O/T: A Milestone

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

> Like every candidate before him, he did have a lot to say and some
> ideas certainly sounded great. Unfortunately, he is running to be
> the President, not the King, Supreme Commander or Dictator so those
> ideas will be tough to get made into law.

Which is exactly what the framers of the constitution had in mind.

Enacting legislation that affects everybody should be a challenging
process.

What is that old saying about making laws and sausage are best done
out of sight or something close.

If he is elected, achieving many of those goals will be a
demonstration of his ability to lead.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Just Wondering" wrote:
>
>
>> It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
>> office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice
>> to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.
>
> Just curious, what do you see as a lack of qualification(s) for the
> task of president of the USA.
>
> Lew
>
>
The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the largest enterprise
on the face of the earth. Somewhere in a candidate's background there
should be at least a modicum of training and experience that would give
some indication the candidate has the ability to make sound executive
decisions. Obama has none.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:59:29 -0700, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:


>> Yup.... Just when was it that politics became a career choice, not something
>> you did for maybe 8 years and them went back to your real job?
>> mac
>Whenever an absolute monarch becomes less than absolute, you get career
>politicians.
>
> mahalo,
> jo4hn

I guess I'm thinking of the first few presidents... In my admittedly low
knowledge of history, it seems that they got talked into running, served their
time, then got back to running their plantations or whatever...



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:40:08 -0700, "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote:


>Vote for the Libertarian Party instead. They would welcome your vote and as
>a whole represent what I feel to be a nice split between the Democrat and
>Republican parties. Don't let the "But they won't win" boogeyman scare
>you - it isn't about winning, but picking a candidate you feel best
>represents your country. If more people voted that way, the two party
>system would be history and candidates would have to shift their focus to
>issues and governance - rather than personality and appearances.
>
>I fully intend on voting for them this time around, I certainly vote for
>them during county elections, and vote for at least a few in state elections

See my rant above, re:NOTA ;-]


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Sep 11, 3:09=A0pm, willshak <[email protected]> wrote:
> on 9/11/2008 3:04 PM Rusty said the following:
>
>
>
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On Aug 30, 3:53 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> ...
> >> We know that he [Obama, FF] does not respect Pakistani sovereignty and=
has
> >> openly
> >> suggested violating their borders thereby possibly encouraging a inspi=
red
> >> enemy pool exceeding 100 million people.
> >> ...
>
> >http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1049120720080911
>
> > I approve.
>
> > (Not that anyone asked for my approval.).
>
> I too approve. We should go anywhere to eliminate Al Qaeda, wherever
> they are and without =A0the host country's approval, even into England.
>

Well. I'm not _opposed_ to obtaining the host country's permission,
Just not willing to accept inaction without it.

I also doubt that incursions into Waziristan are going to find
bin Laden. He is more likely in a major city where his couriers
have ready access to global communications.

--

FF

Morris Dovey wrote:

> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Strictly a non wood working post.
>
> I agree 100% :-)
>
> I'm reading a lot of discussion about "qualifications" of candidates,
> and noticing that no one seems to want to name anything that their
> favorite candidate is qualified to /do/. (Already, I've started
> discounting negatives aimed at the 'other' candidate as "cheap shots"
> and the sources as "cheap shootists").
>

Trying to claim the moral high ground, eh?


> One of the qualities I look for is "leadership" - and I very selfishly
> ask whether the candidate is able (and likely) to lead the country in
> the direction /I/ think it should go.
>

That's fine, you are establishing your care-abouts and what you think is
important to you. The underlying question is what that direction means to
the country as a whole. There are some citizens who feel that the
direction the country should go is to have "the rich" (people who make more
money than the citizens looking for this) pay for various "rights"
and "entitlements" for the citizens seeking that direction. There are also
citizens who view the government as the solution to all problems and seek
greater government involvement in nearly all aspects of life -- that's
certainly not the principles upon which the nation was founded and was a
direction that the founders wisely eschewed and established curbs in the
constitution to prevent. Unfortunately, over the intervening years, too
many have found "loopholes" that have allowed increasing encroachment by
the government into private lives and businesses.


> So I guess that ties into "vision" - whether the candidate shares my
> notions of what is really worth doing, and whether the candidate is
> capable of meaningfully considering the consequences of his actions
> /before/ he acts, and how far ahead the candidate is capable of
> projecting his/her plans.
>
> I care about how much the candidate respects others as individuals,
> groups, and nations - because I find that tells me worlds about how
> fairness and justice will or will not be a part of that candidate's
> administration.
>
> I look for signs of good judgment - both in terms of personal decisions
> and in terms of staff brought in to help produce high-quality decisions.
>
> And (not at all) lastly, I care hugely about the basic integrity of the
> candidates.
>

OK, so, where does that leave the field of choices?


> Just about anyone can reach down and find a handful of mud (right by
> their very own feet!) and throw it. I'll note in passing that some
> people seem to have more mud around 'em than others - and I'll share a
> bit of old Iowa farm wisdom:
>
> "He who throws mud loses ground."
>

i.e, "anybody who points out anything negative about my guy/gal is just
slinging mud -- when I'm doing it, I'm evaluating the signs of good
judgment and personal values" Got it.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Aug 30, 3:53=A0pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>
> We know that he was willing to cut, run and accept defeat in Iraq when th=
e
> surge or 30,000 troops could and did turn the tide and place the country =
and
> our efforts well on the way to success.
>
> We know that his cut and run policy would have as well given the Iraq al
> Qaeda a major victory instead of the sound defeat they received.

We know that al Queda followed us into Iraq. We know that only
reason
any significant number of Iraqis supported al Queda was because they
had a common enemy--US.

We know that since we occupied Iraq, we have been fighting against
Iraqis over control of their own country. We know that the indigenous
Iraqi reiligious extremists are Shia, sworn enemies of al Queda, so
that even if Iraq were to become another Islamic Republic, it would be
one opposed to al Queda. It was also be Arab, thus predisposed to
not ally with Iran, unless facing a common enemy, such as-- US.

>
> We know from the get go that he was in favor of leaving Saddam in power,
> free to continue his murder , plunder and disregard for 17 UN sanctions. =
To
> also continue the corrupt oil for food UN program and to watch over a eve=
r
> strained Iraq embargo/containment effort.

We know that, while the Taliban and Al Queda were still undefeated in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, he opposed starting a new war, with a
country
that did not harbor or support al Queda or bin Laden and which was
demonstrably not a threat to the US or even the weakest of its
neighbors.

>
> We know that he does not respect Pakistani sovereignty and has openly
> suggested violating their borders thereby possibly encouraging a inspired
> enemy pool exceeding 100 million people.

We know he made that statement when Pakistan was ruled by one of the
Worlds worst dictators, and when Pakistan harbored and protected
al Queda and Osama bin Laden.

We also know that the present administration did not respect Iraqi
Sovereignty despite the fact that Iraq did not harbor al Queda or
bin Laden and had not been implicated in any attacks on Americans
outside of it's own borders for at least ten years.

We know that the present administration did not respect Iraqi
sovereignty even after Saddam Hussein was overthrown, replacing
the Iraq coalition government with an American dictator who blocked
self government by the Iraqis and systematically destroyed the nations
infrastructure plunging the country into a civil war.

>
> We know he's in favor of significant U.S. Afghanistan military escalation=
in
> spite of the stark historical minefield Afghanistan has held for world
> powers.

We know that the battleground against al Quaida is in Afghanistan
and Pakistan.

>
> We know that he readily confused the propriety of countries simply talkin=
g
> to each other with the power and prestige of state visits
> .. .

You mean like claiming that negotiations over a good will visit
by the President of Niger to Baghdad was actually a negotiation
to purchase more yellowcake, despite the fact that Iraq had 500
plus tonnes of yellowcake stored at Tuwaitha for the past 20 years,
and had SOLD 30 to 50 tonnes of it just a few years earlier?

>
>
> ...
>
> We know (thankfully) that he has a ever evolving energy policy but $150
> billion over 10 years on a vague green energy plan is more posture than
> possible benefit. Albeit good publicly funded jobs till the money runs ou=
t.
>
> ...

I recall GWB saying that if he had a good energy policy in place ten
years
ago we would be much better off today. He neglected to mention that
we had such a policy thirty years ago, but then his party won the
white
house and killed it.

--

FF

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

> Huh? How do you see that? He's running a personality cult
> campaign that
> is shorter on specifics than most campaigns on this scale have ever
> been.
<snip>

If you were part of the 38 million who heard his acceptance speach
Thursday night, it would appear you may have a serious hearing defect.

Might want to have your hearing tested.

Lew

charlieb wrote:
> Yet, within minutes, the Fear and Misinformation (read: distortions
> and outright lies) Campaign began.

Who specifically is doing this campaign? Do you have quotes and origins from
reputable sources for these claims?

> Yes, he's a great orator.
> Hitler was also a great orator
> Therefore ?
>
snip more of the same

> The GOP (notice how "Republican" is being avoided?)
> doesn't seem to be able to discuss or debate real
> issues - so that leaves Attack Campaigns, which
> typically don't require verifiable facts or have much
> if anything to do with truth.

Which issues are these and who is avoiding the discussion? Which issue has
McCain or the GOP avoided? He's been pretty clear on Iraq, Georgia, Judges,
abortion, taxes etc. The recent church Q&A was pretty forthright and clear
as well.

Which attack campaign are we suffering from? How does one determine what is
a attack and what is information?

Do you mean something like McCains obvious, transparent and previously well
identified joke about the middle class being $5 million or so in annual
income, showing up in Obama's speech as a serious example of how out of
touch the old guy is?


>
> I truly hope that this will be the last desperate
> throws of The Good Old Boys era. But I ain't
> holdin' my breath.
>
> charlie b

No breath holding required, Obama was picked and groomed by "powers that be"
prior to his senator days. I first heard of his presidential possibilities
while he was still a green state senator and I do not follow Illinois
politics at all. He's pretty much proof positive that the "Good ol boys" are
and will be alive and well as far as we can see. Not to mention that Biden
is about as "Good ol boy" as they can get. Rod

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I don't know of a man alive who could do the job of a woman as a
>homemaker.

OK, now you're just being silly. I'm out of here.

"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office. It
> may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the country to
> nominate an unqualified candidate.
>
>

Stop it - he had a full 143 days in office in his previous position.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

mac davis wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:23:57 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:05:16 -0500, Leon wrote:
>>
>>> "Limp Arbor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:709126f9-29fb-4e41-9063-eb15a5c598af@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> It might be now that McCain picked Palin
>>>
>>> Probably a good choice to pick a H Clinton substitute.
>> But it's so obviously a ploy to get the disgruntled Hillary backers vote.
>> Just like Obama's choice was a ploy for working class votes.
>>
>> Politics as usual.
>
> Yup.... Just when was it that politics became a career choice, not something
> you did for maybe 8 years and them went back to your real job?
>
> This will be the first time in 40 years that I'm not voting...
> I'm tired of voting for the candidate that I fear the least, and not having
> someone that I WANT to have in the office..
>
> It's also the first year that I've ever kept my big mouth shut about
> who/why/when etc... Because as I've told my non-voting friends for years, "If
> you don't vote, you have no right to bitch"..
>
>
> mac
Whenever an absolute monarch becomes less than absolute, you get career
politicians.

mahalo,
jo4hn

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:29:09 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> You want a balanced budget? Privatize social security,
>> get rid of Medicare and return the Federal government to it's
>> Consitutionally mandated limits.
>
> last I heard, SS was still taking in more money than its paying out. If
> not, it'd be taken "off budget" as it has been in the past.

The reality is that the trajectory it is on is toward large amounts
of red ink, today's numbers nothwithstanding.

>
> As far as Medicare, it's the least effective health care plan of all the
> industrialized nations. But at least it's a start. When we have a health
> care system where nobody goes bankrupt from medical bills I'll be a lot
> happier.

Then you will never be happy. No law can change a simple economic
fact: There is more demand for healthcare than there is supply.
Federalizing it does not change this fact (but it does violate
the Constitution which just multiplies the injury to a free people).
You want to see healthcare professionals leave in droves - or never
enter the profession in the first place? Make it a government
run program. For a good example, see how many of our best and
brightest choose to be government union employees as teachers. Not
all that many.

>
>> But that won't happen because the
>> mooching public wants what it has not earned, does not deserve,
>> cannot pay for, and will not work for.
>
> I paid close to the maximum into SS throughout my working life. I DID
> earn it. I'll have to live past 90 to get back what I and my employers
> paid in. And for much of the time I was self-employed and paid both
> halves.

And for every person like you (and me) in this situation there are many
tens of thousands more who have the inverse situation: They will collect
more than they ever contributed. SS is a ponzi scheme that only worked
so long as people had lots of children. Those days are over and it's
the day of reckoning. Should you be treated fairly? Yes, of course.
But we *have* to get rid of this albatross that is gutting our Federal
coffers and return responsibility for retirement and healthcare where it
belongs: The individual. This should be done gradually and fairly, but
it needs to start now. Like I said, over 50% of the Federal budget is
entitlements. Entitlements that are bankrupting us at many times the
rate of military spending. Entitlements that are flatly non-Constitutional.
Entitlements that are just cheap election fodder for both parties.

