just for
entertainment.
--
Jack
Clinton Ruined a Dress, Obama Ruined a Nation!
http://jbstein.com
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:55:45 -0700 (PDT), Neil Brooks <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jul 27, 7:03 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 3:37 am, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > >>"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > >>news:[email protected]...
>> > >>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > >>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > >>>> Yeah, so lets give government control over 1/6th of the economy, and
>> > >>>> our
>> > >>>> health to boot. Government controlling your health care is not going to
>> > >>>> lead to smaller government anytime soon. You're lying or stupid.
>>
>> > >>> The government, by law, already controls more than 90% of the economy.
>> > >>> It
>> > >>> chooses not to exercise day to day control in some instances. 10% is
>> > >>> either barter, or illegal.
>>
>> > >> I doubt that 90% BS. With all the financial
>> > >> market/too-big-to-fail-bank
>> > >>bailout of the last year it has come to light that the Wall Street
>> > >>financiers and/or big banks account for more than 60% of U.S. GDP. If you
>> > >>think the government controls those institutions it's because they pay the
>> > >>government to do it the way they want. You're not hearing much pissing
>> > >>and
>> > >>moaning from the financial markets on the recent financial regulation bill
>> > >>which passed. IIRC the market went up substantially the day the bill
>> > >>passed.
>> > >> And, GM has repaid it's government loan to the point that the Houston
>> > >>Chronicle reported today that GM is jumping back into the subprime lending
>> > >>market buying some lending outfit so GM can start financing car loans
>> > >>again.
>>
>> > > No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>>
>> > >http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>>
>> > Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
>> > something besides some 'blog.'
>>
>> Do your own search. Run the numbers yourself. They don't add up.
>> IOW, Obamaniacs lie. Nothing new here, though.
>
>A POLITICIAN LIED ???
>
>CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE GET THE PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIANS ON THE PHONE ...
>PRONTO ??
>
>PAGING MICHAEL BESCHLOSS !
>
>So ... were YOU bitching, here, when the Bush Administration wove an
>endless string of lies, or ... are you just FAR more partisan than
>actually principled ?
>
>Just curious.
So am I. Why are you changing the subject? Don't like hearing the truth?
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:31:31 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote the following:
>On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:33:53 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Damn, Larry. You're really an old farte, aintcha? They added those words
>> in 1954, the year after I was born. ;)
>
>By then, I was a high school dropout :-). I was born in '37.
Itoldjaso! But I should have used "ancient farte", huh?
>BTW, the pledge was a socialist plot - see:
>
>http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm
Bleedin' Baptists...
--
It is pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness;
poverty and wealth have both failed.
-- Kin Hubbard
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 25, 9:09 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> . There are exceptions, but not many. For example, I've not
>> noticed one left wing MF'er turn into a right winger due to arguments
>> put forth in this newsgroup.
> You couldn't be more wrong. But having said that.....
What you say is mostly worthless drivel.
> You are probably somewhat accurate in making that assumption as most
> extremists, right or left, have their heads so far up their respective
> asses that cannot hear or see. Those loons you will never change.
> There are, many like me, who aren't that hard-core left or right.
What you are is a liar. That has been established more than once.
> People who at least try to fix a broken health-care system.... which
> in turn causes the extreme right to howl like stuck pigs, not because
> they understand the issues but because that's what they are trained to
> do.
Trained by whom?
> People like me also like to see the taxes being lowered as that is
> likely to stimulate the economy.
Government controlling your health care is not going to lead to lower
taxes anytime soon. You're lying or stupid.
Smaller government is a good idea.
Yeah, so lets give government control over 1/6th of the economy, and our
health to boot. Government controlling your health care is not going to
lead to smaller government anytime soon. You're lying or stupid.
> Prayer in school is a good thing. And above all, I read and listen.
You are wonderful. A douche-bag, but a wonderful one. I think you
might be GW Bush dressed up as a Canuck?
I
> have come away many times from here with a different perspective on
> some issues once it was explained in a rational and understandable
> way.
You start out with an empty head, it's not hard to fill it...
> And you'll never believe who some of those 'contributors' (for want of
> another word) have been. No Jack, you're not one of them.
Why would I believe anything you say, you have already established you
are a lying sack of shit. 90% of the time your posts are worthless 12
year old name calling, void of content, good or bad. When you make any
effort to say something, it generally smells like that enema nozzle you
seem fixated on.
> But I NEVER pull a 'Stein' by ramming my fingers in my ears and
> yelling: "I can't hear you, lalalalalalalalalalalalal."...
No, never. You just make shit up, call people names and say about
nothing worth while.
and then pull out your gun and shoot those with whom you disagree.
> THAT is what makes you wrong, Jack AND an Enema Nozzle to boot.
Really? I never even plonked, let alone shot anyone I disagreed with,
but continue making shit up. The words of a 12 year old have little
worth to me.
But
> extremists like you eventually self-destruct because the hate will eat
> you from the inside out.
Hate and obsession are words you don't have a handle on. Nice of you to
stick to childish name calling, it fits your limited wit much better
than attempts at saying anything worthwhile.
--
Jack
Clinton Ruined a Dress, Obama Ruined a Nation!
http://jbstein.com
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:44:47 -0600, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:36:20 -0500, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:55:45 -0700 (PDT), Neil Brooks <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 27, 7:03 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 27, 3:37 am, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> >news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> > > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > >>"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> > >>news:[email protected]...
>>>> > >>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> > >>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> > >>>> Yeah, so lets give government control over 1/6th of the economy, and
>>>> > >>>> our
>>>> > >>>> health to boot. Government controlling your health care is not going to
>>>> > >>>> lead to smaller government anytime soon. You're lying or stupid.
>>>>
>>>> > >>> The government, by law, already controls more than 90% of the economy.
>>>> > >>> It
>>>> > >>> chooses not to exercise day to day control in some instances. 10% is
>>>> > >>> either barter, or illegal.
>>>>
>>>> > >> I doubt that 90% BS. With all the financial
>>>> > >> market/too-big-to-fail-bank
>>>> > >>bailout of the last year it has come to light that the Wall Street
>>>> > >>financiers and/or big banks account for more than 60% of U.S. GDP. If you
>>>> > >>think the government controls those institutions it's because they pay the
>>>> > >>government to do it the way they want. You're not hearing much pissing
>>>> > >>and
>>>> > >>moaning from the financial markets on the recent financial regulation bill
>>>> > >>which passed. IIRC the market went up substantially the day the bill
>>>> > >>passed.
>>>> > >> And, GM has repaid it's government loan to the point that the Houston
>>>> > >>Chronicle reported today that GM is jumping back into the subprime lending
>>>> > >>market buying some lending outfit so GM can start financing car loans
>>>> > >>again.
>>>>
>>>> > > No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>>>>
>>>> > >http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>>>>
>>>> > Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
>>>> > something besides some 'blog.'
>>>>
>>>> Do your own search. Run the numbers yourself. They don't add up.
>>>> IOW, Obamaniacs lie. Nothing new here, though.
>>>
>>>A POLITICIAN LIED ???
>>>
>>>CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE GET THE PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIANS ON THE PHONE ...
>>>PRONTO ??
>>>
>>>PAGING MICHAEL BESCHLOSS !
>>>
>>>So ... were YOU bitching, here, when the Bush Administration wove an
>>>endless string of lies, or ... are you just FAR more partisan than
>>>actually principled ?
>>>
>>>Just curious.
>>
>>So am I. Why are you changing the subject? Don't like hearing the truth?
>
>If you mean the GM payback ... I wasn't ON that subject ... am NOT up
>to speed on that subject, and ... wasn't concerned about it, for that
>matter.
>
>I took out of what you wrote that ... some politician lied.
That wasn't the subject of the thread, nor was it particularly important to my
point.
>Since it was one of YOUR points, don't YOU think it fair to respond to
>it ?
No, it really wasn't. I said nothing about the Obama administration.
Your famous "logic" is failing you again. Perhaps the "logic" is fine, but
your reading comprehension is surely letting you down.
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:36:20 -0500, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:55:45 -0700 (PDT), Neil Brooks <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Jul 27, 7:03 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 3:37 am, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> > > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:16:10 -0500, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > >>"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> > >>news:[email protected]...
>>> > >>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> > >>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> > >>>> Yeah, so lets give government control over 1/6th of the economy, and
>>> > >>>> our
>>> > >>>> health to boot. Government controlling your health care is not going to
>>> > >>>> lead to smaller government anytime soon. You're lying or stupid.
>>>
>>> > >>> The government, by law, already controls more than 90% of the economy.
>>> > >>> It
>>> > >>> chooses not to exercise day to day control in some instances. 10% is
>>> > >>> either barter, or illegal.
>>>
>>> > >> I doubt that 90% BS. With all the financial
>>> > >> market/too-big-to-fail-bank
>>> > >>bailout of the last year it has come to light that the Wall Street
>>> > >>financiers and/or big banks account for more than 60% of U.S. GDP. If you
>>> > >>think the government controls those institutions it's because they pay the
>>> > >>government to do it the way they want. You're not hearing much pissing
>>> > >>and
>>> > >>moaning from the financial markets on the recent financial regulation bill
>>> > >>which passed. IIRC the market went up substantially the day the bill
>>> > >>passed.
>>> > >> And, GM has repaid it's government loan to the point that the Houston
>>> > >>Chronicle reported today that GM is jumping back into the subprime lending
>>> > >>market buying some lending outfit so GM can start financing car loans
>>> > >>again.
>>>
>>> > > No, GM did *not* pay back the bail-out money.
>>>
>>> > >http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/30/reasontv-how-did-gm-pay-back-i
>>>
>>> > Perhaps so. But, I'm going to have to see a reliable news source,
>>> > something besides some 'blog.'
>>>
>>> Do your own search. Run the numbers yourself. They don't add up.
>>> IOW, Obamaniacs lie. Nothing new here, though.
>>
>>A POLITICIAN LIED ???
>>
>>CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE GET THE PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIANS ON THE PHONE ...
>>PRONTO ??
>>
>>PAGING MICHAEL BESCHLOSS !
>>
>>So ... were YOU bitching, here, when the Bush Administration wove an
>>endless string of lies, or ... are you just FAR more partisan than
>>actually principled ?
>>
>>Just curious.
>
>So am I. Why are you changing the subject? Don't like hearing the truth?
If you mean the GM payback ... I wasn't ON that subject ... am NOT up
to speed on that subject, and ... wasn't concerned about it, for that
matter.
I took out of what you wrote that ... some politician lied.
Since it was one of YOUR points, don't YOU think it fair to respond to
it ?
In article <c1d662b8-c95f-49f5-9732-080f7e723c15@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jul 25, 7:42 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" wrote:
>> >Only because the extreme Left are a Godless bunch and want to shove
>>
>> their agenda down the throats of those kids who DO have a belief of
>> their own.
>> ------------------------------
>> Oh please.
>>
>> There is a time and a place for everything.
>>
>> Practicing religion during the school day doesn't meet that
>> requirement.
>>
>> Lew
>
>Look at all the old bastards around you. They all grew up in that
>environment. Didn't turn out too bad, did they?
Speaking as one of those "old bastards" and as one of about 7 Jewish kids
(out of a couple hundred) attending the elementary school in the
small Pennsylvania town where I grew up, I'm 100% with Lew on THAT issue;
religion has no place in a public school. I would have been extremely
grateful to not have to have suffered through listening to readings
from the new testament that contradicted my own religion. Let alone the
accusations and claims that were repeated around Easter about how "your
people" killed Jesus.
--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Yeah, so lets give government control over 1/6th of the economy, and our
> health to boot. Government controlling your health care is not going to
> lead to smaller government anytime soon. You're lying or stupid.
The government, by law, already controls more than 90% of the economy. It
chooses not to exercise day to day control in some instances. 10% is either
barter, or illegal.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:e035af06-0c99-4cf3-85a3-af1c9fd04dc8@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 25, 5:00 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> > Prayer in school is a good thing.
>
> ----------------------------
> That has proved to be a very slippery slope.
>
> Lew
Only because the extreme Left are a Godless bunch and want to shove
their agenda down the throats of those kids who DO have a belief of
their own. I think people should be allowed to worship and not have
their prayers outlawed by some legislative body. It's similar to the
abortion issue. I don't believe in abortions (other than for difficult
medical issues) but I DO believe a woman should be able to decide her
path for herself. You cannot legislate morals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet we do legislate morals. In some cultures a vengeance or honor killing is
within the law. I ours, it is not. Morals are an integral part of a culture.
Neil Brooks wrote:
> Wanna' explain to me ... yet ... the basis for all your assumptions
> about MY politics, and the politics of my friends ?
Obviously I only know the views that you, and your friends post here.
You could be lying, you could be straw men, I don't know, and don't
really care much. My responses to your drivel are solely for my
personal entertainment, and anyone that chooses to participate. I'm not
trying to enlighten you or anyone else, and when it gets too old or
boring or not entertaining enough for me, I'll simply ignore you.
> Or ... is that just a textbook example of you talking out your Jack
> Ass ??
I will admit that most of your drivel, and your buddies Beavis and
Butthead are void of content other than childish, empty headed name
calling, so it requires some effort to sort through the gibberish to get
a handle on your views. I'm fairly patient though and enjoy the
occasional romp in the mud.