>
> And I still pay close to $300 a month for Medicare and a supplement policy
> and I still don't have dental coverage or decent drug coverage.

From your postings here, I know you to be thoughtful and well read.
Please cite a single example in American legal history that would
ever lead you to believe any of this is the responsibility of the
Federal government?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Aug 30, 4:55=A0pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Richard Evans wrote:
> > Neither did George Bush. Just the opposite: He had a record of
> > failure. Yet you seem staisfied with his administration.
>
> Had a successful gig managing a baseball team, made $15 million and had t=
wo
> terms as a popular Texas Governor....I just wish we all could fail half t=
hat
> bad....Rod

He was 'successful' managing a baseball team in large
measure because he successfully lobbied to have a
ball park built for his team at public expense. Basicly
welfare for the wealthy.

Of course he's not the only one. Art Model made out even
better at the expense of Maryland taxpayers, as did the
owners of the new Cleveland Browns and the old Cleveland
Indians.

--

FF

Yet, within minutes, the Fear and Misinformation (read: distortions
and outright lies) Campaign began.

Yes, he's a great orator.
Hitler was also a great orator
Therefore ?

Britany Spears and Paris Hilton are celebrities
He's become a celebrity
Therefore?

He SAYS he's a Christian
But - he's REALLY a . . .

He's got a "secret BLACK agenda"
that was put together by . . .

He's Pro Abortion and for Gay Rights
for "god's" sake!

Only those who served in the Military
saw combat (even at 600 mph and from
half mile or more up) got shot down, and
spent years as a tortured POW can truly
call themselves a Patriot.

He wants to surrender The War On Terror
just when we're about to WIN!

He changes his mind to suit the political
winds (as opposed to changing his mind
based on new information and conditions,
or worse yet, refusing to acknowledge
ANY information that conflicts with something
you WANT to be true)

He's too young and inexperienced
(as opposed to too old and with a real
nasty temper)

Because he's been against drilling for oil
in Anwar and opposed NEW off shore oil
leasing (as opposed to drilling on the
leases that have been unused for decades)
he WANTS high gas prices.

:
:
:

The GOP (notice how "Republican" is being avoided?)
doesn't seem to be able to discuss or debate real
issues - so that leaves Attack Campaigns, which
typically don't require verifiable facts or have much
if anything to do with truth.

I truly hope that this will be the last desperate
throws of The Good Old Boys era. But I ain't
holdin' my breath.

charlie b

J. Clarke wrote:
>
> This whole thread is getting surreal.
>

And the last 7+ years wasn't already surreal?

Deer In The Headlights President . . .

Vice President, from some undisclosed location, is
quoted as saying . . .

We're on a Crusade . . .

Bring It On!

DEAD OR ALIVE

Axis of Evil

If you're not WITH US
Then
You're AGAINST US.

A Coalitition of One (and a half)

Pre-emptive War

Threat Level Orange.

Orange Cake

Homeland Security

Invasion = Liberation

Democratizing NOT Regime Change

Extreme Interogation Methods IS NOT Torture

Habeus Corpus?

Spying On Citizens IS NOT Spying On Citizens

A SURGE IS NOT AN ESCALATION?

"We're Winning! Don't Cut and Run now!" - Adolph Hitler circa mid
1945

Harriet Meyer will make a great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Can you say KATRINA boys and girls?

AND NOW

A 72 year old Presidential Candidate with
- a VP candidate young enough to be his daughter
- a VP with ALMOST a year and a half of "Executive Experience"
as the Governor of a State with a total population less than
a medium sized city in the Lower 48 (Alaska's entire state's
population is less than 700,000)
- a VP from a state that gets 85% of its tax revenue from - wait
for it - THE OIL COMPANIES and the real challenge to our nation
is an "energy crisis" (read "we need MORE OIL!" ????)
- a VP who pushed hard for A BRIDGE TO NOWHERE (and a VERY
expensive one at that) - to be paid for with Federal Tax Money.

News Flash:
The RNC Convention "may" have to be postponed - wait for it -
due to an impending HURRICANE! (can you say KATRINA boys & girls?)

Can it get any more surreal?

I'm afraid it can - and will.

charlie b

Oh lord - how assumptions can raise so much hell.

Assumption:

Employee A:
Male (probably "white", whatever THAT means)
Age at time of appointment to "supervisor" position: 30
Time in Position: 25 years
Weekly Salary (arbitrarily assumed at $1000 to make the
math easier)
Annual Performance Evalution: Good

Employee B:
Female (again, probably "white")
Age at time of appointment to "supervisor" position - in
the same company as Employee A and doing the same job
- on a different shift - which doesn't have "grave yard shift"
salary adjustments for working in the middle of the night.
Time in Position: 25 years
Weekly Salary ( LESS THAN Employee A - say 79% less, for
example)

Five years into the two Employee's careers, Employee B discovers
she's making $210 less a week than Employee A, yet is doing the
same job according to their job descriptions. She takes this
inequity up with her supervisor. Nothing is done. She takes the
matter up with "personell" - nothing is done.

Eight years into her career she begins legal proceedings - claim
gender discrimination. The case drags out for several years
before a jury awards her back pay and compensation for the
descrimination. The case is appealed and several years later
a higher court upholds the lower court ruling. The case is appealed
to the US Supreme Court and is finally heard - let's say five years
later.

The US Supreme Court rules that since she did not initiate legal
action within 6 months of the initiation of the descrimination,
BEFORE she discovered, or could reasonably been able to discover,
she WAS being descriminated against -the US Supreme Court
rules AGAINST her, throwing out the lower court rulings.

This was not a case of Employee A being On The Job - FULL TIME -
year after year - for 25 years vs Employee B who worked a year,
took five years off to have and get a good start on raising a child
then returning to work. Same jobs, same responsibilities, same
years with the same company.

Can you explain why a male dominated job - say a house painter,
should make a higher hourly wage than a female dominated job
like reference librarian - which requires a college degree, deals
with the public and has more responsibilities and requires more
knowledge and skills than a painter?

And when it comes to having to take time off to care for a sick
child, or having to leave early from work because the babysitter
didn't show up, or the friend who was picking up your child from
daycare had a car problem - that ain't a male vs female thing.
I was a single father and I had those things to deal with too.
I was blessed with a job that required brain work - that could be
done anywhere, at any time - and a boss who understood that.
As long as I got my assignments done - on time, complete and
accurate - my employer got their money's worth and I got to
be a good father, or try to be.

So please - don't give me the "cause they want to have babies"
excuse for taking advantage of someone because of their
biological capabilities.

And if you want a 24-7 job, with little if any monetary reward,
nor much recognition for doing a good job - try being "The Mom",
regardless of your gender. And if you can't understand why
anyone would volunteer for that job - well I'm guessing you
never will understand - and I've been wasting my time.

rant mode off

charlie b

"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:23:57 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:05:16 -0500, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Limp Arbor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:709126f9-29fb-4e41-9063-eb15a5c598af@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> It might be now that McCain picked Palin
>>>
>>> Probably a good choice to pick a H Clinton substitute.
>>
>>But it's so obviously a ploy to get the disgruntled Hillary backers vote.
>>Just like Obama's choice was a ploy for working class votes.
>>
>>Politics as usual.
>
> Yup.... Just when was it that politics became a career choice, not
> something
> you did for maybe 8 years and them went back to your real job?
>
> This will be the first time in 40 years that I'm not voting...
> I'm tired of voting for the candidate that I fear the least, and not
> having
> someone that I WANT to have in the office..
>
> It's also the first year that I've ever kept my big mouth shut about
> who/why/when etc... Because as I've told my non-voting friends for years,
> "If
> you don't vote, you have no right to bitch"..

That is not true. If you feel that there is nobody qualified for the job,
you don't want to be responsible for putting a politician into power who can
do harm just so you can have a vote. You are then still able to bitch about
the lame duck whom others put into power.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Just Wondering" wrote:
>
>> It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
>> office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice
>> to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.
>
> Just curious, what do you see as a lack of qualification(s) for the
> task of president of the USA.

I'm curious, too. Specific disqualification(s), please.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

krw wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...

>> I still think that instead of just a "write in" box, which is a
>> throw away vote, IMO, there should be a "none of the above".. If a
>> certain percentage vote NOTA, they have a specified time to find
>> new candidates and try again..
>
> What a great idea! Then we can keep the administration we have now
> until somebody other than NOTA wins! <vbg>

Hmm. I think "placeholder" salaries should be capped at a flat $12K with
no expense reimbursements and a strictly-enforced "no gifts" rule. :-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Strictly a non wood working post.

I agree 100% :-)

I'm reading a lot of discussion about "qualifications" of candidates,
and noticing that no one seems to want to name anything that their
favorite candidate is qualified to /do/. (Already, I've started
discounting negatives aimed at the 'other' candidate as "cheap shots"
and the sources as "cheap shootists").

One of the qualities I look for is "leadership" - and I very selfishly
ask whether the candidate is able (and likely) to lead the country in
the direction /I/ think it should go.

So I guess that ties into "vision" - whether the candidate shares my
notions of what is really worth doing, and whether the candidate is
capable of meaningfully considering the consequences of his actions
/before/ he acts, and how far ahead the candidate is capable of
projecting his/her plans.

I care about how much the candidate respects others as individuals,
groups, and nations - because I find that tells me worlds about how
fairness and justice will or will not be a part of that candidate's
administration.

I look for signs of good judgment - both in terms of personal decisions
and in terms of staff brought in to help produce high-quality decisions.

And (not at all) lastly, I care hugely about the basic integrity of the
candidates.

Just about anyone can reach down and find a handful of mud (right by
their very own feet!) and throw it. I'll note in passing that some
people seem to have more mud around 'em than others - and I'll share a
bit of old Iowa farm wisdom:

"He who throws mud loses ground."

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> Richard Evans wrote:
>> Neither did George Bush. Just the opposite: He had a record of
>> failure. Yet you seem staisfied with his administration.
>
> Had a successful gig managing a baseball team, made $15 million and had two
> terms as a popular Texas Governor....I just wish we all could fail half that
> bad....Rod

I think a bit more research would provide you with a few surprises.

/I/ would not like to fail so successfully. YMMV

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> Strictly a non wood working post.
>> I agree 100% :-)
>>
>> I'm reading a lot of discussion about "qualifications" of
>> candidates, and noticing that no one seems to want to name anything
>> that their favorite candidate is qualified to /do/. (Already, I've
>> started discounting negatives aimed at the 'other' candidate as
>> "cheap shots" and the sources as "cheap shootists").
>
> Trying to claim the moral high ground, eh?

I don't feel a need to claim any ground, but I'd like to maintain my
self-respect. Like most people, I have a list of things that are
important to me and strongly influence my decision-making process.

Others have different lists. I don't have any problem with that, and I
would hope that there is a fair amount of overlap (aka "shared values").

>> One of the qualities I look for is "leadership" - and I very
>> selfishly ask whether the candidate is able (and likely) to lead
>> the country in the direction /I/ think it should go.
>
> That's fine, you are establishing your care-abouts and what you think
> is important to you. The underlying question is what that direction
> means to the country as a whole. There are some citizens who feel
> that the direction the country should go is to have "the rich"
> (people who make more money than the citizens looking for this) pay
> for various "rights" and "entitlements" for the citizens seeking that
> direction. There are also citizens who view the government as the
> solution to all problems and seek greater government involvement in
> nearly all aspects of life -- that's certainly not the principles
> upon which the nation was founded and was a direction that the
> founders wisely eschewed and established curbs in the constitution to
> prevent. Unfortunately, over the intervening years, too many have
> found "loopholes" that have allowed increasing encroachment by the
> government into private lives and businesses.

General agreement (for me, at least) is easy. It's the details of where,
how, and when we draw the line that cause disagreement. Perhaps more
discussion of first principles would be healthy.

It's to that end that I keep these two pages on my web site:

http://www.iedu.com/mrd/07041776.html
http://www.iedu.com/mrd/Constitution.html

>> So I guess that ties into "vision" - whether the candidate shares
>> my notions of what is really worth doing, and whether the candidate
>> is capable of meaningfully considering the consequences of his
>> actions /before/ he acts, and how far ahead the candidate is
>> capable of projecting his/her plans.
>>
>> I care about how much the candidate respects others as individuals,
>> groups, and nations - because I find that tells me worlds about
>> how fairness and justice will or will not be a part of that
>> candidate's administration.
>>
>> I look for signs of good judgment - both in terms of personal
>> decisions and in terms of staff brought in to help produce
>> high-quality decisions.
>>
>> And (not at all) lastly, I care hugely about the basic integrity of
>> the candidates.
>
> OK, so, where does that leave the field of choices?

Are you asking me to choose for you - or are you asking me to present my
final choice for the coming election? I can't/won't choose for you, and
I haven't arrived at a final choice yet. I supported Obama's effort to
become a presidential candidate, but I'll cast my vote for whomever I
think best on election day - but I already know that I will not be
voting a "straight ticket" either way.

>> Just about anyone can reach down and find a handful of mud (right
>> by their very own feet!) and throw it. I'll note in passing that
>> some people seem to have more mud around 'em than others - and I'll
>> share a bit of old Iowa farm wisdom:
>>
>> "He who throws mud loses ground."
>
> i.e, "anybody who points out anything negative about my guy/gal is
> just slinging mud -- when I'm doing it, I'm evaluating the signs of
> good judgment and personal values" Got it.

It would appear that you don't - more like "anybody who attempts to
substitute 'attack' for 'presenting a better approach' - and especially
when the attack constitutes a "red herring", "projection", or "straw
man" - loses standing with me. An attack based on falsehood is a
disqualifier in my book.

If I had meant to say the words you tried to put into my mouth, I would
have said them myself.

"Projection", as listed above, is the act of ascribing words or intent
to another person who never said those words or held that intent, and
then attacking the person for saying or intending that.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Mark & Juanita wrote:

> Was not trying to box you into saying how you would vote, I was more
> interested in your assessment of basic integrity of the candidates. On the
> one side, you have a person who has spent a large portion of the past
> several years opposing his own president and siding with the opposition
> party, yet is now being excoriated by that same party as being "more of the
> same". His opposition to some fairly fundamental principles of his own
> party and reveling in the adoration of the media and opposition as
> a "maverick" are somewhat troubling. On the other side, you have a Chicago
> political machine politician who is trying to campaign as not being a
> Chicago political machine politician. He has shown a willingness to throw
> whomever he needs to under the bus: his grandmother, his former associates
> and supporters, and the pastor with whom he claimed to have a close
> personal relationship for the past 20 years. Doesn't say a lot for
> integrity.

I'm still trying to get this sorted out for myself. Advocates for both
sides seem to be attempting character assasination of rivals and
partisanship seems to trump truth much too often.

I don't look for perfection in any of the candidates, so am prepared to
notice and discount behavioral anomalies where that seems appropriate,
unless/until I come across something that strikes me as a show-stopper.

I think this "throwing under the bus" is an unfortunate metaphor.
Politics necessitates making alliances and working with others when
interests coincide - but those alliances rarely seem static/stable.

I'm interested by the 'throwing grandma under the bus comment' so will
do my own investigation on that.

Regarding your tax comment (which I hope you might agree is pretty
incomplete) - before I make a judgment, I'd like to know which tax(es),
on who/what, and how much. We've depleted some resources and squandered
much that we could ill-afford. We've neglected our schools and
scholarship and transportation system and probably our entire physical
infrastructure. I suspect that we wasted enough on a "shock and awe"
display alone to have provided every graduate of the class of 2002 with
a free ride to college. There's no question in my mind that we'll have
to pay the piper.

The money spent for one month of Operation Iraqi Freedom could have
installed solar heating panels sufficient to heat every single-family
residence in Iowa - for the next quarter century. That's the only
calculation I had enough info to work out. Perhaps someone with
appropriate knowledge could translate that money into new schools and
teacher salaries, or restoration and improved flood control for New
Orleans, or subsidies for wind and solar electrical generation, or...

> From my point of view, I'm looking at who will be doing the least damage:
> both to the economy and to the constitutional underpinnings of the country.
> From that standpoint, the Senator from Illinois is demonstrating that he
> will fail on both counts: his calls for raising taxes while demonstrating
> an ignorance of basic economics is going to raise havoc with the economy;
> his support for laws that usurp the second amendment, despite his present
> protestations to the contrary (he just calls them "common-sense" gun
> measures now) show a disregard for the constitutional freedoms in the bill
> of rights affirms for US citizens. The harassment by his campaign of
> member of the press, the ABC reporter in Denver and the reporter trying to
> obtain what should be public information on his associations with Bill
> Ayers are disturbing and call into question how he will deal with dissent
> during his administration should he get elected and his interpretation of
> first amendment rights.

There's a lot to be concerned about. My take is that the majority of the
things you've listed are under control of the Congress and that we need
a better job from them.

I'm interested in who will advocate most strongly to repair the damage
done in the past decade by a spineless, rubber stamp Congress that IMO
failed miserably in their 'checks and balances' role.

(going for a cup of coffee to avoid going into rant mode)

While pouring coffee I began re-thinking the possible benefits of
instituting term limits for congressmen...

> I apologize for the tone of my comment, that was out of line.

Thank you - accepted. I don't blame you for being edgy - there's the
usual foolish rush to polarization just when we most need to engage in
thoughtful discourse and in sorting the true from the half-true and
blatantly false.

I think we have some serious work to get done - and I don't think anger
will get us there.

[ deux centimes ]

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:

> One of the fundamental problems we have here is that one of the candidates
> is not being fully forthcoming with his previous record or experience while
> the other one has been in the public spotlight for years.

Point noted. My approach was to keep a (non-obsessive) eye on both of
them for the past four years. That hasn't provide all the information
there is to have, but enough to satisfy my interests. I would like to
know more - but I don't have the reservations you say you have.

>> Regarding your tax comment (which I hope you might agree is pretty
>> incomplete) - before I make a judgment, I'd like to know which tax(es),
>> on who/what, and how much. We've depleted some resources and squandered
>> much that we could ill-afford. We've neglected our schools and
>> scholarship and transportation system and probably our entire physical
>> infrastructure. I suspect that we wasted enough on a "shock and awe"
>> display alone to have provided every graduate of the class of 2002 with
>> a free ride to college. There's no question in my mind that we'll have
>> to pay the piper.
>
> Here is where I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion. Our
> schools and scholarship system are in no way a responsibility of the
> federal government. There are significant portions of the federal budget
> being spent on things that it has no constitutional authority to spend
> money on (the "general welfare" statement in the pre-amble is NOT a get out
> of jail free card for the federal government to do as it pleases), those
> monies should be spent on the things for which the federal government does
> have the mandate: general defense and possibly the interstate road system.

We might have a difference of opinion, and I'm not sure that's a Bad
Thing. From my viewpoint, the federal government has sucked substantial
wealth from our society (with too large a share coming from those parts
of the population least able to afford it) and spent it unproductively,
but to the primary benefit of a select segment of the population whose
share of the burden was simultaneously reduced.

I feel obliged to point out that as wealth is sucked out of the
middle-income groups, that group became less and less able to provide
local funding - even as the federal government mandated increased local
spending for selected educational programs. I was paying attention when
school bond issues and education-supporting tax increases were turned
down by folks who felt they couldn't afford any increase to the load
they were already carrying. Perhaps it's different where you are, but
there's been a steady decrease in SAT scores here - and I think there's
a connection. What I've described is just what's been happening in Iowa,
and only some of the education impact. It may be different where you
are, and that difference may be the root of our difference in opinion.

> I want someone in Congress and the Executive that understands the limits
> on the federal government and will work to put the fed back within its
> bounds. I don't want someone telling me how much more they are going to
> do "for" me, or how they are going to punish the "evil rich" with higher
> taxes and re-distribute that money -- that's not what the government should
> be doing.

Now we're back in agreement. I sure hope you're getting involved in
politics at the local level so you have a voice in who runs for what,
because that involvement is what it's going to take...
>
>> The money spent for one month of Operation Iraqi Freedom could have
>> installed solar heating panels sufficient to heat every single-family
>> residence in Iowa - for the next quarter century.
>
> While that is all well and good, that's not the job of the federal
> government. If those solar panels are cost competitive with existing
> energy sources, that is a function of the free market system; if they are
> not, that is government subsidy.

You are exactly right, as far as you've taken it. Now let's back up a
step and see what might happen if the federal government did _not_ take
that money out of the citizen's pockets and consider how they might
choose to put it to work.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" wrote:

>> While pouring coffee I began re-thinking the possible benefits of
>> instituting term limits for congressmen...
>
> We have that in California, you don't want to go there.

I'm not sure. I might. :-)

> Let's face it, taxes are a reality of our lives.

Agreed, but how much and how that revenue is spent is a matter of choice
- and the question we might want to consider is _whose_ choice.

> Doesn't make any difference whether it is the Republicans or the
> Democrats, they BOTH waste money.

Again, let's consider how much waste can we live with. At the moment it
seems that $10B/month might be excessive...

Have you heard how much is spent on "earmarks"? Do you understand how
earmarks are used? In a nutshell, a congressman slips an earmark into a
bill which results in a government purchase from some vendor, who makes
a delivery (frequently of unusable goods) to the government - and then
makes a campaign contribution (totally unrelated, of course) to the
congressman responsible for the earmark. Guess who /really/ made that
campaign contribution...

> The only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is
> where they waste the money.

And knowing that makes the waste acceptable? Not to me.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Lew Hodgett wrote:

> The Republicans never saw a social program they thought was worth a
> hoot.
>
> 75 years later, they are still trying to get rid of Social Security,
> for example.
>
> The Democrats pretty much feel the same way about tax breaks for big
> business.
>
> They are not big on Trickle Down Economics.
>
> As usual, someplace in the middle would probably solve a lot of
> problems.

Agreed. Now "all we hafta do is" agree on where that middle ground is
and shift our policies there.

(As I wrote that I couldn't help recalling the saying about how politics
is like sausage-making.)

>> Have you heard how much is spent on "earmarks"?
>
> It's called "Job Security", "Bringing home the bacon to your
> district", etc.

I understand that, and I might not object as strongly if the pig didn't
lose so much weight making the trip to DC and back...

...and if I want to make a campaign contribution, I know how to write a
check and/or make an online payment. When I do that, by the way, I have
a choice in /whose/ campaign is being funded. Please note that the slime
balls who "play the earmark game" are precisely those I would _not_
choose to support.

>> And knowing that makes the waste acceptable? Not to me.
>
> "Waste" was a poor choice of words.
> "Priorities" is a closer approximation.

Let's agree to disagree - when $1M of tax money is spent on something
that ends up being stored in a warehouse because it's unusable so that
some congressperson can receive a $250K campaign contribution, you can
call it "priorities" - but I'm inclined to call it "waste", and /that/
only when I'm in a really good mood...

(Gotta stop here, I'm on the verge of ranting again.)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
> arising under this Constitution,..."
>
> But
>

Would you care re-ink your quill and try again? :-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Lew Hodgett wrote:

> Agreed, most ear marks could stand a little more time in the light of
> day.

That sentiment is echoed in today's Des Moines Register on page 6A,
where the normally slightly-right-of-center newspaper had a list of
not-quite-factual Palin statements including:

8< ----------
Palin: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ...
and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress."

The Facts: As mayer of Wasilla [population 6375], Palin hired a lobbyist
and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town
totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested
nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest
per-capita request in the nation.
---------- >8

Sunshine is good!

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> But the ultimate argument is that the Constitution says
> that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is or is not
> constitutional.

Uh, the Constitution says no such thing. The organization of the federal
government under the Constitution implies that result, but the
Constitution does not expressly give the Supreme Court that power.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:35:06 -0600, Just Wondering
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office.
> It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the
>country to nominate an unqualified candidate.


You mean like the last guy...???

Mike O.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Sj1uk.47$sq3.39@trnddc07...
> "Richard Evans" wrote:
>
>
>> For a narrow definition of "same".
>
> Narrow definition?
>
>> When qualification includes time on the job, it certainly is relevant.
>
> About the only thing time on the job provides is proof of the ability to
> survive the company politics.

You are showing your colors Lew. You suffered something over your lifetime
that is now "the result of company politics" - right?

>
> The basic question about the employee with say 25 years of service
> becomes:
>
> Do we have an employee with 1 years experience 25 times or do we have an
> employee with 25 years experience?

Your ability to present and argue a credible position fail you Lew. The
above is nothing short of absurd.

>
>> Two identically qualified people, one male and one female. They both
>> enter the workforce at the same time. Twenty years later, the man has
>> been constantly on the job and available for raises and promotions.
>> The woman takes off five years to raise a family and misses those same
>> opportunities. When she rejoins the workforce, she has five years less
>> experience than the man and is no longer equally qualified.
>
> I don't know of a man alive who could do the job of a woman as a
> homemaker.

There you go - off into the land of absurdity again. The skills of a
homemaker are not relevant to the point.

>
> The experience far exceeds the management training given to entry level
> employees by leaps and bounds, IMHO.

Bullshit. You've clearly never been any closer to a real management
position than to be on the outside looking in.

>
> Her learned negotiating skills alone are worth the wait.

Pure bullshit. You've obviously never spent any time in the work place
beyond the level of the disgruntled worker Lew. That's a shame. There is a
lot that you are missing.

>
>> Carrying your argument to it's absurd conclusion, the two enter the
>> workforce together, the woman works one year and takes nineteen off,
>> then rejoins the workforce at the same rate as the men who've been
>> there all along?
>
> If it take 20 years to learn the assigned task, then I've made a mistake
> assigning the task to that person.
>

Double Geezus Lew - you can't read, comprehend, and you simply want to be
argumentative, no matter how foolish you make yourself look.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:

>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Just Wondering" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
>>> office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice
>>> to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.
>>
>> Just curious, what do you see as a lack of qualification(s) for the
>> task of president of the USA.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the largest enterprise
>on the face of the earth. Somewhere in a candidate's background there
>should be at least a modicum of training and experience that would give
>some indication the candidate has the ability to make sound executive
>decisions. Obama has none.