--
Jack
Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
http://jbstein.com
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:48:36 -0700, Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 25, 7:42Â pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" wrote:
>> >Only because the extreme Left are a Godless bunch and want to shove
>>
>> their agenda down the throats of those kids who DO have a belief of
>> their own.
>> ------------------------------
>> Oh please.
>>
>> There is a time and a place for everything.
>>
>> Practicing religion during the school day doesn't meet that
>> requirement.
>>
>> Lew
>
> Look at all the old bastards around you. They all grew up in that
> environment. Didn't turn out too bad, did they?
Well, I do remember when the pledge of allegiance did not have the words
"under God" in it. I don't remember any religion in my public schools
and I grew up in the bible belt. If there was any, it certainly didn't
leave much of an impression :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Dave in Texas wrote:
> And, GM has repaid it's government loan to the point that the Houston
> Chronicle reported today that GM is jumping back into the subprime
> lending market buying some lending outfit so GM can start financing car
> loans again.
Government Motors has a printing press printing MONEY in it's basement,
why would they not finance loans?
As far as paying off loans, the haven't paid one fucking dime to the
people that they stole the company from.
--
Jack
Fight Socialism, buy a Ford!
http://jbstein.com
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
>> Prayer in school is a good thing.
> ----------------------------
> That has proved to be a very slippery slope.
>
> Lew
>
>
There is no law that prevents prayer in school. I never prayed more
than when orals or comps were upon me.
If you need structured or group prayers, I will volunteer to write them
along with my friends Wong and Achmed. What say?
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:24:16 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Yes, thats life. You are not likely to make any left wingers right, or
>right wingers left. You must enjoy the fight. Anyone that thinks they
>are going to infuse Robocop or Upscale with wisdom, they are delusional.
The only problem with your premises is that the more you blather on,
the more people come to the conclusion that you really are an
ignorant, delusional redneck. Then, they really do fully realize that
*anything* you have to say is a complete waste time.
Dave in Texas wrote:
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, so lets give government control over 1/6th of the economy, and our
>>> health to boot. Government controlling your health care is not going to
>>> lead to smaller government anytime soon. You're lying or stupid.
>>
>> The government, by law, already controls more than 90% of the economy. It
>> chooses not to exercise day to day control in some instances. 10% is
>> either barter, or illegal.
>
> I doubt that 90% BS. With all the financial
> market/too-big-to-fail-bank
> bailout of the last year it has come to light that the Wall Street
> financiers and/or big banks account for more than 60% of U.S. GDP. If you
> think the government controls those institutions it's because they pay the
> government to do it the way they want. You're not hearing much pissing
> and moaning from the financial markets on the recent financial regulation
> bill
> which passed. IIRC the market went up substantially the day the bill
> passed.
> And, GM has repaid it's government loan to the point that the Houston
> Chronicle reported today that GM is jumping back into the subprime lending
> market buying some lending outfit so GM can start financing car loans
> again.
>
> Dave in Texas
BTW, those eeevil bankers and Wall Street dudes? Overwhelmingly Democrat
and contributed heavily to The One during 2008 election cycle as well as
Reid, Pelosi, et al.
Believe it or not, those of us who support free market economics also
despise the use of government by large institutions to legislate laws
favorable to those large institutions and, by such regulations, through the
high cost of regulatory compliance, make the ability of smaller businesses
to compete. That's not capitalism, that's fascism (the real meaning of
fascism).
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>I think people get there information from the media they watch, but they
>come up with there own conclusions. If their conclusions conflict with
>the media they watch they will quit watching or find an outlet that
>agrees, if at all possible.
You're right. But that's part of the problem. The more important those
conclusions are, the more you should seek out and understand contrary
conclusions. It will either strengthen your conclusions or change them. In
almost every instance, there are people of good sense and character that hold
different opinions.
Just looking for news that supports your conclusions is just a way of patting
yourself on the back and telling yourself how smart you are. (I'm using "you"
in the general sense, not personally.) It also contributes to polarization on
issues. "Everything I hear supports my point of view, so it must be right."
-- Doug
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Yeah, so lets give government control over 1/6th of the economy, and our
>> health to boot. Government controlling your health care is not going to
>> lead to smaller government anytime soon. You're lying or stupid.
>
> The government, by law, already controls more than 90% of the economy. It
> chooses not to exercise day to day control in some instances. 10% is
> either barter, or illegal.
I doubt that 90% BS. With all the financial market/too-big-to-fail-bank
bailout of the last year it has come to light that the Wall Street
financiers and/or big banks account for more than 60% of U.S. GDP. If you
think the government controls those institutions it's because they pay the
government to do it the way they want. You're not hearing much pissing and
moaning from the financial markets on the recent financial regulation bill
which passed. IIRC the market went up substantially the day the bill
passed.
And, GM has repaid it's government loan to the point that the Houston
Chronicle reported today that GM is jumping back into the subprime lending
market buying some lending outfit so GM can start financing car loans again.
Dave in Texas
Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
: On 7/15/2010 4:37 PM, dpb wrote:
: If obama could be 1/4 as successful as BP.
Huh? You do understand that BP did several sleazy things to cut corners
in building the rig, including warnings about blowouts, which actually led
TO the blowout, right? And that BP has created one of the worst pollution
fiascos ever?
Or are you too focused on making snarky remarks about the President to
care?
-- Andy Barss
Keith Nuttle wrote:
> For four years, I went to college during the day and worked at night to
> get a degree; I spent the rest of my life scrimping and saving. Now in
> 18 months obama and the social democrats have destroyed every thing I
> worked for. No one realized this is what change meant. I guess obama
> definition of equality is bread lines for every one.
By "No one realized" I assume you meant "Not enough realized". A whole
boat load of us recognize the lame stream media for what it is, and
realized exactly what he meant. The problem was not enough of us voted
to overcome the dunderheads and ACORN voter fraud to stop him.
Hopefully this will change, but between voter apathy and voter fraud who
knows?
--
Jack
Got Change: More Unemployment! More Debt! More Fraud! Less Freedom!
http://www2.nationalreview.com/video/video_homie_051410_B.html
On 7/17/2010 1:48 PM, Leon wrote:
> And that BP has created one of the worst pollution
>> fiascos ever?
The worst oil disaster occurred in the early 1900's in California.
As compared to the Alaskan spill a couple of decades ago, it will not be
as bad as the Alaskan spill was somewhat contained in the bay, the BP
spill is in open sea.
I believe the Mexican oil spill that occurred several years ago was
worse the the BP Spill.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 17, 3:16 pm, "Leon"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Angela Sekeris"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5164b3bf-39d6-4286-bdd3-b2c949ece164@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 17, 1:45 pm, "Leon"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Robatoy"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>> news:ab7acd4d-74ea-4a99-b0d4-7d0d0925e518@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>> He did it!!
>>
>>> And right on the heels of his new book that also qualifies for the worlds
>>> shortest book.
>>
>>> How I earned the Nobel Piece Prize.
>>
>> I think it is wonderful to see BP step up to the plate to keep our
>> Hummers humming... even though they consumed an American president in
>> the process.
>>
>> Win, Win
>
> Fishermen in Mississippi say they are angry that under the terms of
> BP's $20 billion oil spill fund, money they earn doing clean-up will
> be subtracted from their claim against the company.
Angry or not, you can't sue for lost income you didn't incur. That's
just a legal principle.
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:18:55 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Rob Budd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:36:03 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>
>>>
>>
>> Because they will be relaxing and swimming, not digging mountains of
>> oil soaked sand with shovels.
>>
>
>
>
>Are you a reporter? I have seen nothing more in clean up measures than a
>shovel slightly scraping the surface of the beach. I do however see lots of
>kids digging deep with their plastic sand shovels.
>
Are you a BP flunky?
The kids can go cool off in the water any time they wish, or move
under mommy's umbrella. They probably aren't there for an 8 hour day,
every day, either.
The difference is major.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:46:42 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:36:03 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>
> But, your honor, I only put one tiny bullet hole in his forehead! Now
> you want me to be responsible for the rest of the body? That just
> isn't fair!
>
You left out the part where the media heard and reported to the shooter that
the guy with the hole in his head had been doing the shooters wife.
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:46:42 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:36:03 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>You have to also consider how much the economy in general is affecting the
>>>tourism. Because not all beaches are affected and they too have a decline
>>>in tourists, one has to think that the down turn in the economy may be
>>>playing a large part also. You can start blaming wreckless sensational
>>>reporting for that and maybe the media should also be held accountable.
>>
>> Read an article recently on how the real estate market has been
>> affected ~ particularly so with Canadian snow birds. Every local with
>> an oil infected beach within 100 miles or more has had the snow birds
>> drop their purchase negotiations completely.
>
>While there is no doubt there is some serious damage, the entire coast is
>not nearly as bad off as the media would have you believe. The coast line
>is hundreds upon hundreds of mile long. The media shows hundreds up on
>hundreds of yards of shore line. Imagine what a dream story it would be for
>the reporters if they had something to back up their insinuations.
>
>Because the belief is that the entire shore is affected, because of out of
>context reporting by the media, the entire region suffers.
>
But, your honor, I only put one tiny bullet hole in his forehead! Now
you want me to be responsible for the rest of the body? That just
isn't fair!
"Rob Budd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Are you a BP flunky?
>
> The kids can go cool off in the water any time they wish, or move
> under mommy's umbrella. They probably aren't there for an 8 hour day,
> every day, either.
>
> The difference is major.
>
The clean up workers have the same privlidges with tents to go to.
While they may be there 8 hours their actual time working is only 2.5~3
hours per day with 30 minute breaks every 15 minutes.
Grew up near the beach, not that hot, plenty of wind. The story was
distorted and sensationalized.
I am NOT for BP as they are always in the news in Houston with plant
explosions and constantly violations of safety rules and regulations. But,
making up and sensationalizing the actual events is what the media does.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 17, 5:43 pm, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Jul 17, 3:16 pm, "Leon"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "Angela Sekeris"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:5164b3bf-39d6-4286-bdd3-b2c949ece164@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jul 17, 1:45 pm, "Leon"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Robatoy"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>>>> news:ab7acd4d-74ea-4a99-b0d4-7d0d0925e518@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>> He did it!!
>>
>>>>> And right on the heels of his new book that also qualifies for the worlds
>>>>> shortest book.
>>
>>>>> How I earned the Nobel Piece Prize.
>>
>>>> I think it is wonderful to see BP step up to the plate to keep our
>>>> Hummers humming... even though they consumed an American president in
>>>> the process.
>>
>>>> Win, Win
>>
>>> Fishermen in Mississippi say they are angry that under the terms of
>>> BP's $20 billion oil spill fund, money they earn doing clean-up will
>>> be subtracted from their claim against the company.
>>
>> Angry or not, you can't sue for lost income you didn't incur. That's
>> just a legal principle.
>
> I thought the plan was to clean up the mess. Now where is the
> motivation for anybody to help? If the claim is $ 10,000, why work to
> get less? If they get a job elsewhere at a reduced income, why should
> BP benefit?
One could argue the other side, why should BP be subject to unusual
penalties (that were created just for them).
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 17, 5:43 pm, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 3:16 pm, "Leon"<[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Angela Sekeris"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:5164b3bf-39d6-4286-bdd3-b2c949ece164@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jul 17, 1:45 pm, "Leon"<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> "Robatoy"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:ab7acd4d-74ea-4a99-b0d4-7d0d0925e518@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> He did it!!
>
> >>> And right on the heels of his new book that also qualifies for the
> >>> worlds
> >>> shortest book.
>
> >>> How I earned the Nobel Piece Prize.
>
> >> I think it is wonderful to see BP step up to the plate to keep our
> >> Hummers humming... even though they consumed an American president in
> >> the process.
>
> >> Win, Win
>
> > Fishermen in Mississippi say they are angry that under the terms of
> > BP's $20 billion oil spill fund, money they earn doing clean-up will
> > be subtracted from their claim against the company.
>
> Angry or not, you can't sue for lost income you didn't incur. That's
> just a legal principle.
I thought the plan was to clean up the mess. Now where is the
motivation for anybody to help? If the claim is $ 10,000, why work to
get less? If they get a job elsewhere at a reduced income, why should
BP benefit?
(BTW, I am not suggesting it is illegal for BP to do this.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current income is not necessarily the biggest issue. There was an article in
the past few days about Cordova Alaska and what the town has gone through
during the past two decades:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10548872
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:50:19 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>> That is what you will pay. What you will receive in benefits will be
>>considerably less. The British National Health System is coming to
>>America,
>>welcome to rationing, waiting lists, and lack of care for everybody except
>>the rich who will be able to afford to pay the tax and buy their own care.
>
> Chicken Little! Do everybody a favour and stand where the first chunk
> of sky will land.
Now, now. Not your country. Either of them.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 17, 11:50 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The British National Health System is coming to America,
>> welcome to rationing, waiting lists, and lack of care for everybody except
>> the rich who will be able to afford to pay the tax and buy their own care.
> Toeing the Party line again, eh Mark? Man they got you sold in a bad
> way. No room for anything other than your extreme views. Extreme,
> Mark. Radical fanatical non-compromising views. Unreal.
Idiot!
--
Jack
Conservatives believe every day is the Fourth of July, Liberals believe
every day is April 15.
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> Maybe The British System isn't the right system. Try the Canadian one.