Neither did George Bush. Just the opposite: He had a record of
failure. Yet you seem staisfied with his administration.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:17:23 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Top Total Income Tax Revenue (%) Adjusted Gross Income Share (%)
>> 50% 97.01 87.49
>> 25% 86.27 68.16
>> 10% 70.79 47.32
>> 5% 60.14 36.66
>> 1% 39.89 22.06
>>
>> So, from the IRS data: the bottom 50% are making 12.5% of adjusted
>> gross
>> income and paying less than 3% of all income taxes while the top 1% are
>> making 22% of adjusted gross income while paying nearly 40% of all
>> federal income taxes.
>
> I may be wrong on the numbers, but I seem to recall a recent article that
> said about 10-15% of the population is living in poverty. So they would
> make up 20-30% of the bottom 50%. I doubt they, or even the group
> directly above them, pay any income taxes, given that there is a standard
> deduction. That helps to explain some of the discrepancies. And if you
> add in other taxes, like sales taxes, that helps even more.
>
> At least Warren Buffet had the decency to complain that his secretary paid
> more income taxes than he did :-).

I think the statement was that she paid a higher rate than he did. This is
based upon his paying at the capital gains rate on a significant portion of
his income rather than the personal income rate. I would seriously doubt
she paid more in total dollars than he. His argument is somewhat specious
as, for the bulk of those who benefit from capital gains rates, this is a
recognition of the risk at which their money is placed when investing.
There is no assurance that one will make money, there is a chance one could
lose the full investment (K-mart, Enron) or a significant portion of it
(Krispy Kreme, Circuit City). The idea of the capital gains rate is to
provide some incentive to invest.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Aug 29, 12:08=A0pm, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:23:57 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]>=
wrote:
> >On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:05:16 -0500, Leon wrote:
>
> >> "Limp Arbor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:709126f9-29fb-4e41-9063-eb15a5c598af@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com.=
..
>
> >> It might be now that McCain picked Palin
>
> >> Probably a good choice to pick a H Clinton substitute.
>
> >But it's so obviously a ploy to get the disgruntled Hillary backers vote=
.
> >Just like Obama's choice was a ploy for working class votes.
>
> >Politics as usual.
>
> Yup.... =A0Just when was it that politics became a career choice, not som=
ething
> you did for maybe 8 years and them went back to your real job?
>
> This will be the first time in 40 years that I'm not voting...
> I'm tired of voting for the candidate that I fear the least, and not havi=
ng
> someone that I WANT to have in the office..
>
> It's also the first year that I've ever kept my big mouth shut about
> who/why/when etc... Because as I've told my non-voting friends for years,=
"If
> you don't vote, you have no right to bitch"..
>
> mac
>
> Please remove splinters before emailing

Last Govenator race here in NJ I did a write-in. You should still
vote even if it is not for one of the 'two' choices.

On Aug 29, 10:55=A0am, charlieb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yet, within minutes, the Fear and Misinformation (read: distortions
> and outright lies) Campaign began.
>
> Yes, he's a great orator.
> Hitler was also a great orator
> Therefore ?
>
> Britany Spears and Paris Hilton are celebrities
> He's become a celebrity
> Therefore?
>
> He SAYS he's a Christian
> But - he's REALLY a . . .
>
> He's got a "secret BLACK agenda"
> that was put together by . . .
>
> He's Pro Abortion and for Gay Rights
> for "god's" sake!
>
> Only those who served in the Military
> saw combat (even at 600 mph and from
> half mile or more up) got shot down, and
> spent years as a tortured POW can truly
> call themselves a Patriot.
>
> He wants to surrender The War On Terror
> just when we're about to WIN!
>
> He changes his mind to suit the political
> winds (as opposed to changing his mind
> based on new information and conditions,
> or worse yet, refusing to acknowledge
> ANY information that conflicts with something
> you WANT to be true)
>
> He's too young and inexperienced
> (as opposed to too old and with a real
> nasty temper)
>
> Because he's been against drilling for oil
> in Anwar and opposed NEW off shore oil
> leasing (as opposed to drilling on the
> leases that have been unused for decades)
> he WANTS high gas prices.
>
> :
> :
> :
>
> The GOP (notice how "Republican" is being avoided?)
> doesn't seem to be able to discuss or debate real
> issues - so that leaves Attack Campaigns, which
> typically don't require verifiable facts or have much
> if anything to do with truth.
>
> I truly hope that this will be the last desperate
> throws of The Good Old Boys era. =A0But I ain't
> holdin' my breath.
>
> charlie b

It might be now that McCain picked Palin

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Strictly a non wood working post.
>
> The USA achieved a milestone tonight.
>
> A mixed race black man was nominated by a major
> political party to lead it in the fall election race and the
> posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the
> president of the USA.
>
> I'm old enough to remember Little Rock, Montgomery, the loss of JFK,
> MLK and RFK, all within the same decade, along with LBJ's signing of
> the equal rights act.
>
> There is still a long way to go, but as a country, we have come a long
> way in less than 55 years.
>
> May we continue the journey.
>
> Lew
>
>
It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office.
It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the
country to nominate an unqualified candidate.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:59:06 -0500, "Curran Copeland"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Go vote for a third party candiate, You put in a protest vote, You have the
>right to bitch, You don't help either of the party candiates, You have your
>say. What could be better this year?
>
My current stance is something like "You folks can elect anyone ya want, just
don't invade Mexico"....



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

"Mike O." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:24:01 -0400, Richard Evans
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>When qualification includes time on the job, it certainly is relevant.
>>Two identically qualified people, one male and one female. They both
>>enter the workforce at the same time. Twenty years later, the man has
>>been constantly on the job and available for raises and promotions.
>>The woman takes off five years to raise a family and misses those same
>>opportunities. When she rejoins the workforce, she has five years less
>>experience than the man and is no longer equally qualified.
>>
>>When you average all such employees, women's wages *average* less than
>>men's. When you control for time on the job, the effect disappears.
>
> The numbers don't really bear that out.
> http://stats.bls.gov
>
> While there is no control for "time on the job" there is a "never
> married" category, a "no children under 18" category and several
> age group categories including for ages 16 to 24. All of these
> categories seem to reduce the need to adjust for seniority or for time
> off due to child bearing. All of these categories still show women
> earning 11% to 20% less. While not as high as other categories (some
> over 25%) the difference does not disappear.
>

How do those categories "seem to reduce the need to adjust form seniority
for for time off due to child bearing"? Those categories in no way do that.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

In article <[email protected]>, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Strictly a non wood working post.
>>
>> The USA achieved a milestone tonight.
>>
>> A mixed race black man was nominated by a major
>> political party to lead it in the fall election race and the
>> posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the
>> president of the USA.
>
>The real milestone will be when nobody points out that he's mixed race.

Or cares. Or even notices.

Just Wondering wrote:
> The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the largest enterprise
> on the face of the earth. Somewhere in a candidate's background there
> should be at least a modicum of training and experience that would
> give some indication the candidate has the ability to make sound
> executive decisions. Obama has none.


While his top executive experience is light this electoral process and his
specific record tell us reams about the man and his judgment.

We know that Rev. Wright was a esteemed mentor and inspiration for 20 years
but was willingly discarded when politically expedient

We know that he was willing to cut, run and accept defeat in Iraq when the
surge or 30,000 troops could and did turn the tide and place the country and
our efforts well on the way to success.

We know that his cut and run policy would have as well given the Iraq al
Qaeda a major victory instead of the sound defeat they received.

We know from the get go that he was in favor of leaving Saddam in power,
free to continue his murder , plunder and disregard for 17 UN sanctions. To
also continue the corrupt oil for food UN program and to watch over a ever
strained Iraq embargo/containment effort.

We know that he does not respect Pakistani sovereignty and has openly
suggested violating their borders thereby possibly encouraging a inspired
enemy pool exceeding 100 million people.

We know he's in favor of significant U.S. Afghanistan military escalation in
spite of the stark historical minefield Afghanistan has held for world
powers.

We know that he readily confused the propriety of countries simply talking
to each other with the power and prestige of state visits

We know he has had no significant legislative achievements in either Senator
position.

We know he had a long hard fought primary race and that he barely squeaked
out a victory.

We know he's claimed great skill or the ability at working across party
lines with no evidence or proof of such efforts ever via his previous
legislative and/or voting record.

We know he has a very ambitious spending and/or Gov. program desires but
only feels a very small percentage of the population should or would pay for
them.

We know (thankfully) that he has a ever evolving energy policy but $150
billion over 10 years on a vague green energy plan is more posture than
possible benefit. Albeit good publicly funded jobs till the money runs out.

We know he claimed public campaign financing as right, proper and desired
but decided it was only right and proper for everyone else when it served
his purpose.

We know he wants to spend more on education just like every other democrat
in recent memory (teachers vote)... if a lot of money doesn't work more will
definitely make a difference.

We know he is known as a great orator but yet has given few if any memorable
or significant lines.

We know he had a close personal, public and financial relationship with a
now convicted corrupt felon but got a nifty house out of the relationship.

We know that once his political career began to take hold his wife was
suddenly worth nearly $300,000 a yr. in a community PR position at the
Chicago University hospital.......health care dollars seriously at work.

We know he believes charity begins and ends at home as he has a half brother
living on a dollar a month in a shack in Kenya. Apparently he will share
neither his time or good fortune with less fortunate distant family members.

We know a lot, I'd even suggest we know enough......Rod

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> It wasn't that long ago that an average CEO made about 50 times what the
> average worker did. Now it's about 500 times. If that doesn't bother
> you, I don't know what would.

Bothers me, but the President did not assign the pay scale. He won't solve
it either.




>
> I'll vote for the candidate who thinks what a woman does with her own body
> is her business.
>
> I'll vote for the candidate who wants to stop the ridiculous growth in US
> population.

Sounds kind of contradictory to me. If a woman wants to make babies (or
not) you think that is OK, but you want to stop the population growth. Are
you suggesting we adopt the policies of China in that regard?

The government should get out of the baby business all together.

dpb wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, B A R R Y
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>> Strictly a non wood working post.
>>>>
>>>> The USA achieved a milestone tonight.
>>>>
>>>> A mixed race black man was nominated by a major
>>>> political party to lead it in the fall election race and the
>>>> posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the
>>>> president of the USA.
>>> The real milestone will be when nobody points out that he's mixed race.
>>
>> Or cares. Or even notices.
>
> Including the candidate himself...
>
> --

True!

Morris Dovey wrote:

> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>> Neither did George Bush. Just the opposite: He had a record of
>>> failure. Yet you seem staisfied with his administration.
>>
>> Had a successful gig managing a baseball team, made $15 million and had
>> two terms as a popular Texas Governor....I just wish we all could fail
>> half that bad....Rod
>
> I think a bit more research would provide you with a few surprises.
>
> /I/ would not like to fail so successfully. YMMV
>

So you are saying he did not have a successful gig managing a baseball
team and did not serve successfully as a Texas governor? That's funny, I
was there during his terms as governor, he did a pretty good job even if he
did compromise a bit too much with the other party -- which they apparently
don't appreciate given the degree of opprobrium slung his way despite those
gestures.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Didn't the Mandela's kill the bin laden's
Seriously though Bin Lawden's already in a "on topic" Pine box
There are some scattered followers that want America off there land and out
of there oil.
Just enough to keep you afraid.
I'm also sure if mcsame gets in we'll keep killing there sons and daughter's
bros and sisters ect. just so we can drive to the market to buy some
processed food.
creating more "buzz word" Al Qaeda.
Such a waste of time and money


Very funny Scotty now beam down my cloths


"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Fred the Red Shirt
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I also doubt that incursions into Waziristan are going to find
>>bin Laden. He is more likely in a major city where his couriers
>>have ready access to global communications.
>
> I predicted seven years ago that we will never truly know the
> disposition of Bin Laden. Trust me, I am no conspiracy theorist, but
> it's in a lot of people's interest to keep him "alive."
>
> A war mongering leader (not just ours) needs to keep him "alive" to
> justify the mongering.
>
> A bloated bureaucracy created specifically to counter his effects
> needs to keep him "alive" to justify its existence.
>
> The intelligence community might need to keep him "alive" to prevent
> creating a vacuum of leadership (or worse, a martyr) encouraging
> potentially worse replacements eager to continue the jihad.
>
> Al Qaeda needs to keep him "alive" to further its activities.
>
> Some Middle Eastern regimes might have an interest in keeping him
> "alive" to divert attention from their own, similar, nefarious
> activities.
>
> No, I'd say calculate a maximum of 100 years after Bin Laden's birth,
> and that's about the soonest anyone will confidently assert he's gone.
> I don't believe there will ever be a corpus delecti to demostrate it
> sooner. Few of us will be left alive to be able to breathe easy at the
> assurance of his passing.
>
>
>
> --
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
> http://www.normstools.com
>
> Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
>
> email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
> If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
> care to correspond with you anyway.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:52:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>> It wasn't that long ago that an average CEO made about 50 times what the
>>> average worker did. Now it's about 500 times. If that doesn't bother
>>> you, I don't know what would.
>>
>> Whether that bothers me or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that
>> someone would think that a private-industry issue should be solved by the
>> government.
>>
>
> So the government has no obligation to protect the powerless from the
> powerful?
>

How is this germane to how a company in private industry chooses to
compensate its employees? At some point major shareholders are going to
rise up and stop this nonsense, particularly if they see that the
compensation does not equate to superior performance.


>>
>>> I'll vote for the candidate who thinks what a woman does with her own
>>> body is her business.
>>>
>>
>> I haven't heard anybody opposing or advocating legislation to ban
>> piercings or tattoos. Have you?
>>
>
> Funny, but avoids the issue.
>

Oh no, this is absolutely the issue. Up to the time of conception, a
woman is perfectly free to do with her body as she chooses. After
conception, there is another living being, the utmost definition of
innocence and vulnerability that must be considered. That some elements of
our society have deemed that being to not be a life, despite all of the
scientific evidence (sonograms and other devices) that show the development
of that life does not make it any less a life when it is violently ripped
from the womb and discarded like just so much spoiled meat. This is
especially true in the case of one of the candidates who not once, but
three times opposed laws to protect the lives of those infants born alive
during botched abortions. Do you realize what that implies? This was a
stand taken for infanticide, there is no other definition for it. The
excuse offered was quite lame and antithetical to every other liberal
position that always defends government encroachment with the meme of "if
just one life is saved, it's worth the invasiveness".


>>> I'll vote for the candidate who wants to stop the ridiculous growth in
>>> US population.
>>>
>> Huh? What do you define as ridiculous? We actually have the opposite
>> problem, due to the success of the "population bomb" propaganda of the
>> 60's, along with the accompanying rampant narcissism, the population
>> growth
>> actually slowed. We now are facing a situation in which the older
>> population (the boomers) are going to outnumber the younger generation.
>> That's going to raise all kinds of havoc with FDR's Social Security Ponzi
>> scheme.
>>
>
> You must not have read/heard the news lately. The population is projected
> to increase from 300 million to 400 million in about 30 years, mostly
> driven by immigration and the immigrants large families. Sounds like a
> lot of "younger generation" to me.
>

If your issue here is the illegal immigration issue and the problems
regarding the failure to assimilate even legal immigrants into our society,
then we agree on something.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Richard Evans wrote:
> Neither did George Bush. Just the opposite: He had a record of
> failure. Yet you seem staisfied with his administration.

Had a successful gig managing a baseball team, made $15 million and had two
terms as a popular Texas Governor....I just wish we all could fail half that
bad....Rod

Morris Dovey wrote:

... snip
>
> I'm still trying to get this sorted out for myself. Advocates for both
> sides seem to be attempting character assasination of rivals and
> partisanship seems to trump truth much too often.
>
> I don't look for perfection in any of the candidates, so am prepared to
> notice and discount behavioral anomalies where that seems appropriate,
> unless/until I come across something that strikes me as a show-stopper.
>

One of the fundamental problems we have here is that one of the candidates
is not being fully forthcoming with his previous record or experience while
the other one has been in the public spotlight for years.


... snip

>
> Regarding your tax comment (which I hope you might agree is pretty
> incomplete) - before I make a judgment, I'd like to know which tax(es),
> on who/what, and how much. We've depleted some resources and squandered
> much that we could ill-afford. We've neglected our schools and
> scholarship and transportation system and probably our entire physical
> infrastructure. I suspect that we wasted enough on a "shock and awe"
> display alone to have provided every graduate of the class of 2002 with
> a free ride to college. There's no question in my mind that we'll have
> to pay the piper.
>

Here is where I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion. Our
schools and scholarship system are in no way a responsibility of the
federal government. There are significant portions of the federal budget
being spent on things that it has no constitutional authority to spend
money on (the "general welfare" statement in the pre-amble is NOT a get out
of jail free card for the federal government to do as it pleases), those
monies should be spent on the things for which the federal government does
have the mandate: general defense and possibly the interstate road system.

I want someone in Congress and the Executive that understands the limits
on the federal government and will work to put the fed back within its
bounds. I don't want someone telling me how much more they are going to
do "for" me, or how they are going to punish the "evil rich" with higher
taxes and re-distribute that money -- that's not what the government should
be doing.

> The money spent for one month of Operation Iraqi Freedom could have
> installed solar heating panels sufficient to heat every single-family
> residence in Iowa - for the next quarter century.

While that is all well and good, that's not the job of the federal
government. If those solar panels are cost competitive with existing
energy sources, that is a function of the free market system; if they are
not, that is government subsidy.

... snip


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Morris Dovey" wrote:


> I'm interested in who will advocate most strongly to repair the
> damage done in the past decade by a spineless, rubber stamp Congress
> that IMO failed miserably in their 'checks and balances' role.

60 years ago, Harry Truman, in his acceptance speech at the 1948
Democratic convention, referred to Congress as "That do nothing 80th
Congress", and called them back into session in July/August.

Unheard of at the time.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

> While pouring coffee I began re-thinking the possible benefits of
> instituting term limits for congressmen...

We have that in California, you don't want to go there.

Let's face it, taxes are a reality of our lives.

Doesn't make any difference whether it is the Republicans or the
Democrats, they BOTH waste money.

The only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is where
they waste the money.


Lew

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:05:16 -0500, Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> "Limp Arbor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:709126f9-29fb-4e41-9063-eb15a5c598af@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> It might be now that McCain picked Palin
>>
>> Probably a good choice to pick a H Clinton substitute.
>
> But it's so obviously a ploy to get the disgruntled Hillary backers vote.
> Just like Obama's choice was a ploy for working class votes.
>
> Politics as usual.
>

Many years ago it became all about the candidate getting elected, never mind
what he promised or suggested what he might do for the nation after he gets
in.

"charlieb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Can you explain why a male dominated job - say a house painter,
> should make a higher hourly wage than a female dominated job
> like reference librarian - which requires a college degree, deals
> with the public and has more responsibilities and requires more
> knowledge and skills than a painter?

Same reason a guy puting lug nuts on Chevys on the line makes more. Supply
and demand. I don't know that the librarian has more skills, but they are
different skills. Does knowing where to find a book under the Dewey Decimal
system carry the same hazzard as painting window off a ladder on the third
floor? Which of the two professions has the higher accident and injury
rate?

Maybe the librarian should go start painting houses to make more money if
she is unhappy. One good freedom in America is that we get to choose the
line of work we want to go into. Some choose to go a certain way for the
money, others for the job satisfaction. If you are unhappy with the
potential earnings of your chosen career, change it.

One of my college educated neighbors left her teaching job and now paints
and wallpapers because the money is better. She's been at it for 10 years
now so it must be OK.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:29:23 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> There are some citizens who feel that the
>> direction the country should go is to have "the rich" (people who make
>> more money than the citizens looking for this) pay for various "rights"
>> and "entitlements" for the citizens seeking that direction.
>
> It wasn't that long ago that an average CEO made about 50 times what the
> average worker did. Now it's about 500 times. If that doesn't bother
> you, I don't know what would.

Whether that bothers me or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that
someone would think that a private-industry issue should be solved by the
government.

>
> I'll vote for the candidate who wants to get us out of this stupid
> unjustified war in Iraq.
>
Opinions regarding the rationale aside (I'm sure the administration and
Congress deliberately decided and voted to wage a stupid and unjustified
war), don't you have the slightest concern that simple "cut and run" might
just damage the view of our country and embolden other tyrannical regimes?
Wouldn't winning and then getting out make more sense?


> I'll vote for the candidate who thinks what a woman does with her own body
> is her business.
>

I haven't heard anybody opposing or advocating legislation to ban
piercings or tattoos. Have you?



> I'll vote for the candidate who wants to stop the ridiculous growth in US
> population.
>
Huh? What do you define as ridiculous? We actually have the opposite
problem, due to the success of the "population bomb" propaganda of the
60's, along with the accompanying rampant narcissism, the population growth
actually slowed. We now are facing a situation in which the older
population (the boomers) are going to outnumber the younger generation.
That's going to raise all kinds of havoc with FDR's Social Security Ponzi
scheme.


> I'll vote for the candidate who says earmarks should have to be in
> separate bills of their own so that they can be voted up or down on their
> own merits.
>

I think you slipped up on that one, that's a conservative issue.

> And on, and on, and ....
>
> Since there is no such candidate, I'll vote for the one who at least
> supports the first two.

OK, so we've got one vote for more government intervention in the free
market and defeat in Iraq.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Phil Again" wrote:


> As the old guard warriors in this verbal war pass into retirement
> and
> their grandchildren grow into adulthood and become voting age, the
> voice
> calling for a truce can be heard; well, it could be heard if a few
> would
> just stop shouting slogans. Just ask yourself how YOU perceive the
> strongest supporters of Hillery, don't you equate them with the
> front
> line cultural soldiers from the days of the ERA amendment to the
> Constitution? Be honest now. Those ERA fighters could be called now
> Liberal Ladies of Maturity and Experience in political causes. (You
> may
> choose your own non-Politically Correct phrase in the privacy of
> your own
> home.)
>
> But I digress, IMHO, there can be no winner in the cultural war.
> We
> keep battling the same issues over and over with no retreat. The
> battle
> appears to become a war of 'Code Words' and everyone is just
> preaching to
> the choir of their choice.
>
> So, a sport stadium filled with people to hear an authentic partisan
> political speech by the first person of ethnic background other than
> full
> Northern European ancestry, as Lew pointed out, which is an
> historical
> moment. An event that people can tell, and re-tell, I WAS THERE.
> Not
> necessarily for the speech's content, but the context of giving the
> speech.
>
> My only hope for the future: come November, we can get over 75% of
> the
> registered adults of the USA to actually VOTE. And then, God
> Willing, let
> the Adults of this country agree to live with the results of the
> election. That ain't going to happen, but I can still hope can't I?

There is no question that women in the work place are being
discriminated against.

As I told my daughter when she was about 15-16.

"If your grades are twice as good as your brothers, you will probably
get a job that pays 1/2 of what your brothers will be paid for the
same work, but that is the way things are right now."

"Maybe you will be able to change things."

Things have changed, but there is a long way still to go, IMHO.

As far as politics being a blood sport is concerned, the results have
been very non productive the last 25 years.

Hopefully, it will not continue after the upcoming election.

This election will drag the old body politic screaming and kicking
into the 21st century.

Take your choice, either a mixed race president or a female vice
president.

Either way, it will be a first.


Lew

charlieb wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> This whole thread is getting surreal.
... snip of all the tired lib/dem talking points that have been debunked
many times before, and now it looks like some new ones coming up. (e.g.
from what party was the governor of LA during Katrina? With which party was
the mayor of NO affiliated when he chose *not* to use all those school
buses to evacuate?)

>
> AND NOW
>
> A 72 year old Presidential Candidate with
> - a VP candidate young enough to be his daughter
> - a VP with ALMOST a year and a half of "Executive Experience"
> as the Governor of a State with a total population less than
> a medium sized city in the Lower 48 (Alaska's entire state's
> population is less than 700,000)

You really don't want to go there on this one -- AK is only 100k less in
population than the state from which the Democrat's plagiarist VP candidate
comes. Yeah, he's had more experience -- and pretty much been wrong on
everything he's ever stated as the outcome of actions he opposed.


> - a VP from a state that gets 85% of its tax revenue from - wait
> for it - THE OIL COMPANIES and the real challenge to our nation
> is an "energy crisis" (read "we need MORE OIL!" ????)

Gee, a person from a state that actually provides energy -- that would be
a real shame, wouldn't it? Having someone who just might have some
knowledge about that business would be a real drawback. Unlike, for
example, those who now control congress, who in 2006 promised they "had a
plan" to lower gas prices" back when gas was $2.35 a gallon. After two
years of the opportunity to implement "their plan", what do we have now?


> - a VP who pushed hard for A BRIDGE TO NOWHERE (and a VERY
> expensive one at that) - to be paid for with Federal Tax Money.
>

Umm, from what I've heard, she actually pushed to reject it and turned
down that bridge to nowhere. That was actually highlighted in her
acceptance speech.


> News Flash:
> The RNC Convention "may" have to be postponed - wait for it -
> due to an impending HURRICANE! (can you say KATRINA boys & girls?)
>
> Can it get any more surreal?
>
> I'm afraid it can - and will.
>
> charlie b

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Now that is just amazing. Two posts from two different people that
> rambled on in rhetorical nothingness, and which I'm sure each felt equally
> fulfilled in as they hit SEND. Neither one said a damned thing.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>

What? Both McCain and Obama posted here?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Leon"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Many years ago it became all about the candidate getting elected,
> >>never mind what he promised or suggested what he might do for the
> >>nation after he gets in.
> >
> > Or might do *to* the nation...
> >
>
> Yeah... the Bush legacy could suffer irreparable damage. Imagine the chaos
> that might ensue if The Department of Homeland Security had to operate
> under the crushing restrictions of the U.S. Constitution. The horror!