> I'm exposed to that every day. It works great.
Yeah, it's well known how great it works every time a Canuck slithers
across the boarder to get timely, quality health care...
--
Jack
ObamaCare: If its not good enough for Congress, it's not good enough for
my Family!
http://jbstein.com
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:50:19 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> The British National Health System is coming to America, welcome to
> rationing, waiting lists, and lack of care for everybody except the rich
> who will be able to afford to pay the tax and buy their own care.
Isn't it amazing that Britain is always used as the example. Have you
looked at, for example, the system in Japan? It works great.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 18, 9:39 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > Maybe The British System isn't the right system. Try the Canadian one.
> > I'm exposed to that every day. It works great.
>
> Yeah, it's well known how great it works every time a Canuck slithers
> across the boarder to get timely, quality health care...
>
The Canuck that goes to the US for timely, quality health care is
usually rich and doesn't want to wait those few extra days he feels
could be a threat to his wellbeing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. Washington state got a bunch of Canadian pregnant women delivering
there because of a lack of beds in Canada. Then there was the governor of
the Newfies ...
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote
>> All in all the claims should not be a "prize" so much as a compensation
>> to help you maintain your normal income level. You would have to work
>> normally, you should continue to work.
>
> That's very un-American of you. Get my lawyer on the phone!
>
> Seems to me, if you earned $1000 a week on your boat and now you can't you
> deserve compensation. If BP pays you that $1000 a week to keep on
> working, albeit cleaning, not fishing, you are still OK and don't deserve
> any additional compensation. The down side, of course, that that many
> will sit on their ass and do nothing and still get that $1000 you are
> getting to work for a week. There is no incentive to work. Same argument
> you get for welfare and long term unemployment compensation. Maybe the
> working crew should get a 20% bonus.
Have you considered the DECADES ahead?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10548872
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> All in all the claims should not be a "prize" so much as a compensation
>>> to help you maintain your normal income level. You would have to work
>>> normally, you should continue to work.
>>
>> That's very un-American of you. Get my lawyer on the phone!
>>
>> Seems to me, if you earned $1000 a week on your boat and now you can't
>> you deserve compensation. If BP pays you that $1000 a week to keep on
>> working, albeit cleaning, not fishing, you are still OK and don't deserve
>> any additional compensation. The down side, of course, that that many
>> will sit on their ass and do nothing and still get that $1000 you are
>> getting to work for a week. There is no incentive to work. Same
>> argument you get for welfare and long term unemployment compensation.
>> Maybe the working crew should get a 20% bonus.
>
>
> I still contend that some one will do the work and they all will not go
> home when the job is done. They are going to be competing for your job
> after the smoke clears. I would call helping with the clean up, "job
> security", and taking pride in the place you call home. I think the bonus
> might be the answer but I think perhaps it should work the other way
> around, if you don't help you get 70%.
>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10548872
"Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:55:51 -0400, Steve
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> said:
>>
>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed by
>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that didn't
>>> happen either.
>>
>>Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>
>>The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>
> Why would you hope for fines and judgements for something that was an
> accident?
Same reason there are fines and judgments in auto accidents. There is the
matter of culpability.
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:180720101939000391%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> On Jul 18, 9:39 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Robatoy wrote:
>> > > Maybe The British System isn't the right system. Try the Canadian
>> > > one.
>> > > I'm exposed to that every day. It works great.
>> >
>> > Yeah, it's well known how great it works every time a Canuck slithers
>> > across the boarder to get timely, quality health care...
>> >
>>
>> The Canuck that goes to the US for timely, quality health care is
>> usually rich and doesn't want to wait those few extra days he feels
>> could be a threat to his wellbeing.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> Nope. Washington state got a bunch of Canadian pregnant women delivering
>> there because of a lack of beds in Canada. Then there was the governor of
>> the Newfies ...
>
> I know a family here in Canada that was facing a 6-12 month wait to
> have tubes put in their young son's ears to drain fluid and give him
> back his hearing.
>
> A bit of research, a couple of phone calls, and they took a family
> vacation to Disney Land that included the day surgery for their son.
>
> Waiting time? "When can you be here? How about next Thursday?"
>
> AND, because they were paying cash the anaesthetist gave them a 40%
> discount, citing a 270 day average time for payment from the HMOs.
Got the same discount from a podiatrist in Seattle for grandson's ingrown
toenails.
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> All in all the claims should not be a "prize" so much as a compensation
>>>> to help you maintain your normal income level. You would have to work
>>>> normally, you should continue to work.
>>>
>>> That's very un-American of you. Get my lawyer on the phone!
>>>
>>> Seems to me, if you earned $1000 a week on your boat and now you can't
>>> you deserve compensation. If BP pays you that $1000 a week to keep on
>>> working, albeit cleaning, not fishing, you are still OK and don't
>>> deserve any additional compensation. The down side, of course, that
>>> that many will sit on their ass and do nothing and still get that $1000
>>> you are getting to work for a week. There is no incentive to work.
>>> Same argument you get for welfare and long term unemployment
>>> compensation. Maybe the working crew should get a 20% bonus.
>>
>> Have you considered the DECADES ahead?
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10548872
>
> But that is then, this is now. Perhaps claims can and should be made for
> future losses, but if a boat is working today and no money is lost, they
> should not be able to collect double. They are made whole.
Not even close when you consider at minimum just the Aggro.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steve wrote:
>
>> On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> said:
>>
>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed by
>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that didn't
>>> happen either.
>>
>> Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>> Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>
>> The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>
> Technically, the President of the US had absolutely no legal authority to
> impose an escrow, fine, or judgment.
And he didn't.
Robatoy wrote:
>>> Maybe The British System isn't the right system. Try the Canadian one.
>>> I'm exposed to that every day. It works great.
> Jack Stein wrote:
>> Yeah, it's well known how great it works every time a Canuck slithers
>> across the boarder to get timely, quality health care...
> The Canuck that goes to the US for timely, quality health care is
> usually rich and doesn't want to wait those few extra days he feels
> could be a threat to his wellbeing. Often the referring physician has
> motives of her/his own.
Yeah, it's nice to have a system where the rich get whatever they need,
and everyone else gets what big brother gives 'em.
I have met decent doctors
> though, not all are hard-wired to automated time clocks which show
> they can see 150 patients per day.
My doctor, which is the same doctor the rich go to, spends a minimum of
1/2 hour, usually longer when I go for my annual physical. For her to
see 150 patents a day, there would need to be 75 hours in a day, and she
would have to work every one of them... I can't wait to have a system
where "my" doc spends 3 minutes with me...
--
Jack
Take risks: If you win, you'll be happy; if you lose, you'll be wise.
http://jbstein.com
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>>> said:
>>>>
>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed by
>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> happen either.
>>>>
>>>> Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>> Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>
>>>> The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>
>>> Technically, the President of the US had absolutely no legal authority
>>> to
>>> impose an escrow, fine, or judgment.
>>
>>
>> And he didn't.
>
> Uh, yeah, right.
Yeah, Right! I detest the man and can't wait until he's out of office, but
making up shit is counter productive. Just as it was when W was in office.
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>>> Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>>
>>>> Technically, the President of the US had absolutely no legal authority
>>>> to
>>>> impose an escrow, fine, or judgment.
>>>
>>>
>>> And he didn't.
>>
>> Uh, yeah, right. He just invited the BP CEO over to the White House for
>> a
>> beer, a few drinks with Eric Holder, some nice discussions and made the
>> CEO
>> an offer he couldn't refuse.
>>
>> Please, even an Obama apologist can't be this dense or ignorant of "the
>> Chicago way"
>
>
> Pretty much what happened. The Prez had to do something to look like he
> is in power and control. BP had to do something to counteract bad
> publicity. They know it will be far more than the $20B in the end. Now it
> looks as both really care. They probably played 9 holes after and had
> lunch.
>
>
Exactly. No extortion at all. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
<...snipped...>
> Uh, yeah, right. He just invited the BP CEO over to the White House for a
>beer, a few drinks with Eric Holder, some nice discussions and made the CEO
>an offer he couldn't refuse.
>
> Please, even an Obama apologist can't be this dense or ignorant of "the
>Chicago way"
>
>
If a republican had done it, it would be praised as "speaking softly and
carrying a big stick" and don't try any BS like a republican would never
do anything like that.
--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>> happen either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>>>> Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Technically, the President of the US had absolutely no legal
>>>>> authority
>>>>> to
>>>>> impose an escrow, fine, or judgment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And he didn't.
>>>
>>> Uh, yeah, right.
>>
>> Yeah, Right! I detest the man and can't wait until he's out of office,
>> but making up shit is counter productive. Just as it was when W was in
>> office.
>
> Making up what? You think that any CEO would just walk into the White
> House, drop $20B of their own free will?
Yep and that's EXACTLY what he did.
busbus wrote:
> I believe the fact of the matter is that Rotoboy has hit the nail on
> the head:
Huge red flags blowing in the wind...
> Actually, it seems like both sides are oftentimes taking their talking points from the
> media they watch.
I think people get there information from the media they watch, but they
come up with there own conclusions. If their conclusions conflict with
the media they watch they will quit watching or find an outlet that
agrees, if at all possible. Before Fox news, there was no tv news
outlet in the US in the last 40 years that was not far left wing. If
you didn't like it, you could watch left wing shows like Law and Order...
> While it is true that Fox News focuses on the reporting the stories
> conservative most want to hear about and how the liberal media is
> misrepresenting the issues but is unyielding in its views, too (for
> example, the AZ Immigration Law. They say that racial profiling can
> NEVER happen, which is narrow minded.
Thats bogus, Fox news states the law prohibits racial profiling so if
and when it occurs, it can be dealt with. At no time did Fox ever say
racial profiling can NEVER happen.
If they would say that the law
> is not intended to do that but mistakes [intended or not] can
> certainly happen).
This is EXACTLY what Fox says.
Personally, I think the racial profiling crap is just that, crap. If a
black or white male robs a bank, the description should include that
fact, and that is racial profiling. Huge percentage of the people and
cops in Arizona are Mexican, and it is not likely the Mexican cops are
going to harass Mexicans simply because they are Mexican, but if they
do, the law as passed by Arizona will handle it. Thats my view,
certainly NOT a Fox news view that thinks racial profiling is inherently
bad.
> Both sides are wrong and the misguided American public doesn't
> understand that this is marketing at its finest. Gone are the days of
> reporting the news ON BOTH SIDES and the news media is now into
> EDITORIALIZING the news.
When did that ever happen? More accurate would be finally, a tv news
source exists that is not totally biased to the far left.
> Sorry. both sides are wrong.
You were wrong when you said Fox says "racial profiling can NEVER
happen".
Both sides fuel the fire.
The truth is all the fuel that is needed.
And the
> people who watch only one or the other without a discerning mind will
> just repeat the blabbering that these people say.
Only if you are an idiot. Most everyone else has a discerning mind.
That is why there
> are so many doggone things said from either side that turn into
> fights.
People have different views on about everything. Getting the facts is
the hard part, but basic principles should be strongly developed early
on in life. Those that think individuals need controlled by big brother
reach different conclusions that those that think the individual is
king. The same facts will result in different conclusions. If you need
Katie Couric or Glenn Beck to tell you how to think, then you are a
fool, and a rare human being.
> Both sides think what they are being fed is 100% the truth and what
> the other is being fed is 100% a lie.
Thats bogus. Polls constantly show people have little faith in the
news, and for good reason.
And instead of coming to terms
> and understanding each other, it is whomever yells the loudest, the
> longest, or uses the most profane or degrading language who "wins" in
> the end. If this is the sort of dialog that is going to go on
> forever, then nothing will get done.
Everyone except you, right? You are the only one smart enough to figure
out whomever yells the loudest and the longest is not always right. You
should have figured out that all the fighting has not changed ANYONE in
the least. The left wing bastards are still left wing bastards, and the
right wing SOB's are still right wing. Robocop calling people
douche-nozzles is about exactly as effective as Tim patently explaining
his positions politely and in depth. Can you name one person on the rec
who has changed their political perspective?
> Anywho, that is my two-cents worth. I am sure it will not go over
> well but that's life!
Yes, thats life. You are not likely to make any left wingers right, or
right wingers left. You must enjoy the fight. Anyone that thinks they
are going to infuse Robocop or Upscale with wisdom, they are delusional.
--
Jack
Assault is a behavior, not a device.
http://jbstein.com
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:20:56 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote the following:
>On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:48:36 -0700, Robatoy wrote:
>
>> On Jul 25, 7:42 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Robatoy" wrote:
>>> >Only because the extreme Left are a Godless bunch and want to shove
>>>
>>> their agenda down the throats of those kids who DO have a belief of
>>> their own.
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Oh please.
>>>
>>> There is a time and a place for everything.
>>>
>>> Practicing religion during the school day doesn't meet that
>>> requirement.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>
>> Look at all the old bastards around you. They all grew up in that
>> environment. Didn't turn out too bad, did they?
>
>
>Well, I do remember when the pledge of allegiance did not have the words
>"under God" in it. I don't remember any religion in my public schools
>and I grew up in the bible belt. If there was any, it certainly didn't
>leave much of an impression :-).
Damn, Larry. You're really an old farte, aintcha? They added those
words in 1954, the year after I was born. ;)
--
It is pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness;
poverty and wealth have both failed.