In case you hadn't noticed, Bush isn't running.

--
Keith

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >> > In article <[email protected]>, "Leon"
> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Many years ago it became all about the candidate getting elected,
> >> >>never mind what he promised or suggested what he might do for the
> >> >>nation after he gets in.
> >> >
> >> > Or might do *to* the nation...
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yeah... the Bush legacy could suffer irreparable damage. Imagine the
> >> chaos
> >> that might ensue if The Department of Homeland Security had to operate
> >> under the crushing restrictions of the U.S. Constitution. The horror!
> >
> > In case you hadn't noticed, Bush isn't running.
>
> McBUSH is.

The only other choice is Barry Obortion; no contest!

--
Keith

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:55:36 -0400, "EXT" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> It's also the first year that I've ever kept my big mouth shut about
> >> who/why/when etc... Because as I've told my non-voting friends for years,
> >> "If
> >> you don't vote, you have no right to bitch"..
> >
> >That is not true. If you feel that there is nobody qualified for the job,
> >you don't want to be responsible for putting a politician into power who can
> >do harm just so you can have a vote. You are then still able to bitch about
> >the lame duck whom others put into power.
>
> I still think that instead of just a "write in" box, which is a throw away vote,
> IMO, there should be a "none of the above"..
> If a certain percentage vote NOTA, they have a specified time to find new
> candidates and try again..

What a great idea! Then we can keep the administration we have now
until somebody other than NOTA wins! <vbg>

--
Keith

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> krw wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
>
> >> I still think that instead of just a "write in" box, which is a
> >> throw away vote, IMO, there should be a "none of the above".. If a
> >> certain percentage vote NOTA, they have a specified time to find
> >> new candidates and try again..
> >
> > What a great idea! Then we can keep the administration we have now
> > until somebody other than NOTA wins! <vbg>
>
> Hmm. I think "placeholder" salaries should be capped at a flat $12K with

No problem. The CE's salary isn't much more than "token" anyway.

> no expense reimbursements and a strictly-enforced "no gifts" rule. :-)

Pretty hard to have a "no expense reimbursement" policy on the prez.
Wouldn't that make it a pretty hard to pay 1600 PA's light bill?
...and good time to make war on the US? There already is a "no
gifts" rule, not that the previous holder of the job thought too
much of it.

--
Keith

In article <3Gguk.76$Wd.53@trnddc01>, [email protected] says...
> "Mark & Juanita" wrote:
>
> > Huh? How do you see that? He's running a personality cult
> > campaign that
> > is shorter on specifics than most campaigns on this scale have ever
> > been.
> <snip>
>
> If you were part of the 38 million who heard his acceptance speach
> Thursday night, it would appear you may have a serious hearing defect.

What? That he wants to triple taxes and (unconstitutionally) double
the size of government? (...wonder where the rest goes.)

> Might want to have your hearing tested.

Might want to have your brain tested. Don't worry, the CT scan
doesn't hurt and won't show anything.

Sign: "A taxpayer voting for Barak Obama is like a chicken voting
for Colonel Sanders."

--
Keith

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:21:39 -0700, "Rod & Betty Jo"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
> >>> office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major
> >>> disservice to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.
> >>
> >>
> >> You mean like the last guy...???
> >>
> >> Mike O.
> >
> >
> >I find it disheartening that one might confuse honest policy disagreement
> >with personal qualifications for office?
> >Is it always a given that only
> >those you agree with are worthy? Rod
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand your comment.
> I didn't say that Obama was qualified, I just meant that the last guy
> wasn't either. IMO there were a lot of other Presidents who weren't
> qualified. Some were good some were not.
>
> BTW, how do you become qualified for that job anyway?

Most chief executives of major companies are first chief executive
of a smaller company. Not all are cut out to be executives.

> It seems to me the only truly qualified applicant is one who has done
> the job previously. Even then, some of them sucked at it.

There is an obvious flaw in your logic.

--
Keith

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "charlieb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > Can you explain why a male dominated job - say a house painter,
> > should make a higher hourly wage than a female dominated job
> > like reference librarian - which requires a college degree, deals
> > with the public and has more responsibilities and requires more
> > knowledge and skills than a painter?
>
> Same reason a guy puting lug nuts on Chevys on the line makes more. Supply
> and demand. I don't know that the librarian has more skills, but they are
> different skills. Does knowing where to find a book under the Dewey Decimal
> system carry the same hazzard as painting window off a ladder on the third
> floor? Which of the two professions has the higher accident and injury
> rate?

The real reason is that someone is willing to pay the painter more
and the painter isn't willing to work for less.

> Maybe the librarian should go start painting houses to make more money if
> she is unhappy. One good freedom in America is that we get to choose the
> line of work we want to go into. Some choose to go a certain way for the
> money, others for the job satisfaction. If you are unhappy with the
> potential earnings of your chosen career, change it.

Absolutely!

> One of my college educated neighbors left her teaching job and now paints
> and wallpapers because the money is better. She's been at it for 10 years
> now so it must be OK.

I bet she isn't whining about her life either.

--
Keith

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:29:09 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> > You want a balanced budget? Privatize social security,
> > get rid of Medicare and return the Federal government to it's
> > Consitutionally mandated limits.
>
> last I heard, SS was still taking in more money than its paying out. If
> not, it'd be taken "off budget" as it has been in the past.
>
> As far as Medicare, it's the least effective health care plan of all the
> industrialized nations.

...and you want that for everyone? No thanks!

> But at least it's a start. When we have a health
> care system where nobody goes bankrupt from medical bills I'll be a lot
> happier.

You'll be happy when we're all bankrupt, and nobody has health care.
That's what your asking for.

> > But that won't happen because the
> > mooching public wants what it has not earned, does not deserve,
> > cannot pay for, and will not work for.
>
> I paid close to the maximum into SS throughout my working life. I DID
> earn it. I'll have to live past 90 to get back what I and my employers
> paid in. And for much of the time I was self-employed and paid both
> halves.

Except for one year (last year) I've paid the maximum too. However,
you're not getting *anything* "back", except off the backs of those
currently working. If you were "allowed" to save that money, you'd
have some nice nest egg.

> And I still pay close to $300 a month for Medicare and a supplement policy
> and I still don't have dental coverage or decent drug coverage.

...and you want the federal government to nationalize the entire
health care industry. Amazing.

--
Keith

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:39:30 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> > Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >
>
> > Oh no, this is absolutely the issue. Up to the time of conception, a
> > woman is perfectly free to do with her body as she chooses. After
> > conception, there is another living being, the utmost definition of
> > innocence and vulnerability that must be considered.
> >
>
> That's your opinion. Mine is that a fetus is not a human being until
> it can survive outside the womb. Until then, it is a potential human
> being. That does not make abortion a process to undergo lightly, but it
> should be the woman's right to make that decision.

So you believe that "late-term" abortions should be illegal. Indeed
any past, say, 5 months gestation should be illegal. I'm *sure*
you're against Obama's infanticide. Right?

> It's funny that none of the "pro choice" crowd want to force people to
> have abortions, but the "pro-life" crowd seems to think they have the
> right to force their beliefs on others.

Silly argument. False, and silly to boot.

> >> You must not have read/heard the news lately. The population is projected
> >> to increase from 300 million to 400 million in about 30 years, mostly
> >> driven by immigration and the immigrants large families. Sounds like a
> >> lot of "younger generation" to me.
> >>
> >
> > If your issue here is the illegal immigration issue and the problems
> > regarding the failure to assimilate even legal immigrants into our society,
> > then we agree on something.
>
> No, my issue is overpopulation. At present, it seems to be driven by
> immigration, but that may just be a temporary condition. I've seen the
> changes wrought over my lifetime resulting from a US population that has
> more than doubled already and they aren't good.

Simple answer then. Stop emigration. Deport all non-citizens.
Right?

--
Keith

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:29:52 -0500, krw wrote:
>
> >> I paid close to the maximum into SS throughout my working life. I DID
> >> earn it. I'll have to live past 90 to get back what I and my employers
> >> paid in. And for much of the time I was self-employed and paid both
> >> halves.
> >
> > Except for one year (last year) I've paid the maximum too. However,
> > you're not getting *anything* "back", except off the backs of those
> > currently working.
> >
>
> If I put money in the bank, the money I take out in the future isn't the
> same money. I still put money in and got money back. Your argument is
> ridiculous.

Only a financial fool would believe such. Ever hear of compound
interest? It isn't taking money away from others, rather wealth
that has been created.

> >> And I still pay close to $300 a month for Medicare and a supplement policy
> >> and I still don't have dental coverage or decent drug coverage.
> >
> > ...and you want the federal government to nationalize the entire
> > health care industry. Amazing.
>
> My wife is not yet eligible for Medicare. Her insurance costs over twice
> what I pay and has a high deductible. I complained that Medicare wasn't
> as good as the health care plans in other nations. I certainly didn't
> mean that it was worse than the "health care industry" and their predatory
> pricing.

That's just rich.

> Sometimes I have trouble believing that posts like yours are sincere. Do
> you really believe the party line you (and others) are spouting, or do you
> just like to stir the pot and watch the bubbles?

Are you a communist?

> In either case, I broke my resolution not to get involved in one of these
> silly back and forth arguments again. My mistake.

You really should try sitting on your hands if you can't control
yourself. If you don't want a discussion, don't start one.

--
Keith

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:17:23 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >
> >> Top Total Income Tax Revenue (%) Adjusted Gross Income Share (%)
> >> 50% 97.01 87.49
> >> 25% 86.27 68.16
> >> 10% 70.79 47.32
> >> 5% 60.14 36.66
> >> 1% 39.89 22.06
> >>
> >> So, from the IRS data: the bottom 50% are making 12.5% of adjusted
> >> gross
> >> income and paying less than 3% of all income taxes while the top 1% are
> >> making 22% of adjusted gross income while paying nearly 40% of all
> >> federal income taxes.
> >
> > I may be wrong on the numbers, but I seem to recall a recent article that
> > said about 10-15% of the population is living in poverty. So they would
> > make up 20-30% of the bottom 50%. I doubt they, or even the group
> > directly above them, pay any income taxes, given that there is a standard
> > deduction. That helps to explain some of the discrepancies. And if you
> > add in other taxes, like sales taxes, that helps even more.
> >
> > At least Warren Buffet had the decency to complain that his secretary paid
> > more income taxes than he did :-).
>
> I think the statement was that she paid a higher rate than he did. This is
> based upon his paying at the capital gains rate on a significant portion of
> his income rather than the personal income rate. I would seriously doubt
> she paid more in total dollars than he. His argument is somewhat specious
> as, for the bulk of those who benefit from capital gains rates, this is a
> recognition of the risk at which their money is placed when investing.
> There is no assurance that one will make money, there is a chance one could
> lose the full investment (K-mart, Enron) or a significant portion of it
> (Krispy Kreme, Circuit City). The idea of the capital gains rate is to
> provide some incentive to invest.
>
Not to mention that the corporation pays taxes on profits in
addition to the capital gains tax.

--
Keith

"Morris Dovey" wrote:

> Agreed, but how much and how that revenue is spent is a matter of
> choice
> - and the question we might want to consider is _whose_ choice.

Precisely.

The Republicans never saw a social program they thought was worth a
hoot.

75 years later, they are still trying to get rid of Social Security,
for example.

The Democrats pretty much feel the same way about tax breaks for big
business.

They are not big on Trickle Down Economics.

As usual, someplace in the middle would probably solve a lot of
problems.

> Again, let's consider how much waste can we live with. At the moment
> it
> seems that $10B/month might be excessive...

Agreed.

> Have you heard how much is spent on "earmarks"?

It's called "Job Security", "Bringing home the bacon to your
district", etc.

> And knowing that makes the waste acceptable? Not to me.

"Waste" was a poor choice of words.

"Priorities" is a closer approximation.

Lew

Just Wondering wrote:
> Rita and Neil Ward wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
>>> office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice
>>> to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.
>>>
>>
>>
>> "Age and Citizenship requirements-US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
>>
>> No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
>> States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be
>> eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be
>> eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of
>> thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the
>> United States."
>>
>> That’s it. Those are the requirements for being President.
>
>
> Those are the minimal constitutional requirements. Are you suggesting
> that every single person who meets those requirements is actually
> qualified to be the chief executive of the federal government?

They are not minimal: they are the only requirements under our
constitution. Yes every person who meets those requirements is qualified
to be the chief executive of the federal government.

Abraham Lincoln had less than one full year of formal education in his
entire life.

Woodrow Wilson was a political novice who had held only one public
office before becoming president.

Harry Truman was the last president without a college degree, served as
vice president just 82 days when sworn in as president of the United States.

"Limp Arbor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:709126f9-29fb-4e41-9063-eb15a5c598af@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

It might be now that McCain picked Palin

Probably a good choice to pick a H Clinton substitute.

"Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Vote for the Libertarian Party instead. They would welcome your vote and
> as a whole represent what I feel to be a nice split between the Democrat
> and Republican parties. Don't let the "But they won't win" boogeyman
> scare you - it isn't about winning, but picking a candidate you feel best
> represents your country. If more people voted that way, the two party
> system would be history and candidates would have to shift their focus to
> issues and governance - rather than personality and appearances.
>
> I fully intend on voting for them this time around, I certainly vote for
> them during county elections, and vote for at least a few in state
> elections

That may be my choice also. Many third parties are considered the lunatic
fringe but the Libertarians are a way of making your voice heard. We really
need a good strong third party to shake things up. I happen to agree with
much of the Libertarian philosophy.

Nader may again be a spoiler, but for who?

"Richard Evans" wrote:


> For a narrow definition of "same".

Narrow definition?

> When qualification includes time on the job, it certainly is
> relevant.

About the only thing time on the job provides is proof of the ability
to survive the company politics.

The basic question about the employee with say 25 years of service
becomes:

Do we have an employee with 1 years experience 25 times or do we have
an employee with 25 years experience?

> Two identically qualified people, one male and one female. They both
> enter the workforce at the same time. Twenty years later, the man
> has
> been constantly on the job and available for raises and promotions.
> The woman takes off five years to raise a family and misses those
> same
> opportunities. When she rejoins the workforce, she has five years
> less
> experience than the man and is no longer equally qualified.

I don't know of a man alive who could do the job of a woman as a
homemaker.

The experience far exceeds the management training given to entry
level employees by leaps and bounds, IMHO.

Her learned negotiating skills alone are worth the wait.

> Carrying your argument to it's absurd conclusion, the two enter the
> workforce together, the woman works one year and takes nineteen off,
> then rejoins the workforce at the same rate as the men who've been
> there all along?

If it take 20 years to learn the assigned task, then I've made a
mistake assigning the task to that person.

Lew

"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>, "Leon"
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Many years ago it became all about the candidate getting elected,
>> >>never mind what he promised or suggested what he might do for the
>> >>nation after he gets in.
>> >
>> > Or might do *to* the nation...
>> >
>>
>> Yeah... the Bush legacy could suffer irreparable damage. Imagine the
>> chaos
>> that might ensue if The Department of Homeland Security had to operate
>> under the crushing restrictions of the U.S. Constitution. The horror!
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, Bush isn't running.

McBUSH is.

Dave in Houston

"Richard Evans" wrote:

> Nonsense. Women, *on average* make less than men for the same job
> becasue *on average* they take time off to have kids and raise
> families, and thus miss out on raises and promotions.

Huh!

What part of same pay for same job did you miss with your above
analysis?

It has already been defined that the male and the female have the same
qualifications for the task.

What path was followed by either the male or the female to arrived at
the qualified status, is simply not relavant to the discussion.

Lew

In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:46:45 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> From your postings here, I know you to be thoughtful and well read.
>> Please cite a single example in American legal history that would
>> ever lead you to believe any of this is the responsibility of the
>> Federal government?
>
>How about "promote the general welfare"?
>
Please note that "promot[ing] the general welfare" is not among the powers
granted by the Constitution to the federal government -- and therefore is
"reserved to the States respectively or to the People".

> "Morris Dovey" wrote:
>> While pouring coffee I began re-thinking the possible benefits of
>> instituting term limits for congressmen...

We have term limits. They are called elections. Problems is, not to many
people use them wisely.

Richard Evans wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Just Wondering" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
>>> office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice
>>> to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.
>> Just curious, what do you see as a lack of qualification(s) for the
>> task of president of the USA.
>
>
> Hell, I'll settle for explaining how he's less qualified than the bozo
> we've had for seven years.


Perhaps you haven't noticed, but Barak Hussein is not running against
George W.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> If you were part of the 38 million who heard his acceptance speach
> Thursday night, it would appear you may have a serious hearing defect.
>
> Might want to have your hearing tested.

Like every candidate before him, he did have a lot to say and some ideas
certainly sounded great. Unfortunately, he is running to be the President,
not the King, Supreme Commander or Dictator so those ideas will be tough to
get made into law.

"charlieb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Oh lord - how assumptions can raise so much hell.
>
> Assumption:
>
> Employee A:
> Male (probably "white", whatever THAT means)
> Age at time of appointment to "supervisor" position: 30
> Time in Position: 25 years
> Weekly Salary (arbitrarily assumed at $1000 to make the
> math easier)
> Annual Performance Evalution: Good
>

> Employee B:
> Female (again, probably "white")
> Age at time of appointment to "supervisor" position - in
> the same company as Employee A and doing the same job
> - on a different shift - which doesn't have "grave yard shift"
> salary adjustments for working in the middle of the night.
> Time in Position: 25 years
> Weekly Salary ( LESS THAN Employee A - say 79% less, for
> example)
>
<SNIP>

> rant mode off
>
> charlie b

You didn't include this --- "Annual Performance Evalution: Good" in the
ladies description - so that right there could in fact be the reason why she
is making less after x years - she does worse job than her co-workers. The
idea that two people of either gender should make identical wages after
decades of employment is patently absurd and removes any flexibility the
company may have in rewarding those it feels is doing a "better" job
whatever "better" may be. The sheer number of variables that could
determine a salary adjustment is utterly mind boggling and positively beyond
the scope of legislation. The assumption that every single person in
Personnel or HR is either male and out to get women or female and
robotically following orders from male superiors is far beyond the realm of
fantasy. In a major company the sheer number of people involved in wage and
salary adjustments makes a willful campaign against women less likely than
winning the lottery. In my company at least 15 people would have to be
involved in this scheme to hold women back. I cannot accept that as truth,
the Illuminati are watching me but only to *protect* me.
<my own rant mode off>

Rita and Neil Ward wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> Rita and Neil Ward wrote:
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
>>>> office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major
>>>> disservice to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Age and Citizenship requirements-US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
>>>
>>> No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
>>> States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be
>>> eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be
>>> eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of
>>> thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the
>>> United States."
>>>
>>> That’s it. Those are the requirements for being President.
>>
>>
>> Those are the minimal constitutional requirements. Are you suggesting
>> that every single person who meets those requirements is actually
>> qualified to be the chief executive of the federal government?
>
> They are not minimal: they are the only requirements under our
> constitution. Yes every person who meets those requirements is qualified
> to be the chief executive of the federal government.
>

Thinking like that is scary.

"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rita and Neil Ward wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office.
>>> It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the
>>> country to nominate an unqualified candidate.
>>>
>>
>>
>> "Age and Citizenship requirements-US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
>>
>> No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
>> States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be
>> eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible
>> to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five
>> years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
>>
>> That’s it. Those are the requirements for being President.
>
>
> Those are the minimal constitutional requirements. Are you suggesting
> that every single person who meets those requirements is actually
> qualified to be the chief executive of the federal government?

Other than the obvious final requirement of recieving more delegate votes in
the convoluted electoral college than the next candidate, yes. Fortunately,
the party candidate selection process tends to weed out the obviously
Unqualified. Unfortunately, it seems to have a tendancy to select the
grossly Underqualified...

-MJ

"Robatoy" wrote:

It's hard, eh? I am really, really trying to stay out of pissing
contests, especially when it is obvious that many participants rather
generate heat than light (to quote Morris).

I plead guilty to being your basic shit disturber.

I posted "A Milestone", simply noting an historic moment.

That thread has taken a rather convoluted trail to arrive here.

BUT,

I knew that would happen, that's one of the reasons I wrote it.

Kind'a like spreading chum on the water.

Lew

Just Wondering wrote:
>
> It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office.
> It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the
> country to nominate an unqualified candidate.
>


"Age and Citizenship requirements-US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be
eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of
thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United
States."

That’s it. Those are the requirements for being President.

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Many years ago it became all about the candidate getting elected,
>>never mind what he promised or suggested what he might do for the
>>nation after he gets in.
>
> Or might do *to* the nation...
>

Yeah... the Bush legacy could suffer irreparable damage. Imagine the chaos
that might ensue if The Department of Homeland Security had to operate
under the crushing restrictions of the U.S. Constitution. The horror!

Scott

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>>> "Age and Citizenship requirements-US Constitution, Article II,
>>>> Section 1
>>>>
>>>> No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
>>>> States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be
>>>> eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be
>>>> eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of
>>>> thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the
>>>> United States."
>>>>
>>>> That's it. Those are the requirements for being President.
>>>
>>>
>>> Those are the minimal constitutional requirements. Are you
>>> suggesting that every single person who meets those requirements is
>>> actually qualified to be the chief executive of the federal
>>> government?
>>
>> They are not minimal: they are the only requirements under our
>> constitution. Yes every person who meets those requirements is
>> qualified to be the chief executive of the federal government.
>>
>
> Thinking like that is scary.

No it isn't scary, that is why there is a campaign and a vote. The
qualifications set down in the Constitution date back to when it was
written, and are phrased like that to prevent a royal from Europe or
another "outsider" to become POTUS. You are still free to require
qualifications like intelligence, not burdened by campaign donors'
restrictions or allegiance to corrupt politicians.

IMNSHO, the election process has gone further and further from real
political ideas that the candidate stands for. The current pandering to
the perceived lowest common denominator of whatever the public wants is
what irks me. That and the obligation to choose between only 2
candidates, with third, fourth etc opinions not really getting any weight
whatsoever. True democracy should (IMNSHO) take into account more than
that.

At least with both Veep candidates known it becomes somewhat more
interesting ... It is funny how the media can't figure out what Palin is
doing to the campaign.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> The Founders didn't trust democracy as a form of government and
> carefully avoided creating one. It's a pity that their carefully
> crafted system is being corrupted into one.
>
Democracy should not be confused with a proletarian dictatorship. As
everyone (should) know by now, riling up the (washed or unwashed) masses is
too easy.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 00:26:21 -0500, Morris Dovey wrote:
>>
>>> The money spent for one month of Operation Iraqi Freedom could have
>>> installed solar heating panels sufficient to heat every
>>> single-family residence in Iowa - for the next quarter century.
>>
>> Thanks, Morris. The financial cost of the war often gets overlooked
>> in our discussions. I wonder how many of the supporters would be
>> willing to be taxed to pay the billions?
>>
>
> They should put the cost on the ballot. Something like:
> Your cost next year for the Iraq war is $xxxxx.xx. Should we continue:
> ( ) Yes ( ) No
>
With regard to the Iraq war, I personally think that would be a great
idea, especially if the human cost were included. How many dead are
acceptable? How many wounded? Quadriplegic? Busted heads? Permanently
disabled mentally, including addicted and homicidal?

In many cases though, the cost cannot be totally estimated even
beforehand, and the "wisdom" of Congress should be used. No pun intended
here.

The biggest problem is the spending of moneys in secific Congressional
districts. For instance, Boeing and other big companies successfully
distribute their operations over many states, so that Congress will
approve their projects. They have a bigger chance if many districts
profit from Congressional largess than if the money were to go abroad,
even if the foreign product were much better and cheaper. Congress'
voters need to earn a living ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"l job?
>
> This will be the first time in 40 years that I'm not voting...
> I'm tired of voting for the candidate that I fear the least, and not
> having
> someone that I WANT to have in the office..
>
> It's also the first year that I've ever kept my big mouth shut about
> who/why/when etc... Because as I've told my non-voting friends for years,
> "If
> you don't vote, you have no right to bitch"..
>
>
> mac
>
> Please remove splinters before emailing


Go vote for a third party candiate, You put in a protest vote, You have the
right to bitch, You don't help either of the party candiates, You have your
say. What could be better this year?

Rita and Neil Ward wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>>
>> It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
>> office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice
>> to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.
>>
>
>
> "Age and Citizenship requirements-US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
>
> No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
> States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be
> eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be
> eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of
> thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United
> States."
>
> That’s it. Those are the requirements for being President.


Those are the minimal constitutional requirements. Are you suggesting
that every single person who meets those requirements is actually
qualified to be the chief executive of the federal government?