-- Kin Hubbard
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:59:46 -0500, "Dave in Texas" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> You can do the same for other metrics as well, breast cancer for example.
>> Moreover, no one has noticed US citizens sneaking across boarders to seek
>> health care in Canada or England...
>
> I do believe that Caribou Barbie aka Sarah Palin has unashamedly
>admitted to her family often crossing into Canada for their health care.
Add to that the busloads of senior coming up here to buy their drug
prescriptions ~ all thanks to the cheaper prices. And "no" Jack
Fucking Stein, they're not all cheaper prices due to drugs created in
your country.
Upscale wrote:
>
> Add to that the busloads of senior coming up here to buy their drug
> prescriptions ~ all thanks to the cheaper prices. And "no" Jack
> Fucking Stein, they're not all cheaper prices due to drugs created in
> your country.
SOME drugs are cheaper in Canada.
Most patent and name-brand drugs imported from the Untied States are in this
category.
Conversely, most GENERIC drugs are more expensive in Canada.
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:33:53 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Damn, Larry. You're really an old farte, aintcha? They added those words
> in 1954, the year after I was born. ;)
By then, I was a high school dropout :-). I was born in '37.
BTW, the pledge was a socialist plot - see:
http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 21, 9:24 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robocop calling people douche-nozzles [blah, blah, blah]
First of all, it's Robatoy, second of all, you Jack, are the only one
who is a douche nozzle and I have never used that moniker on anybody
else. It does seem to be nigh impossible for you not to keep bringing
this up. That's a sign of bitterness which is quite common amongst
republicans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is completely wrong. Her it is from a left leaning publication:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102303473.html
Robatoy wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>> Robocop calling people douche-nozzles [blah, blah, blah]
> First of all, it's Robatoy,
You call me douche-nozzle all you want, I'll call you Robocop all I
want...
> second of all, you Jack, are the only one who is a douche nozzle and I
> have never used that moniker on anybody else.
You just make shit up as you go along. Like all left wing butt heads,
truth is just a minor "inconvenience". Took me all of 30 seconds to
find you calling Bill Mays a douche-nozzle. Google Groups still works ya
know. What a maroon!
> It does seem to be nigh impossible for you not to keep bringing
> this up. That's a sign of bitterness which is quite common amongst
> republicans.
Typical left wing butt head, calling someone a douche-nozzle and then
calling them bitter because they remember childish shit you've said.
What a maroon!
Besides, a large percentage of your posts are devoid of any content
other than childish name calling.
BTW, your partner, Upscale agrees with you. You make a good pair, like
Beavis and Butthead. Now all thats left is to figure out which is which!
--
Jack
Got Change: Individual Freedom =======> Government Control!
http://jbstein.com
busbus wrote:
>>> Jack Stein wrote:
> Wow. Too much to comment on. :o)
Yet my comments were directly in response to stuff you said, and I
quoted each statement to which I was replying.
> I think you missed what I was trying to say. I, myself, am very
> conservative.
This is a good thing, but you need to quote some stuff said for context.
> You are right: I will probably not change but I wasn't
> talking about people changing their stripes or spots.
I think you missed my point, but since you didn't quote anything, I'd
have to go back and read an old message for context. However, I don't
feel like doing your work for you.
> I was trying to say that unless people from both sides talk TO each
> other instead of trying to drown out the other side all the time, then
> we will forever be polarized.
Ahh, my point is we will most likely forever be polarized and all the
hot air on earth changes almost no mind sets. It is possible of course
for one to go from liberal to conservative and vice versa, but it is
rare. Beavis and Butthead, (aka Robocop and Upscale) will remain worthless.
> Both sides go to the extremes whenever
> they try to point out the weaknesses in the other side's arguments.
Yes, that is true. Plenty, Robocop and Upscale for example, seldom come
up with more than childish name calling and personal attacks. On the
rare case they do more than attack, the childish name calling is
generally more remarkable than their lame arguments.
> I think one of the biggest things that divide us is that the liberals
> seem to worry far too much about the people who are living on and
> beyond the fringe at the expense of the vast, vast majority. On the
> other hand, many conservatives say those people on the fringe should
> simply be ignored, which isn't the right thing to do, either.
I never heard a conservative say that. I've heard Liberals say that
about conservatives however.
> Everybody deserves help until they prove otherwise...BUT...you can't
> bankrupt the masses for the few.
No one will go bankrupt helping others unless the government is hell
bent on destroying the economy. (ref. Cloward and Piven)
> It is a fine line that we need to walk. One thing is for sure: if you
> have a government who wants to take over everything, you will create a
> monster that will not be stopped easily.
As in kill at least million a year average over the past 100 years. (ref
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM )
It is far, far better to
> have people to WANT to help those in need on their own instead of
> being FORCED to do so.
This is a natural human trait.
Whenever people are FORCED to do something,
> there will be massive push back. And that is what you are seeing now.
Perhaps, but more important is the "help" is not helping much, in fact,
the "help" is hurting, giving credence to Quinn's law that liberalism
always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent. Being forced
to do something that doesn't work should not go over well, should it?
> It is amazing that one of the biggest things I brought up was
> completely ignored and that was the health care insurance debate.
I don't want the government telling me what health care I need, will
get, will not get etc. The only health care reform needed is to let
insurance providers freely compete.
> And, to fuel the fire, I guess, Obama is great at shooting from the
> hip but has no solid plans in mind whenever he does things.
Sorry, but I totally disagree. Obama is an anti-American socialist hell
bent on fundamentally changing the country into a socialistic mess.
He has been very successful so far.
> All the
> crap that he is trying to get pushed thru is so darn open-ended and
> will be completed on the fly. My question to the liberals out there
> is: Doesn't this scare the crap out of you?? What happens if these
> open-ended policies are still in effect whenever a conservative
> Congress and President get into office, these "laws" will take a
> violent turn!
Yeah, conservatives are really violent? You say you are a conservative
so I guess you know? Anyhow, I get your point. If I'm president,
Robocop and Upscale get Doctor Kevorkian.
> More of my two-cents, I guess. I am sure some will be pissed what I
> said from both sides.
Who cares. Say what you want. Better to be pissed off than pissed on...
Whatever. Let us talk about them in a civil
manner and not jump around like Daffy Duck.
You mean you don't like simply calling someone a red-neck, idiot or
douche-nozzle? Even Daffy Duck can muster more than that:-)
--
Jack
The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
http://jbstein.com
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:39:15 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:35:15 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's right. Two Republicans. The Funny Farms were pretty much
>>>>> emptied before 1976.
>>>>---------------------------------
>>>
>>> Note that it was not the feds that opened the doors.
>>
>>They made it Possible.
>>
>>http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/ssi.pdf
>
> What does SSI have to do with it? It was the states, lead by MA, IIRC,
> that
> kicked them out of the *STATE* institutions because they could not be
> incarcerated if they were no danger to others.
>
> <snip>
SSI made it possible for them to live on the outside and the state did not
have the expense.
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:39:15 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:35:15 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's right. Two Republicans. The Funny Farms were pretty much
>>>> emptied before 1976.
>>>---------------------------------
>>
>> Note that it was not the feds that opened the doors.
>
>They made it Possible.
>
>http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/ssi.pdf
What does SSI have to do with it? It was the states, lead by MA, IIRC, that
kicked them out of the *STATE* institutions because they could not be
incarcerated if they were no danger to others.
<snip>
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:31:51 -0700, busbus wrote:
> It is amazing that one of the biggest things I brought up was completely
> ignored and that was the health care insurance debate. There is a way to
> appease both sides to a point and that would be to create a government
> insurance agency (well, there is already some there: Medicare and
> Medicaid) and allow people to purchase their health insurance thru them
> if they cannot find a better price on the open market.
The simplest and best solution to the health care problem would indeed
have been to extend Medicare to all. It would have brought a younger
healthier group in and thus cut costs. We might even have been able to
increase payment rates to doctors and hospitals because of that.
But it wasn't politically palatable.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> The simplest and best solution to the health care problem would indeed
> have been to extend Medicare to all. It would have brought a younger
> healthier group in and thus cut costs. We might even have been able to
> increase payment rates to doctors and hospitals because of that.
>
> But it wasn't politically palatable.
As it stands, Medicare is a failure. Private insurance makes up for a
lot of the Medicare (and Medicaid) expenses when doctors and hospitals
charge private insurance more for services than paid by government
programs. Worse, government has no bottom line so they are ALWAYS
incompetent and expensive. If a government worker does a poor job, he
gets ignored or transferred to another supervisor that's incompetent
enough to not care. When the whole country is on Medicare, things will
get worse, far worse.
For example, when everyone in the country is on Medicaid, you end up
with 50% of prostrate cancer patients dying instead of 10-15%.
--
Jack
64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
http://jbstein.com
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are
>>>>>>>>> assessed
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>>>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>> happen either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>>>>>> Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Technically, the President of the US had absolutely no legal
>>>>>>> authority
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> impose an escrow, fine, or judgment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And he didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, yeah, right.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, Right! I detest the man and can't wait until he's out of office,
>>>> but making up shit is counter productive. Just as it was when W was in
>>>> office.
>>>
>>> Making up what? You think that any CEO would just walk into the White
>>> House, drop $20B of their own free will?
>>
>> Yep and that's EXACTLY what he did.
>
>
> If that is the case, the Board of Directors and the stockholder of BP
> should be screaming bloody murder and oust the guy. Company assets are
> not
> a stash of walking around money for the CEO to dole out has he pleases.
I suspect the BOD is relieved they got off that light. Though the meetings
must have been interesting.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:a689c162-7f96-4f06-9ab6-045525d7bc8a@d17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 23, 2:34 am, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in
> messagenews:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> >> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> >>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita
> >>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>>> said:
>
> >>>>>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are
> >>>>>>>>> assessed
> >>>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
> >>>>>>>>> didn't
> >>>>>>>>> happen either.
>
> >>>>>>>> Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
> >>>>>>>> Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the
> >>>>>>>> set-aside.
>
> >>>>>>>> The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>
> >>>>>>> Technically, the President of the US had absolutely no legal
> >>>>>>> authority
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> impose an escrow, fine, or judgment.
>
> >>>>>> And he didn't.
>
> >>>>> Uh, yeah, right.
>
> >>>> Yeah, Right! I detest the man and can't wait until he's out of
> >>>> office,
> >>>> but making up shit is counter productive. Just as it was when W was
> >>>> in
> >>>> office.
>
> >>> Making up what? You think that any CEO would just walk into the White
> >>> House, drop $20B of their own free will?
>
> >> Yep and that's EXACTLY what he did.
>
> > If that is the case, the Board of Directors and the stockholder of BP
> > should be screaming bloody murder and oust the guy. Company assets are
> > not
> > a stash of walking around money for the CEO to dole out has he pleases.
>
> I suspect the BOD is relieved they got off that light. Though the meetings
> must have been interesting.
You mean "light" in that they're not charged with "conspiracy" or
"RICO". Yet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the co-operation will help when it comes to deciding what, if any,
charges are filed. The entire exercise was PR for both the WH and BP and
likely agreed to prior to the official meeting.
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 22, 8:40 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You just make shit up as you go along. Like all left wing butt heads,
>
> THIS is just ONE example of why YOU are a total fucking asshole, Jack.
Robocop lies about calling ONLY me a douche-nozzle, I point out he has
called others douche-nozzles, research it first, and I'm an asshole...
> I'll call YOU an asshole.
Whatever floats your boat.
> YOU, on the other hand assume that nearly HALF the electorate can be
> described by your self-serving, hate-filled, ideological idiocy.
Hey, my arguments are there for you to completely ignore or respond with
empty headed diatribe.
> YOU seem to need things/people to fall into nice, neat little boxes --
> presumably because YOU (again: JUST you) can't figure out anything
> more than that.
I figured out Robocop was a liar in about 30 seconds of a google search.
That seems to piss you off, at least, thats the part of my post you
cut out to which you replied.
> People are complicated, Jack.
> Life's complicated, Jack.
Perhaps, but it took little effort for me to find the simple minded
Robocop calling someone besides me a douche-nozzle. Sorry the truth
offends you.
> Maybe if you TRIED to talk about things on a factual basis, instead of
> assuming that anybody who holds a different opinion is a "left wing
> butt head," you'd be LESS of an asshole.
If you TRIED to do more than attack me and address any "idealogical
idiocy" you don't like, you would be LESS of an asshole. I doubt it
though....
> I doubt it, though.
> Seems to be in your DNA ... or something.
I know, like all the rest of you left wing butt heads, you can't muster
much more than personal attacks.
--
Jack
God save us from concerned citizens and the politicians who listen to
them!
http://jbstein.com
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 22, 10:27 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As it stands, Medicare is a failure. Private insurance makes up for a
>> lot of the Medicare (and Medicaid) expenses when doctors and hospitals
>> charge private insurance more for services than paid by government
>> programs. Worse, government has no bottom line so they are ALWAYS
>> incompetent and expensive.
>
> Gosh. I've been in 49 states. I think they do an AMAZING job at MANY
> things.
I've been in 57 states, not including Alaska and Hawaii, and I think
they do a lousy job at most everything.
> In every other measure ... Medicare is viewed as a huge success.
> Start by (you're going to flip out. I just know it) examining your
> own assumptions and definitions, Jack.
I already said why in the above quote. I guess I could add that just
the interest on debt from these unfunded entitlement programs will soon
exceed revenue... and you think they are working well?
> What's failure. What's success.
Failure is when the government funds Medicare and Medicaid and can't pay
the bill, whilst the private insurance companies are already footing
part of the bill by paying more for service to make up for the low
government payments.
> I wonder if you ever asked those questions about the wars in
> Afghanistan and Iraq.
I thought we were in Afghanistan for the drugs, and Iraq for the oil?
Ali Obama seems to have no clue other than that. What do you think?
> I ... simply cannot imagine you did, though.
Your lack of imagination is unremarkable.
--
Jack
What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?
http://jbstein.com
busbus wrote:
> Of course the users of
> Medicaid are happy because it is funded by everybody and only used by
> some.
I agree with all you said except the above. It is not "funded" by
everybody, the government is borrowing money to pay for it, and it is
only a small number of people getting Medicare, and the government does
not pay enough so those not on Medicare get to make up the difference.
Ignored the rest of your statement because I agree with it. Lets see if
the fool that accused you of glossing over his lame statements can
respond to anything you've said.
Neil babbled:
>> How are "success" or "failure" defined ?
>> [I raised that issue after ONE bonehead declared Medicare a
>> "failure."]
I noticed he addressed none of the issues, simply call people childish
names.
>> Half the idiots in THIS country spout out with those terms, and --
>> when pressed -- can't paint a picture of what EITHER looks like.
I painted the picture for him, he couldn't muster a response other than
call me an asshole... Cool beans!
>> War is a happy way to get unquestioning taxpayers to open
their wallets, at the risk of being branded a "TRAITOR," or "bleeding
>> heart," or some such drivel.
>> I don't remember a war that we had ANY business participating in,
>> since WWII.
>> Maybe others disagree.
Tell him nobody wanted involved in WWII either.
>> My point is logic and facts, over dogma, ideology, and confirmation
>> bias.
His points are pointless drivel mostly. Oh, right he was in 49 states so
Medicare and Medicaid is a great success.... who gives a damn if the
government continues to spend more and more money it doesn't have and
goes into increasing amounts of debt - hoping that somehow everything
will just turn out okay. To fix this, the government will now
nationalize health care so EVERYONE is on Medicaid... Soon, once the
printing presses run out of money, the killing will begin just as it
nearly always does when the socialist bastards run out of other peoples
money!
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
--
Jack
If You Think Health Care is Expensive now, Wait Until it's FREE!
http://jbstein.com
Neil Brooks wrote:
> In other words, your 'arguments' are just about as compelling (read:
> juvenile and worthless) as the "I've got a cousin, who has a friend
> who's Canadian, and HE lost a leg, waiting for a surgery, blah, blah,
> blah" arguments that somebody else launched earlier.
How about 50% of prostrate cancer victims die under socialized medicine
vs 15% in the USSA? That sure beats I've been to '49 states and
Medicaid/Medicare works'!
> Arguing that the politics of one major party in this country are the
> reason for all of our ills ... is like watching a couple of five year
> old kids argue about whose crayon it is, on the kindergarten
> playground.
> Pathetic.
What is "pathetic" is watching the democratic party, once a semi-fine
American entity turn into an Anti-Amerikan, left wing, socialist group
hell bent on "fundamentally changing" (destroying) the only country on
earth that recognized and empowered the individual.
--
Jack
Got Change: Democratic Republic ======> Banana Republic!
http://jbstein.com
HeyBub wrote:
> And I didn't argue that ALL of our ills are caused by one major PARTY; I
> said: "MOST ... can be traced to ... LIBERAL program that failed."
Yeah, liberals (socialists) like Bush have contributed their part to
failed, anti-American left wing programs as well.
> It's possible the prism through which you darkly view contrarian views is
> broke.
I'm sure he thinks Bush did it, whatever it is...
--
Jack
Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
http://jbstein.com
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 07:40:09 -0700, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 24, 8:05Â am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I know, like all the rest of you left wing butt heads, you can't muster
>> much more than personal attacks.
>
>
> I can.
>
> I've tried ... around here.
>
> It doesn't go over well, though. Seems to frighten most of you.
>
> Sad.
You noticed that too?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
busbus wrote:
Jack wrote:
When the whole country is on Medicare, things will get worse, far worse.
>> For example, when everyone in the country is on Medicaid, you end up
>> with 50% of prostrate cancer patients dying instead of 10-15%.
> I wasn't saying to put EVERYBODY on Medicaid! LOL Just those who
> want to go on it.
What you say doesn't matter. Ali Obama has solid plans on
nationalizing/socializing/putting everyone on Medicaid. The so called
"public Option" is a myth, just like no government funded abortions is a
myth... OK, lies, not really myths. Most everything that comes out of
his mouth is a lie.
> Bottom line is this: Reagan got a whole hell of a lot accomplished in
> his two terms and he had to deal with a Democratic Congress the whole
> time.
I think there was a 2 year period he didn't have a Democratic Congress,
although their were a number of RINO's polluting the area during that
time, so you are right, if not technically right.
There was cooperation back then and we have not seen it since.
The dems never cooperate with anyone. They are not Americans any
longer, they are full blown socialists. Cooperation to a socialist is
them placing their jack boots firmly on your neck.
> As far as when I said Obama has no plan, I still stick by that.
Well, you'd be wrong. Obama's "plan" to socialize medicine has passed.
His "plan" to send more troops to waste their time in Afghanistan is
in place. His "plan" to nationalize the banking system is done. His
"plan" to pollute the shit out of the gulf to make up for the exposed
Global Warming Hoax is well under way and Cap and tax, his "plan" to
confiscate the private sector, is humming along swell. About all thats
left is to take over the media. His two anti-american, left wing
fucking Supreme court appointments should get that off the ground in
short order.
> He is a very shallow man, I fear.
He's simply a Marxist socialist SOB, just as his parents and
grandparents, friends and associates. When/if he finishes destroying
the US, he will walk across the boarders to Canada and Mexico.... Wait,
there is no boarder at Mexico... Robocop will love working for "the
man" however...
He may be incredibly intelligent but he lacks wisdom.
I'm an asshole and even I know there are not 57 states, not including
Alaska and Hawaii. And get this, I don't need a teleprompter to talk to
anyone, not even a pack of grade school kids. He is not intelligent nor
wise, just a corrupt chicago marxist political hack.
> Maybe that is one reason Reagan was a good President: He was not a Rhodes scholar or a
> lawyer or a professor but he did have a lot of wisdom. Good old-fashioned wisdom
> is sorely lacking today everywhere.
Too many fools confuse education with wisdom... A few of them pretend
to be woodworkers on the wreck...
--
Jack
Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
http://jbstein.com
Neil Brooks wrote:
>> It's possible the prism through which you darkly view contrarian views is
>> broke.
> I look at the merits -- or lack of -- of an argument.
You hide it well, or is that just your selective quoting style?
> Not much of a prism, here.
> Not many merits to your arguments.
You sure blew his arguments away in this post...
> Most of you ... hell, most PEOPLE ... start with their preconceived
> position, and then reason backward ... if at all.
Unlike you, who what, ignore your personal position and just fling the
shit, I mean name calling
> This place ... is a stellar example of that.
You certainly are, as are most of your empty headed socialist buddies...
--
Jack
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
http://jbstein.com
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 24, 8:05 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I know, like all the rest of you left wing butt heads, you can't muster
>> much more than personal attacks.
> I can.
Name calling with no other content is not much of a muster. Let me
guess, it's not worth your time to respond, better to just wail and moan.
> I've tried ... around here.
> It doesn't go over well, though. Seems to frighten most of you.
> Sad.
Another wasted post saying... wait for it... nothing!
--
Jack
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity!
http://jbstein.com
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 24, 8:06 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I've been in 57 states,
> Not personal attacks, Jack.
Calling you an asshole or an idiot would be a personal attack. Pointing
out that you saying Medicare works because you were in "49 states" is
about as stupid as our president stating there are 57 states, not
including Alaska and Hawaii, complete with the appropriate video link
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws)
Is more than a simple personal attack.
This was a direct attack on your lame argument, unlike your following
childish drivel.
> You ARE a fucking idiot.
See, that is a personal attack, and nothing more.
> If you use the "57 states" line ... because you think BO believes that
> to be a correct figure, then ... you're genuinely too stupid to
> understand what intelligence is (a virtual certainty).
I'm sure you can explain it to me. Meanwhile, I open my eyes and ears
and I hear and see... stupid.
> And/or so insecure about your own LACK OF intelligence as to prefer
> morons in the WH -- certainly a very common position in the US.
I'm a fucking idiot, remember... Be happy I'm not your president.
> If, OTOH, you spew that line because it's a gaffe, and you find it
> laughable, then ... you're so blindly partisan (again: a virtual
> certainty) that you cling to lines like this ... again ... as a by-
> product of *starting* with your blind partisanship, and then reasoning
> backward.
I'm not blind, I am partisan, strongly anti-socialist, anti-communist
and anti-Obama.
> If verbal gaffes are the measure of the man, then ... I'd sure hope I
> could go back on Usenet and see the shit you heaped on GW Bush.
I was busy watching David Letterman do GW Bush gaffs NIGHTLY for years
on end. He can't find a thing funny about Ali Bama. Wait, neither can
I...
> But I won't ... because you won't have.
> They're only worth repeating if they're made by somebody who's
> politics do NOT agree with yours.
The Bushes politics don't agree with mine either. There is nary a drop
of socialist blood in my veins, well maybe a drop, but not enough to
swim with the Bushes, and no where near the Bammer.
> Which makes you a fucking idiot AND a fucking hypocrite.
And your a fukking douche-nozzle. BTW, making something up, like you
just did, and then calling me a hypocrite because of what you made up
doesn't float. Don't worry, no one will notice...
What a maroon!
--
Jack
Got Change: General Motors =====> Government Motors!
Oh, for BusBus, I forgot to mention in an earlier post Obamas plan to
make General Motors Government Motors went well.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 24, 10:05 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>>> THIS is just ONE example of why YOU are a total fucking asshole, Jack.
>> Robocop lies about calling ONLY me a douche-nozzle, I point out he has
>> called others douche-nozzles, research it first, and I'm an asshole...
> You and Billy Mays. Mays is dead.
So you were lying... Who knew?
> That leaves YOU as the only one
> left that *I* called Douche Nozzle.
Once we established you are full of shit, there is no way to take
anything you say as true. Sorry, you may have called lots of others
douche-nozzles, I only looked for one other than myself.
> Your exclusive douchenozzleness is safe. You Da MAN!
Easy for you to say, bullshit rolls off your tongue like You Da BOVINE!
> (...you really should shed that monkey off your back, the whole douche
> nozzle thing has become an obsession of yours.)
You are confusing a working memory with obsession.
--
Jack
Please don't tell Obama what comes after a Trillion!
http://jbstein.com
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 24, 8:55 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> How about 50% of prostrate cancer victims die under socialized medicine
>> vs 15% in the USSA? That sure beats I've been to '49 states and
>> Medicaid/Medicare works'!
>
> Thanks for putting words into my mouth. No surprise, there.
Exactly what words did I put in your mouth? Be specific, I hate when I
get something wrong.
> Busbus ? If you were at all objective, you'd also call people out for
> this sort of bullshit, but ... not holding my breath.
> Does prostate cancer define the efficacy, or cost-effectiveness, of an
> entire health care system ?
>
> I don't HAVE to have answers. It IS hugely useful to point out to
> people that -- while they THINK that THEY DO have answers -- those
> answers are based on shit logic and bad information.
Well, here's the info on the US:
The overall 5 year survival rate for prostate Cancer in the US is 100%,
the 10 year survival rate is 92% and the 15 year survival rate is 70%.
The high prostate cancer survival rates are primarily because nearly 91%
of cases in the United States are detected while the cancer is still
contained within the Prostate or in nearby areas.
> Case in point: judging two health care systems -- in their entirety --
> based on a single metric.
You can do the same for other metrics as well, breast cancer for
example. Moreover, no one has noticed US citizens sneaking across
boarders to seek health care in Canada or England...
> Bad. Not smart.
Logical, not stupid.
>>> Arguing that the politics of one major party in this country are the
>>> reason for all of our ills ... is like watching a couple of five year
>>> old kids argue about whose crayon it is, on the kindergarten
>>> playground.
>>> Pathetic.
Our economic systems are political. To deny it whilst you watch reruns
of law and order, or Beavis and Butthead won't change a thing.
>> What is "pathetic" is watching the democratic party, once a semi-fine
>> American entity turn into an Anti-Amerikan, left wing, socialist group
>> hell bent on "fundamentally changing" (destroying) the only country on
>> earth that recognized and empowered the individual.
> As always ... thanks for proving MY point.
You have no point, you are pointless, now off with you to the land of
point, where you surely will be stuck forever at the point of no return!
> Black/white, all-or-nothing thinking.
Left/right thinking, not black/white thinking. What are you a racist?
> Any problems with your own party, Jack -- whomever/whatever that might
> be ?
My party is the one thats despises socialist bastards the most...
> Hard to imagine.....
As said earlier, your lack of imagination is unremarkable...
> Easier to believe that ALL the ills in the world are the sole
> responsibility of the Democrats, isn't it.