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Kh_tk.40$393.10@trnddc05...
> "Phil Again" wrote:
>
>
>> As the old guard warriors in this verbal war pass into retirement and
>> their grandchildren grow into adulthood and become voting age, the voice
>> calling for a truce can be heard; well, it could be heard if a few would
>> just stop shouting slogans. Just ask yourself how YOU perceive the
>> strongest supporters of Hillery, don't you equate them with the front
>> line cultural soldiers from the days of the ERA amendment to the
>> Constitution? Be honest now. Those ERA fighters could be called now
>> Liberal Ladies of Maturity and Experience in political causes. (You may
>> choose your own non-Politically Correct phrase in the privacy of your own
>> home.)
>>
>> But I digress, IMHO, there can be no winner in the cultural war. We
>> keep battling the same issues over and over with no retreat. The battle
>> appears to become a war of 'Code Words' and everyone is just preaching to
>> the choir of their choice.
>>
>> So, a sport stadium filled with people to hear an authentic partisan
>> political speech by the first person of ethnic background other than full
>> Northern European ancestry, as Lew pointed out, which is an historical
>> moment. An event that people can tell, and re-tell, I WAS THERE. Not
>> necessarily for the speech's content, but the context of giving the
>> speech.
>>
>> My only hope for the future: come November, we can get over 75% of the
>> registered adults of the USA to actually VOTE. And then, God Willing, let
>> the Adults of this country agree to live with the results of the
>> election. That ain't going to happen, but I can still hope can't I?
>
> There is no question that women in the work place are being discriminated
> against.
>
> As I told my daughter when she was about 15-16.
>
> "If your grades are twice as good as your brothers, you will probably get
> a job that pays 1/2 of what your brothers will be paid for the same work,
> but that is the way things are right now."
>
> "Maybe you will be able to change things."
>
> Things have changed, but there is a long way still to go, IMHO.
>
> As far as politics being a blood sport is concerned, the results have been
> very non productive the last 25 years.
>
> Hopefully, it will not continue after the upcoming election.
>
> This election will drag the old body politic screaming and kicking into
> the 21st century.
>
> Take your choice, either a mixed race president or a female vice
> president.
>
> Either way, it will be a first.
>
>
> Lew
>
>

Now that is just amazing. Two posts from two different people that rambled
on in rhetorical nothingness, and which I'm sure each felt equally fulfilled
in as they hit SEND. Neither one said a damned thing.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 00:26:21 -0500, Morris Dovey wrote:
>>
>>> The money spent for one month of Operation Iraqi Freedom could have
>>> installed solar heating panels sufficient to heat every single-family
>>> residence in Iowa - for the next quarter century.
>> Thanks, Morris. The financial cost of the war often gets overlooked in
>> our discussions. I wonder how many of the supporters would be willing to
>> be taxed to pay the billions?
>>
>
> They should put the cost on the ballot. Something like:
> Your cost next year for the Iraq war is $xxxxx.xx. Should we continue:


( X ) Yes ( ) No


(And make further war upon Iran until they give up their nuclear ambition.)

Anyone who has decided the reason to get out of the war just because
of the cost is indescribably shallow. There are arguments to be made
for- and against the war, but money isn't one of them. This is
especially true given that well over 50% of the US Federal
government's budget is spent on non-Constitutional social
entitlements. You want a balanced budget? Privatize social security,
get rid of Medicare and return the Federal government to it's
Consitutionally mandated limits. But that won't happen because the
mooching public wants what it has not earned, does not deserve,
cannot pay for, and will not work for. And *that* is why the emerging
nations of the world will crush the US economically, and possibly even
militarily in time: We have ceased taking personal responsibility
seriously as a culture...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:TS%tk.32$Af3.24@trnddc06...
> "Richard Evans" wrote:
>
>> Nonsense. Women, *on average* make less than men for the same job
>> becasue *on average* they take time off to have kids and raise
>> families, and thus miss out on raises and promotions.
>
> Huh!
>
> What part of same pay for same job did you miss with your above analysis?
>
> It has already been defined that the male and the female have the same
> qualifications for the task.
>
> What path was followed by either the male or the female to arrived at the
> qualified status, is simply not relavant to the discussion.
>

Geezus Lew - you really missed this one. Qualifications and time on the job
are two different things.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Aug 30, 3:53=A0pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> We know that he [Obama, FF] does not respect Pakistani sovereignty and ha=
s openly
> suggested violating their borders thereby possibly encouraging a inspired
> enemy pool exceeding 100 million people.
> ...
>

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1049120720080911

I approve.

(Not that anyone asked for my approval.)

--

FF

Morris Dovey wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
... snip
>
>> I want someone in Congress and the Executive that understands the
>> limits
>> on the federal government and will work to put the fed back within its
>> bounds. I don't want someone telling me how much more they are going to
>> do "for" me, or how they are going to punish the "evil rich" with higher
>> taxes and re-distribute that money -- that's not what the government
>> should be doing.
>
> Now we're back in agreement. I sure hope you're getting involved in
> politics at the local level so you have a voice in who runs for what,
> because that involvement is what it's going to take...
>>
>>> The money spent for one month of Operation Iraqi Freedom could have
>>> installed solar heating panels sufficient to heat every single-family
>>> residence in Iowa - for the next quarter century.
>>
>> While that is all well and good, that's not the job of the federal
>> government. If those solar panels are cost competitive with existing
>> energy sources, that is a function of the free market system; if they are
>> not, that is government subsidy.
>
> You are exactly right, as far as you've taken it. Now let's back up a
> step and see what might happen if the federal government did _not_ take
> that money out of the citizen's pockets and consider how they might
> choose to put it to work.
>

Here we absolutely agree. Probably one of the biggest mistakes made was
passing the 16'th amendment allowing the institution of the federal income
tax. There was a reason the founders didn't want the federal government to
have the ability to directly tax the people and we are seeing the results
and consequences now. By allowing the federal government to directly tax
each citizen's wallet as it sees fit, the federal government gains absolute
power over the states and local governments and the ability to perform
whatever social engineering it chooses by fiat. The threat is that if a
state or local government wants any of the wealth taken from its citizens
to come back to its origin (minus the appropriate "management and
oversight" fees of course), then the state or local government must conform
to certain guidelines and/or pass laws that match a federally approved
template. While this may be a good idea for highway systems, it's not such
a good idea applied in other arenas. The fact that the federal government
takes the largest chunk of tax revenues from citizens makes the states
dependent upon those monies coming back from the fed -- there isn't enough
left to take without revolt. The current tax system is diabolically
clever: 1) it takes money from each paycheck and then provides a "refund"
once a year that many view as a windfall to them instead of what it really
is -- the government returning money that belonged to them in the first
place and was able to use interest-free; and 2) The graduated income tax in
which the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.9% of taxes, the top 10% pay 70.3%
and the top 1% pay 39.4% (2005 figures, the latest released) assures a
voting base to politicians who are willing to spend other peoples' money
for the benefit of those who aren't paying anything. What this implies is
that the bottom 50% of income earners who vote have no incentive to see the
federal government spend less, and actually have the incentive to vote into
office those who will raise spending because they are most likely to
benefit from increased federal spending. Arguably, one could extend this
into the bottom 75% of wage-earners who are only paying 14% of federal
taxes (a number that has continued to decline -- the bottom levels of
income earners benefited more from the Bush tax cuts in terms of percentage
paid to the treasury). Thus, the politicians' only dilemma is to determine
at what point those who are pulling the cart are going to throw up their
hands and quit -- at which point both the economy and the government are
going to face a huge crisis.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:24:51 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>
>> In case you hadn't noticed, Bush isn't running.
>
> Yes he is - clones count :-).
>

And the clone would be???

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:


>(Big business does not pay taxes - NO business pays taxes - they merely
>pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices.)

Or their employees in the form of lower wages. Or their stockholders in the
form of lower dividends. Or their suppliers in the form of lower prices. But
your core point is correct. Ultimately, taxes are always paid by people of the
two legged variety as opposed to people of the incorporated variety.
-- Doug

On Sep 1, 12:30=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
>
> In either case, I broke my resolution not to get involved in one of these
> silly back and forth arguments again. =A0My mistake.

It's hard, eh? I am really, really trying to stay out of pissing
contests, especially when it is obvious that many participants rather
generate heat than light (to quote Morris).

r

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Fred the Red Shirt
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I also doubt that incursions into Waziristan are going to find
>bin Laden. He is more likely in a major city where his couriers
>have ready access to global communications.

I predicted seven years ago that we will never truly know the
disposition of Bin Laden. Trust me, I am no conspiracy theorist, but
it's in a lot of people's interest to keep him "alive."

A war mongering leader (not just ours) needs to keep him "alive" to
justify the mongering.

A bloated bureaucracy created specifically to counter his effects
needs to keep him "alive" to justify its existence.

The intelligence community might need to keep him "alive" to prevent
creating a vacuum of leadership (or worse, a martyr) encouraging
potentially worse replacements eager to continue the jihad.

Al Qaeda needs to keep him "alive" to further its activities.

Some Middle Eastern regimes might have an interest in keeping him
"alive" to divert attention from their own, similar, nefarious
activities.

No, I'd say calculate a maximum of 100 years after Bin Laden's birth,
and that's about the soonest anyone will confidently assert he's gone.
I don't believe there will ever be a corpus delecti to demostrate it
sooner. Few of us will be left alive to be able to breathe easy at the
assurance of his passing.



--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:40:49 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> Madison commented on this clause specifically, knowing that people
>> would try to read it as you have: A Get Out Of Jail Free card for
>> all manner of Federal government action. He specifically said it
>> was *not* that - that reading it this way would undermine the doctrine
>> of enumerated powers that animates the entire Constitution.
>
> Could be. OTOH, it could be only Madison's personal view of the matter.
> There were a lot of differing opinions at that convention and a lot of
> language was purposely left vague to achieve a consensus. Not that I know
> this clause is one of those, just that it could be.
>
> BTW, I accidentally deleted Doug Miller's post, so I'll comment on it
> here. He stated something along the lines of "The Constitution is what it
> says it is" and goes on to say that the Supreme Court is often wrong in
> its interpretation.
>
> Well, I'd sure rather trust some experienced judicial minds to tell me
> what the Constitution means than to trust Doug's interpretation. Or my
> own for that matter.
>
> If I misquoted you DOug, I apologize.
>

You miss the point methinks. We are either a nation of laws or not. If
we are, then we should both abide by the existing laws AND use the
lawful mechanisms already in place to change laws that are archaic,
irrelevant, or just plain wrong. Even the Constitution itself is open
to such changes.

What we should not be doing is *ignoring* our laws just because we
don't like the outcome for the moment. You want stronger Federal
action? Fine - convince a supermajority of states to approve it and
modify the Constitution. But cheating the way FDR and all the
so-called "progressives" have done for some 8 decades is neither good
for the nation nor honorable. The US Constitution and indeed the
entire system is built on the doctrine of Enumerated Powers - That the
Feds only get to do something with *specific permission for that
action*. This is not a matter of legal interpretation or some
technical subtlety of law. This is one of the large, unambiguous
cornerstones of our entire government. Attempts to read the exact
inverse of this are obnoxious, wrong, and destructive to both
rule-of-law and liberty itself.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Richard Evans" wrote:
>
>> Nonsense. Women, *on average* make less than men for the same job
>> becasue *on average* they take time off to have kids and raise
>> families, and thus miss out on raises and promotions.
>
>Huh!
>
>What part of same pay for same job did you miss with your above
>analysis?
>
>It has already been defined that the male and the female have the same
>qualifications for the task.

For a narrow definition of "same".
>
>What path was followed by either the male or the female to arrived at
>the qualified status, is simply not relavant to the discussion.

When qualification includes time on the job, it certainly is relevant.
Two identically qualified people, one male and one female. They both
enter the workforce at the same time. Twenty years later, the man has
been constantly on the job and available for raises and promotions.
The woman takes off five years to raise a family and misses those same
opportunities. When she rejoins the workforce, she has five years less
experience than the man and is no longer equally qualified.

When you average all such employees, women's wages *average* less than
men's. When you control for time on the job, the effect disappears.

Carrying your argument to it's absurd conclusion, the two enter the
workforce together, the woman works one year and takes nineteen off,
then rejoins the workforce at the same rate as the men who've been
there all along?

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:21:39 -0700, "Rod & Betty Jo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
>>> office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major
>>> disservice to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.
>>
>>
>> You mean like the last guy...???
>>
>> Mike O.
>
>
>I find it disheartening that one might confuse honest policy disagreement
>with personal qualifications for office?
>Is it always a given that only
>those you agree with are worthy? Rod


I'm not sure I understand your comment.
I didn't say that Obama was qualified, I just meant that the last guy
wasn't either. IMO there were a lot of other Presidents who weren't
qualified. Some were good some were not.

BTW, how do you become qualified for that job anyway?
It seems to me the only truly qualified applicant is one who has done
the job previously. Even then, some of them sucked at it.

Mike O.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:46:45 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> From your postings here, I know you to be thoughtful and well read.
>> Please cite a single example in American legal history that would
>> ever lead you to believe any of this is the responsibility of the
>> Federal government?
>
> How about "promote the general welfare"?
>

Madison commented on this clause specifically, knowing that people
would try to read it as you have: A Get Out Of Jail Free card for
all manner of Federal government action. He specifically said it
was *not* that - that reading it this way would undermine the doctrine
of enumerated powers that animates the entire Constitution.

"Promote the general welfare" is properly (in terms of the Framers'
intent) read to be a statement of *purpose for creating a Constitution*.
It is not a grant of unlimited power, but a *justification* for
a limited Federalist system bounded by very narrow enumerated powers -
the exact opposite of what you're trying to pry out of it.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Strictly a non wood working post.
>
> The USA achieved a milestone tonight.
>
> A mixed race black man was nominated by a major
> political party to lead it in the fall election race and the
> posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the
> president of the USA.

The real milestone will be when nobody points out that he's mixed race.