Only if you're a narrow minded boob. Surely you've heard of left
wingers like Arlene Spector, or... ah, never mind... hate to blind you
with the light...
> Maybe you need to challenge yourself, more ... avoiding easy answers
> -- particularly where they really don't exist.
I've learned long ago the more complicated things get, the less likely
they are correct or even working. Simple is good, convoluted is bad.
Think E=MC²
--
Jack
It's "We the People" not Me the President!
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 24, 10:05 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 8:40 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> You just make shit up as you go along. Like all left wing butt heads,
>
> > THIS is just ONE example of why YOU are a total fucking asshole, Jack.
>
> Robocop lies about calling ONLY me a douche-nozzle, I point out he has
> called others douche-nozzles, research it first, and I'm an asshole...
>
You and Billy Mays. Mays is dead. That leaves YOU as the only one
left that *I* called Douche Nozzle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I liked Billy Mays. Never bought any of the crap he peddled but it's always
nice to watch someone who is number one in their field.
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 10:05 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>>>> THIS is just ONE example of why YOU are a total fucking asshole, Jack.
>
>>> Robocop lies about calling ONLY me a douche-nozzle, I point out he has
>>> called others douche-nozzles, research it first, and I'm an asshole...
>
>> You and Billy Mays. Mays is dead.
>
> So you were lying... Who knew?
>
>> That leaves YOU as the only one
>> left that *I* called Douche Nozzle.
>
> Once we established you are full of shit, there is no way to take anything
> you say as true. Sorry, you may have called lots of others
> douche-nozzles, I only looked for one other than myself.
>
>> Your exclusive douchenozzleness is safe. You Da MAN!
>
> Easy for you to say, bullshit rolls off your tongue like You Da BOVINE!
>
There are 10 genera of bovinae, thus calling him bovine is inaccurate.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Neil Brooks wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 6:41 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps, but more important is the "help" is not helping much, in
>>>> fact, the "help" is hurting, giving credence to Quinn's law that
>>>> liberalism
>>>> always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent. Being
>>>> forced to do something that doesn't work should not go over well,
>>>> should it?
>>>
>>> Thanks for putting a name to something I've always held. My
>>> formulation is: "Most of society's problems can be traced to an
>>> upstream liberal program that failed."
>>>
>>> Some examples are:
>>> * Emptying the insane asylums equals the homeless zombies walking our
>>> streets.
>>> * The entire fabric of public education.
>>> * Uncertainty of government action coupled with lifetime unemployment
>>> benefits equals massive idleness.
>>> * Canceling our participation in the Olympics caused Russia to feel
>>> shame over the invasion of Afghanistan.
>>
>> I have NO idea what those "examples" are supposed to indicate, but ...
>> you have a sample size issue.
>>
>> In other words, your 'arguments' are just about as compelling (read:
>> juvenile and worthless) as the "I've got a cousin, who has a friend
>> who's Canadian, and HE lost a leg, waiting for a surgery, blah, blah,
>> blah" arguments that somebody else launched earlier.
>>
>> Arguing that the politics of one major party in this country are the
>> reason for all of our ills ... is like watching a couple of five year
>> old kids argue about whose crayon it is, on the kindergarten
>> playground.
>>
>> Pathetic.
>
> Heh!
>
> "Sample size?" Most of the homeless choose that lifestyle because of
> mental disease or defect. In the '70's it was determined that one could
> not be held ("incarcerated") against his will for mental deficiency if he
> posed no threat to himself or others. And so we have hundreds of thousands
> stalking our streets demanding "spare change," smelling bad, and otherwise
> offending the sensibilities of normal folk.
It was in the early 1970s. Before Carter. Nixon and Ford were the
Presidents.
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>>> It's possible the prism through which you darkly view contrarian views
>>> is
>>> broke.
>
>> I look at the merits -- or lack of -- of an argument.
>
> You hide it well, or is that just your selective quoting style?
>
>> Not much of a prism, here.
>> Not many merits to your arguments.
>
> You sure blew his arguments away in this post...
Maybe you guys could get a room?
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>
>> It was in the early 1970s. Before Carter. Nixon and Ford were the
>> Presidents.
> ---------------------------------
> Let's see:
>
> Nixon '68-'74
> Ford -74-'76
> Carter '76 '80
>
> Lew
>
>
That's right. Two Republicans. The Funny Farms were pretty much emptied
before 1976.
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 24, 1:32 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You certainly are, as are most of your empty headed socialist buddies...
> What makes me, or my buddies, Socialists, Jack ?
You support a strong centralized government that controls the means of
production. You fight individualism at every turn. You support the
progressive (socialist) mantra. You denigrate capitalism every chance
you get. You don't believe in the 1st, 2nd, 10th amendments, nor in the
constitution for that matter. You quote hate filled murdering mother
fuckers like G.B. Shaw who thought people with little to contribute to
the collective should be killed painlessly with gas.
Thanks for asking.
--
Jack
. . . this thing we call 'failure' is not falling down, but the staying
down.
http://jbstein.com
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>> Not projecting ... anything.
>>
>> Go look on the Internet. THOUSANDS of people believe that the 2nd
>> Amendment is critical -- in no small part -- to protect themselves
>> from a government that THEY view as increasingly tyrannical.
>
> You are correct in that many fear their own government. But I assert their
> belief is not proof. Millions believe in UFOs or the efficacy of colonic
> irrigation. Remember, "belief" is defined as: "a psycholigical condition
> where the individual holds a proposition to be true without a factual
> basis." A wise man once told me: "I don't CARE what you believe, I only
> care about what you can PROVE."
But is also defined as "conviction of the truth of some statement or the
reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of
evidence".
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 25, 11:29 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > Go look on the Internet. THOUSANDS of people believe that the 2nd
> > Amendment is critical -- in no small part -- to protect themselves
> > from a government that THEY view as increasingly tyrannical.
>
> You are correct in that many fear their own government. But I assert their
> belief is not proof.
Didn't say it was.
Please ... note ... yet another example of putting words in somebody
else's mouth.
Bad habit.
REALLY frightfully common, around here ... along with all-or-nothing
(a/k/a black-or-white thinking, which -- despite one fucking idiot's
inability to understand -- has NOTHING to do with race), assumptions
NOT based on evidence, hasty generalizations, etc., etc., etc.
The First Line (most vocal participants) of The Wreck -- GENUINELY --
could USE a course in Logic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or a High Colonic ...
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Neil Brooks wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 1:32 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> You certainly are, as are most of your empty headed socialist buddies...
>
>> What makes me, or my buddies, Socialists, Jack ?
>
> You support a strong centralized government that controls the means of
> production. You fight individualism at every turn. You support the
> progressive (socialist) mantra. You denigrate capitalism every chance you
> get. You don't believe in the 1st, 2nd, 10th amendments, nor in the
> constitution for that matter. You quote hate filled murdering mother
> fuckers like G.B. Shaw who thought people with little to contribute to the
> collective should be killed painlessly with gas.
"motherfuckers" is One word. HTH
HeyBub wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>> Calling you an asshole or an idiot would be a personal attack. Pointing
>> out that you saying Medicare works because you were in "49
>> states" is about as stupid as our president stating there are 57
>> states, not including Alaska and Hawaii, complete with the
>> appropriate video link
>
> In President Obama's defense, there WERE fifty-seven venues in which the
> Democrats held presidental-preference primaries.
Equally in his defense is Heinz, which boasts 57 varieties. Problem is
he didn't say that, in fact said 57, plus one left to go to, plus Alaska
and Hawaii which he was not allowed to visit. That would be 60 states,
not even closely related to Heinz 57 or 57 venues or the price of rice
in China...
See for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
--
Jack
Fight Socialism.... Buy a Ford!
http://jbstein.com
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:18:46 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>>> Having come from a family FULL of people with genius IQs, and ...
>>> having spent my entire life in the company of people with genius IQs,
>>> I -- in much the way I'm well equipped to judge a woodworker as "very
>>> talented --" can figure out who does and who doesn't have a high IQ.
>>
>>For someone so fucking brilliant, you sure are a dumb ass, a twit
>>actually.
>
> Jack ?
>
> It's abundantly clear to me that -- much like you probably wouldn't
> understand perfect Swahili, if it were spoken to you -- you wouldn't
> recognize intelligence under ANY circumstances.
>
> You don't seem very bright.
>
> That's a shame.
>
> You DO, however, seem willfully ignorant.
>
> And you COULD do a LOT about that, if you chose :-)
Yep, just vigorously agree with anything Neil says, you'll be a genius [in
his eyes]! :-)
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:18:46 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>> Having come from a family FULL of people with genius IQs, and ...
>> having spent my entire life in the company of people with genius IQs,
>> I -- in much the way I'm well equipped to judge a woodworker as "very
>> talented --" can figure out who does and who doesn't have a high IQ.
>
>For someone so fucking brilliant, you sure are a dumb ass, a twit actually.
Jack ?
It's abundantly clear to me that -- much like you probably wouldn't
understand perfect Swahili, if it were spoken to you -- you wouldn't
recognize intelligence under ANY circumstances.
You don't seem very bright.
That's a shame.
You DO, however, seem willfully ignorant.
And you COULD do a LOT about that, if you chose :-)
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Yep, just vigorously agree with anything Neil says, you'll be a genius [in
> his eyes]! :-)
I think he used up all his "genius" deeming Obama Lama bright with
nothing but evidence to the contrary! Of course, like Bush, Obama
supposedly went to Harvard...
I'm pretty certain Bush had a higher GPA though, in fact, I know it,
because I just know these things...
--
Jack
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity!
http://jbstein.com
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:27:51 -0700, Neil Brooks wrote:
> What scares me is what % of Americans are *genuinely too stupid* (read:
> low IQ) to recognize that -- like them or hate them -- people like WJ
> Clinton and BH Obama ... have extremely high IQs.
>
"The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the
average voter." That may not be an exact quote, but it's close :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>
>>> You are correct in that many fear their own government. But I assert
>>> their belief is not proof.
>>
>>
>> Didn't say it was.
>>
>>
>> Please ... note ... yet another example of putting words in somebody
>> else's mouth.
>>
>> Bad habit.
>
> I didn't put words in anybody's mouth (except my own).
>
> In point of fact, I was agreeing with you - to the extent that many people
> believe strange things. Impossible things. Crazy things.
>
>
>
>
Except I didn't write that which you attribute to me.
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Ahhhhhh. You DO make this easy ;-)
On Jul 26, 10:11 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
RE: Obama.
> ... and your evidence that BHO has an extremely high IQ, is, what exactly?
Having come from a family FULL of people with genius IQs, and ...
having spent my entire life in the company of people with genius IQs,
I -- in much the way I'm well equipped to judge a woodworker as "very
talented --" can figure out who does and who doesn't have a high IQ.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you give a heads up next time we'll need hip waders?
Neil Brooks wrote:
> Having come from a family FULL of people with genius IQs, and ...
> having spent my entire life in the company of people with genius IQs,
> I -- in much the way I'm well equipped to judge a woodworker as "very
> talented --" can figure out who does and who doesn't have a high IQ.
For someone so fucking brilliant, you sure are a dumb ass, a twit actually.
--
Jack
Conservatives believe every day is the Fourth of July, Liberals believe
every day is April 15.
http://jbstein.com
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> ... most Americans support the idea that being
> able to keep the fruits of one's labors is a reasonable position and that it
> makes sense that when someone is able to do that, the wealth gets spread
> around without funneling it through a government middleman who uses other
> peoples' money to enrich himself either monetarily or by buying votes to
> gain more power.
Thats about as perfectly said as I've seen....
> YOU are reasoning backwards from the viewpoint that
> all people who disagree with you or Obama start from hatred and reason
> backward to a position. In this case, the flaw in your logic is that I
> START from the position that it is good and right that people who work hard
> should be able to benefit from the fruits of that labor. Thus, when a
> politician expresses a position that taking those fruits to spread to others
> is a good thing, that politician is demonstrating via *his* conclusion that
> his positions are antithetical to my position. The thing is that my
> position has been historically demonstrated to provide the greatest benefit
> to people while his position has been demonstrated to provide the greatest
> damage to nations and people.
That too! Thanks for the great read.
--
Jack
Got Change: Democratic Republic ======> Banana Republic!
http://jbstein.com
busbus wrote:
> And, worst of all, the are all like Cri-cri birds (which are creature
> who fly in concentrically smaller circle until their heads fly up
> their ass and they scream, "Cri, cri, cri, cri....CHRIST, is it dark
> up here!!!"
Now that was funny!
> Personally, I agree Obama is intelligent.
Out of curiosity, what makes you say that? All evidence points to the
opposite, he is a George Soros puppet, has never accomplished a thing
other than beating the only person on earth not likely to beat say Bob
Dole... He barely managed that even with gross voter apathy combined
with great ACORN voter fraud and full support of the state run media.
About the only evidence that Obama is intelligent is a bunch of lemmings
saying it.
Who cares if he is intelligent. He has absolutely NO wisdom. And
precious little common
> sense from what I have seen.
Intelligence with no wisdom and common sense is called a tape
recorder... OK, a cd recorder...DVR?
--
Jack
If Guns Kill then Pencils Miss Spel Words!
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> Goofy? Left wingers are 'goofy'? LOL. I think the big difference is
> that BOTH sides are goofy 'cept that extreme right-wingers cause a lot
> more destruction and damage.
The left has killed WAY over a 100 million over the last 100 years.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Chiang Kai-shek, Pol Pot and a bunch more left
wing, socialist bastards!
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
Get a fucking clue you worthless piece of clueless excrement!
(the last part was to insure you could hear me... douche-bag!
PS, I've called a number of losers douche-bags before, none of them
quite as deserving.
--
Jack
Got Change: Individual Freedom =======> Government Control!
http://jbstein.com
busbus wrote:
> Here is the thing, there are others in this group who lean to the left
> who don't makes arses out of themselves and who write thoughtful
> replys. One is the guy who started this thread: Rotoboy.
ROTOBOY! HA.... Not sure if that was a Freudian slip, but wow, you
nailed him with it, the rest you got wrong, however. He's about as
thoughtful as a turnip!
He and I
> differ as much as anybody politically but I believe I can sit down and
> have a beer with him.
Only if you don't mind drinking with fools...
> This is for Jack: I, unfortunately, do believe Obama is intelligent.
Like "sex" and "it's" it depends on your definition of "intelligent"
The ability to read a teleprompter to grade school students with 70%
accuracy is doesn't meet mine.
> But intelligence without wisdom is dangerous, as we are seeing.
Dangerous is correct. He is an anti-American racist, hell bent on
destroying the republic for his socialist mentor, George Soros. By
"American" I mean someone that supports the power of the individual and
the US Constitution as opposed to the collective and socialism.
> Another huge problem with him is that he shoots fromt he hip all the
> time with no regard to unintended circumstances.
I don't think he has any "unintended circumstances", other than possibly
waking up millions of "sleeping Americans" Lets see if he can drag any
of them away from Law and Order, MSNBC, the View, Katie Couric, Ellen
DeGeneres or the rest of the government controlled media?
He (and all extreme liberals) worry about the few on the tattered edges
with total
> disregard to those of us, the vast majority, who reside in the
> middle.
Liberal is a term lost to socialists like Soros, Obama, Cloward and
Piven, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and about
every single person surrounding that Anti-American POS!
He is a politican and nothing else.
No, he is not just a politician, he is a socialist on a mission.
Politicians in the US worry about what they do and how it will effect
their future. The Obama regime (includes his socialist Congress)
doesn't give a rats ass about the average American.
The thing is, you have
> to be extremely intelligent to get thru the political BS and become
> president.
Or have unlimited support from the likes of Anti-Americans like Geo.
Soros, Michael Moore, Government controlled media, ACORN and so on,
then, it's not too hard.
> Anyways, I think it is time to stop feeding the troll. Neil has no
> life except to spout off on others and offers precious little else.
He certainly has proved to be a worthless opponent, much like Upsale.
ROTOBOY is just a tad, make that a nad, better.
> He certainly does like to use profanity, especially the "F" word, but
> that is a sign of his spectacular intelligence because we all know
> that using profanity and calling people names are a sign of
> intellect.
If you plan on communicating with dimwits like ROTOBOY or Neil, you
pretty much have to be willing to roll in the mud with them. I don't
mind much, but when it's near impossible to extract a modicum of common
sense from them, its a probably a good idea to move on.
--
Jack
Clinton Ruined a Dress, Obama Ruined a Nation!
http://jbstein.com
Rotoboy wrote:
>>> Goofy? Left wingers are 'goofy'? LOL. I think the big difference is
>>> that BOTH sides are goofy 'cept that extreme right-wingers cause a lot
>>> more destruction and damage.
Jack says:
>> The left has killed WAY over a 100 million over the last 100 years.
>> Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Chiang Kai-shek, Pol Pot and a bunch more left
>> wing, socialist bastards!
>> http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
> You are no longer relevant. It has dawned on me how pitiful you really
> are. You have lost your cool. That means I win. <end>
In other words, you are unable to back up your lame statement that
"extreme right-wingers cause a lot more destruction and damage"
Who woulda guessed?
--
Jack
Got Change: Democratic Republic ======> Banana Republic!
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> Actually, it seems like both sides are oftentimes taking their
>> talking points from the media they watch.
>
> I think people get there information from the media they watch, but
> they come up with there own conclusions. If their conclusions
> conflict with the media they watch they will quit watching or find an
> outlet that agrees, if at all possible. Before Fox news, there was
> no tv news outlet in the US in the last 40 years that was not far
> left wing. If you didn't like it, you could watch left wing shows
> like Law and Order...
Fox's attitude MAY have been a business decision.
Assume 30% of the country is liberal, 30% conservative, and 40% don't have
an opinion. Each of the three major networks got (roughly) 1/3 of the
viewers.
Along comes Fox.
Fox gets all the conservatives and 1/4 of the independents (30 + 10 = 40% of
the viewership). The three majors are left to divvy up the remaining 60% -
they each get 20%.
Result: Fox gets twice as many viewers as any one of the networks. That
means twice the revenue.
Therefore, as it turns out, being conservative is a good business
decision... but we knew that.
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote
>> All in all the claims should not be a "prize" so much as a compensation
>> to help you maintain your normal income level. You would have to work
>> normally, you should continue to work.
>
> That's very un-American of you. Get my lawyer on the phone!
>
> Seems to me, if you earned $1000 a week on your boat and now you can't you
> deserve compensation. If BP pays you that $1000 a week to keep on
> working, albeit cleaning, not fishing, you are still OK and don't deserve
> any additional compensation. The down side, of course, that that many
> will sit on their ass and do nothing and still get that $1000 you are
> getting to work for a week. There is no incentive to work. Same argument
> you get for welfare and long term unemployment compensation. Maybe the
> working crew should get a 20% bonus.
I still contend that some one will do the work and they all will not go home
when the job is done. They are going to be competing for your job after the
smoke clears. I would call helping with the clean up, "job security", and
taking pride in the place you call home. I think the bonus might be the
answer but I think perhaps it should work the other way around, if you don't
help you get 70%.
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 23, 6:41 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps, but more important is the "help" is not helping much, in
>>> fact, the "help" is hurting, giving credence to Quinn's law that
>>> liberalism
>>> always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent. Being
>>> forced to do something that doesn't work should not go over well,
>>> should it?
>>
>> Thanks for putting a name to something I've always held. My
>> formulation is: "Most of society's problems can be traced to an
>> upstream liberal program that failed."
>>
>> Some examples are:
>> * Emptying the insane asylums equals the homeless zombies walking our
>> streets.
>> * The entire fabric of public education.
>> * Uncertainty of government action coupled with lifetime unemployment
>> benefits equals massive idleness.
>> * Canceling our participation in the Olympics caused Russia to feel
>> shame over the invasion of Afghanistan.
>
> I have NO idea what those "examples" are supposed to indicate, but ...
> you have a sample size issue.
>
> In other words, your 'arguments' are just about as compelling (read:
> juvenile and worthless) as the "I've got a cousin, who has a friend
> who's Canadian, and HE lost a leg, waiting for a surgery, blah, blah,
> blah" arguments that somebody else launched earlier.
>
> Arguing that the politics of one major party in this country are the
> reason for all of our ills ... is like watching a couple of five year
> old kids argue about whose crayon it is, on the kindergarten
> playground.
>
> Pathetic.
Heh!
"Sample size?" Most of the homeless choose that lifestyle because of mental
disease or defect. In the '70's it was determined that one could not be held
("incarcerated") against his will for mental deficiency if he posed no
threat to himself or others. And so we have hundreds of thousands stalking
our streets demanding "spare change," smelling bad, and otherwise offending
the sensibilities of normal folk.
And I didn't argue that ALL of our ills are caused by one major PARTY; I
said: "MOST ... can be traced to ... LIBERAL program that failed."
It's possible the prism through which you darkly view contrarian views is
broke.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> That is what you will pay. What you will receive in benefits will be
> considerably less. The British National Health System is coming to
> America,
> welcome to rationing, waiting lists, and lack of care for everybody except
> the rich who will be able to afford to pay the tax and buy their own care.
Oh, boo-hoo-hoo! Diddy-diddy-boo!
There's hardly a single republican I agree with about ANYTHING but I
think Phil Graham was talking about Mark & Juanita when he said that we've
become a nation of whiners.
THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! clucked Chicken Little.
Got your Medicare going on, Mark?
Dave in Houston
"Michael Kenefick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Is that a total? Because that is 9 to 5 thousand less than what I being
> taken for now.
No shit! I'll gladly pay another ten thou in annual income taxes for
the public option and be [at minimum] ten thou ahead of the private
insurance curve.
Dave in Houston
On Jul 25, 5:35=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:50:10 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote the following:
>
> >Robatoy wrote:
>
> Would you two get a room
I'd have to sleep with one eye open.
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:50:10 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote the following:
>Robatoy wrote:
Would you two get a room or take it to email, please?
--
It is pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness;
poverty and wealth have both failed.
-- Kin Hubbard
On Jul 25, 6:31=A0pm, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 7/25/10 5:58 PM, Robatoy wrote:> On Jul 25, 5:35 pm, Larry Jaques<ljaq=
[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:50:10 -0400, Jack Stein<[email protected]>
> >> wrote the following:
>
> >>> Robatoy wrote:
>
> >> Would you two get a room
>
> > I'd have to sleep with one eye open.
>
> The one in the back?
> :-)
>
> --
> Froz...
>
> The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
HA!
On 7/25/10 5:58 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 25, 5:35 pm, Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:50:10 -0400, Jack Stein<[email protected]>
>> wrote the following:
>>
>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> Would you two get a room
>
> I'd have to sleep with one eye open.
>
The one in the back?
:-)
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
Larry Jaques wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote the following:
>
>> Robatoy wrote:
> Would you two get a room or take it to email, please?
While the thread is OT and getting uninteresting to me and hopefully
most people here, the option to ignore it is yours.
It would take me less than 30 seconds to filter this thread, or all
threads marked OT, or all threads from Robocop. Waiting for any of us
to get a room because you say so will take a while... Much more than 30
seconds.
--
Jack
Mr. Geithner, May I Borrow Your TurboTax?
http://jbstein.com
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
>>>>> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>>>>>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that
>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>> happen either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>>>>> Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
>>>>
>>>> Technically, the President of the US had absolutely no legal authority
>>>> to
>>>> impose an escrow, fine, or judgment.
>>>
>>>
>>> And he didn't.
>>
>> Uh, yeah, right.
>
> Yeah, Right! I detest the man and can't wait until he's out of office,
> but making up shit is counter productive. Just as it was when W was in
> office.
Making up what? You think that any CEO would just walk into the White
House, drop $20B of their own free will? Money which they have fiduciary
responsibility to utilize for the benefit of the corporation?
This isn't just making stuff up or a small matter. This is an example of
a president far exceeding his constitutional authority by assessing,
gaining, receiving, whatever you want to call it -- a fine against a company
and essentially assuming sole authority over the disbursement of those funds
at his discretion. The so-called "independent" agent to oversee
disbursement of those funds is none other than his pay czar, Ken Feinberg,
someone appointed by the President but who was never confirmed by the
Senate. Yet he is given sole authority to disburse $20B in whatever manner
he sees fit, with no rules or guidance or even oversight. Don't you think
that if Bush had done something like this the libs in Congress (and even
members of his own party) would be screaming to the high heavens about lack
of accountability, no authority, etc? You don't think Feinberg might be
just a teeny bit beholden to Obama and maybe disbursing those funds in a
manner favorable to him and his party? We'll never know, because no
oversight or other mechanisms are built into this escrow account deal.
On the flip side, what did BP gain from this? You don't think they just
dropped $20B and walked away empty handed? At a minimum, they had to have
gotten some assurance of lack of prosecution or some sort of clemency.
People were screaming to high heaven when the Bush administration was just
monitoring phone calls to countries that harbor terrorists. But acting as
legislature, judge, jury, and rendering judgment in this case is OK?
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:28:40 -0400, Michael Kenefick
<[email protected]> wrote the following:
(Topposting corrected, you heel.)
>> You forgot the "free" healthcare which will now cost us between THREE
>> AND SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS APIECE PER YEAR when it goes into effect, IF
>> our government is still semi-solvent by that time...
>>
>Is that a total? Because that is 9 to 5 thousand less than what I being
>taken for now.
What? You're paying $15k/yr for each -person- now? What Cadillac
policy do you have? I'm talking about the bare minimum policy, with
massive co-pays, gigantic thresholds, enormous out-of-pocket expenses.
Actuals, once they set them, will probably be half again more.
--
Exercise ferments the humors, casts them into their proper channels,
throws off redundancies, and helps nature in those secret distributions,
without which the body cannot subsist in its vigor, nor the soul act
with cheerfulness. -- Joseph Addison, The Spectator, July 12, 1711
Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> Not projecting ... anything.
>
> Go look on the Internet. THOUSANDS of people believe that the 2nd
> Amendment is critical -- in no small part -- to protect themselves
> from a government that THEY view as increasingly tyrannical.
You are correct in that many fear their own government. But I assert their
belief is not proof. Millions believe in UFOs or the efficacy of colonic
irrigation. Remember, "belief" is defined as: "a psycholigical condition
where the individual holds a proposition to be true without a factual
basis." A wise man once told me: "I don't CARE what you believe, I only care
about what you can PROVE."
>
> I ain't making this shit up. I COULDN'T make this shit up....
>
> As to your comments about the military -- they're people ... just like
> everybody else. They don't really lend themselves well to nice neat
> labels and descriptions.
>
> Some is. Some ain't.
>
> Some will. Some won't.
>
> Those are about the only nice neat labels that work, across such a
> large group as "The Military."
Agreed there are exceptions within any group. Still, the "military" are not
like the non-military. They are our warrior class and get their primary
satisfaction in life from killing people and blowing things up.
----
Only the hard. Only the strong.
We march.
For our lands. For our families. For our freedom.
We march.
Into the Hot Gates we march. Into that narrow corridor we march. Where
Xerxes numbers count for nothing.
Spartans. Citizen soldiers, freed slaves, free Greeks all.
Brothers. Fathers. Sons.
We march.
For honor's sake. For duty's sake. For glory's sake.
We march.
Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>> You are correct in that many fear their own government. But I assert
>> their belief is not proof.
>
>
> Didn't say it was.
>
>
> Please ... note ... yet another example of putting words in somebody
> else's mouth.
>
> Bad habit.
I didn't put words in anybody's mouth (except my own).
In point of fact, I was agreeing with you - to the extent that many people
believe strange things. Impossible things. Crazy things.
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:50:19 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> That is what you will pay. What you will receive in benefits will be
>considerably less. The British National Health System is coming to America,
>welcome to rationing, waiting lists, and lack of care for everybody except
>the rich who will be able to afford to pay the tax and buy their own care.
Chicken Little! Do everybody a favour and stand where the first chunk
of sky will land.
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You can do the same for other metrics as well, breast cancer for example.
> Moreover, no one has noticed US citizens sneaking across boarders to seek
> health care in Canada or England...
I do believe that Caribou Barbie aka Sarah Palin has unashamedly
admitted to her family often crossing into Canada for their health care.
Dave in CZ-land
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:48:22 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>: On 7/15/2010 4:37 PM, dpb wrote:
>: If obama could be 1/4 as successful as BP.
>
>Huh? You do understand that BP did several sleazy things to cut corners
>in building the rig, including warnings about blowouts, which actually led
>TO the blowout, right? And that BP has created one of the worst pollution
>fiascos ever?
You forgot the bribes paid to Obama.
>Or are you too focused on making snarky remarks about the President to
>care?
You think Obama has handled this disaster well, huh?
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 24, 3:26 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
.
>
> What you say doesn't matter.
Typical Stein response.
I'm clueless. ~:o)
Dave in Houston
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>> Maybe The British System isn't the right system. Try the Canadian one.
>> I'm exposed to that every day. It works great.
>
> Yeah, it's well known how great it works every time a Canuck slithers
> across the boarder to get timely, quality health care...
You mean like Caribou Barbie and her family? Slipping across the
Alaska/Canadian border to sop up that free Canadian health care?
Dave in Houston
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:55:51 -0400, Steve
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2010-07-17 23:46:34 -0400, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> said:
>
>> It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed by
>> judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
>> legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that didn't
>> happen either.
>
>Technically, the $20B is an escrow, held against clean-up costs.
>Speculation is that those costs will run higher than the set-aside.
>
>The fines and judgements will (we hope) come later.
Why would you hope for fines and judgements for something that was an
accident?
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:03:53 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote the following:
>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>>
>> "Thos" wrote:
>>
>>> How's that hope and change working for ya?
>> -----------------------
>> You tell me Sarah.
>>
>> Lew
>
> Don't mind Lew, he's one of the 17% that still strongly approve of the job
>The One is doing. He probably doesn't even want one of these:
Wow, there are that many left? (Unfortunately, my Bay Area family is
still braindead over The Chosen One. <deep, sad sigh>)
><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eODr63uDwM>
Sent to my full joke listees.
--
Exercise ferments the humors, casts them into their proper channels,
throws off redundancies, and helps nature in those secret distributions,
without which the body cannot subsist in its vigor, nor the soul act
with cheerfulness. -- Joseph Addison, The Spectator, July 12, 1711
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:30:32 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Thos" wrote:
>
>> How's that hope and change working for ya?
>-----------------------
>You tell me Sarah.
Seems to be working out pretty well for her. ...too bad about those 17-20%
un(der)employed.
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:28:40 -0400, Michael Kenefick <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Is that a total? Because that is 9 to 5 thousand less than what I being
>taken for now.
Oh, you'll still have to buy yours.
>> You forgot the "free" healthcare which will now cost us between THREE
>> AND SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS APIECE PER YEAR when it goes into effect, IF
>> our government is still semi-solvent by that time...
>>
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 28, 10:25 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Alright, that's it, he's either a flippin' troll or extreme
>> leftwinger.
>
> Or ... neither.
>
> Pretty centrist, actually.
>
Surveys show that most left-wingers consider themselves to be "centrists."
For example, virtually all liberals consider the NY Times to be a
middle-of-the-road newspaper.
>
>
> I'll say it again: it's my opinion, based on lots of factors.
>
Which is it? An "opinion" is a firmly held belief NOT based on facts.
In news:[email protected],
Swingman <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> On 7/15/2010 3:29 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>> He did it!!
>
> And so he thinks ... note the imperial "we" in all his comments about
> the capping thus far.
whadda ya mean?
I saw him on the video feed with a wrench in his hand and now with all the
oil in the gulf, it will make it much easier for him to walk on water<g>
Larry W wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> <...snipped...>
>> Uh, yeah, right. He just invited the BP CEO over to the White
>> House for a beer, a few drinks with Eric Holder, some nice
>> discussions and made the CEO an offer he couldn't refuse.
>>
>> Please, even an Obama apologist can't be this dense or ignorant of
>> "the Chicago way"
>>
>>
>
> If a republican had done it, it would be praised as "speaking softly
> and carrying a big stick" and don't try any BS like a republican
> would never do anything like that.
You're arguing from a false premise. Republicans don't do things like that.
Neil Brooks wrote:
... snip
> What scares me is what % of Americans are *genuinely too stupid*
> (read: low IQ) to recognize that -- like them or hate them -- people
> like WJ Clinton and BH Obama ... have extremely high IQs.
>
... and your evidence that BHO has an extremely high IQ, is, what exactly?
He has sealed all of his academic records by executive order, there is no
existing evidence of any of his test scores, he wrote no papers while editor
at Harvard Law Review. His speeches? Take away the teleprompter and the
induced reverb for "godlike quality" and you get a bunch of "ahhhs",
"Uhhhs", and "ummms". Hardly genius quality off-teleprompter. This is a
guy with a paper-thin resume who voted "present" in his stint in the
Illinois legislature in order to avoid having a record, who won most of his
elections not through electoral victory but by clearing the playing field
before the election. There seems to be no recollection of anyone he knew
while he was at Occidental college, no former classmates, professors, or
anyone else who has provided any information whatever regarding his academic
capabilities or lack thereof.
You, the consummate logician, should be a bit more demanding of hard
evidence than the fact "he attended Harvard" as evidence that he "has an
extremely high IQ". After all, so did GW. Argument by vigorous assertion
is not a generally accepted approach to logical argumentation.
As far as the "ahhs, umms, and uhhs", that is not necessarily evidence of
someone not very bright, it can also be evidence of someone heavily self-
censoring what they are saying so as not to betray their core beliefs by
saying something completely antithetical to the American way of life. Thus
he uses those verbal crutches while he desperately struggles for words to
not sound quite as statist and totalitarian as he really is. If he said
what he was really thinking, it might come out as, "It's not that I want to
punish success, I just think that when you spread the wealth around,
everybody benefits". [Oh, wait, he did say that].
BTW, the 57 states wasn't the only gaffe, just one of the more memorable
ones. Look up "Obama and Breathalyzer" for another example. As far as
Bushisms go, "inhalator" comes pretty close.
... snip
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Dave in Texas wrote:
>
> "Michael Kenefick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Is that a total? Because that is 9 to 5 thousand less than what I being
>> taken for now.
>
> No shit! I'll gladly pay another ten thou in annual income taxes for
> the public option and be [at minimum] ten thou ahead of the private
> insurance curve.
>
> Dave in Houston
That is what you will pay. What you will receive in benefits will be
considerably less. The British National Health System is coming to America,
welcome to rationing, waiting lists, and lack of care for everybody except
the rich who will be able to afford to pay the tax and buy their own care.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:21:12 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote the following:
>On Jul 18, 9:39 pm, Dave Balderstone
><dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> > On Jul 18, 9:39 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > Robatoy wrote:
>> > > > Maybe The British System isn't the right system. Try the Canadian one.
>> > > > I'm exposed to that every day. It works great.
>>
>> > > Yeah, it's well known how great it works every time a Canuck slithers
>> > > across the boarder to get timely, quality health care...
>>
>> > The Canuck that goes to the US for timely, quality health care is
>> > usually rich and doesn't want to wait those few extra days he feels
>> > could be a threat to his wellbeing.
>>
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
>> > -
>> > Nope. Washington state got a bunch of Canadian pregnant women delivering
>> > there because of a lack of beds in Canada. Then there was the governor of
>> > the Newfies ...
>>
>> I know a family here in Canada that was facing a 6-12 month wait to
>> have tubes put in their young son's ears to drain fluid and give him
>> back his hearing.
>>
>> A bit of research, a couple of phone calls, and they took a family
>> vacation to Disney Land that included the day surgery for their son.
>>
>> Waiting time? "When can you be here? How about next Thursday?"
>>
>> AND, because they were paying cash the anaesthetist gave them a 40%
>> discount, citing a 270 day average time for payment from the HMOs.
>>
>> --
>> The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples
>> money. - Margaret Thatcher
>
>And I know a family (my sister's) who, when stationed on Aruba, flew
>my nieces and nephew to Canada to have their tubes put in their ears
>because the wait through their HMO in the US was too long. Fact!
>You see, there are many anecdotes to offset other anecdotes. I also
>know stories which make the US system look good. All depends on what I
>am willing to support at the time. Situational bullshit, I guess.
DAMN, doesn't anyone use Q-tips any more? Every other day keeps me
regular. Ya hear me?
--
Exercise ferments the humors, casts them into their proper channels,
throws off redundancies, and helps nature in those secret distributions,
without which the body cannot subsist in its vigor, nor the soul act
with cheerfulness. -- Joseph Addison, The Spectator, July 12, 1711
Most of us find that "hard to swallow".
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
DAMN, doesn't anyone use Q-tips any more? Every other day keeps me
regular. Ya hear me?
On Jul 24, 4:28=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Honey, I learned many years ago that I'm an asshole.
Well, you aren't removing any doubt.
Enema Nozzle... I LIKE it!
Upscale wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>> I know, like all the rest of you left wing butt heads, you can't muster
>> much more than personal attacks.
> Yes Jack, but you're missing the most important point of those attacks
Empty headed personal attacks have no points. That's the point.
> Couple with the fact that you continue to demonstrate the most inane
> logic,
Yet all you and your pals can muster is personal attacks...
Cool beans, a 10 year old might say...
> you might get it through your head that you really are a
> fucking asshole. Then we will all be better off.
Honey, I learned many years ago that I'm an asshole. A fucking asshole
is a bit of a surprise but you say it so well I never tire of hearing
it. Keep the empty headed personal attacks coming before you get
banished to the Land of Point, nevertoreturn!
--
Jack
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
http://jbstein.com
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:05:47 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I know, like all the rest of you left wing butt heads, you can't muster
>much more than personal attacks.
Yes Jack, but you're missing the most important point of those attacks
and that's the fact that you are more deserving of them than anyone
else here.
Couple with the fact that you continue to demonstrate the most inane
logic, you might get it through your head that you really are a
fucking asshole. Then we will all be better off.
Bill wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 3:16 pm, "Leon"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Angela Sekeris"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:5164b3bf-39d6-4286-bdd3-
[email protected]...
>>> On Jul 17, 1:45 pm, "Leon"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Robatoy"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> news:ab7acd4d-74ea-4a99-
[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>> He did it!!
>>>
>>>> And right on the heels of his new book that also qualifies for the
>>>> worlds shortest book.
>>>
>>>> How I earned the Nobel Piece Prize.
>>>
>>> I think it is wonderful to see BP step up to the plate to keep our
>>> Hummers humming... even though they consumed an American president in
>>> the process.
>>>
>>> Win, Win
>>
>> Fishermen in Mississippi say they are angry that under the terms of
>> BP's $20 billion oil spill fund, money they earn doing clean-up will
>> be subtracted from their claim against the company.
>
> Angry or not, you can't sue for lost income you didn't incur. That's
> just a legal principle.
It's also a legal principle that fines and judgments are assessed by
judges and juries and legislation and penalties are defined by the
legislative branch of government. In the case of the $20B, that didn't
happen either.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
In news:[email protected],
Keith Nuttle <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> On 7/15/2010 4:37 PM, dpb wrote:
>> pear to be cautiously good news; we can only hope that pressure holds
>> indefinitely and don't have/cause another blowout somewhere along the
>> bore hole.
> If obama could be 1/4 as successful as BP. But all obama comes out
> with is more regulations, and high taxes that do nothing for helping
> the economy out of the pelosi/obama depression.
maybe BP could come up with a cap toput over Washington.
The only problem I see is that the pressure from all the hot air is much
greater than what they just capped