OOTT://In case it is important to you.

t wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:27:00 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>> If, "In an elected Democracy, the politicians ultimately really are a
>>> reflection of the people", why would you have a problem with that? You
>>> have chosen to live in the United States of America and the will of
>>> the people is what it is, today.
>> They've done so illegally by abrogating the limitations of power
>> imposed on the Federal government by the Constitution. You know,
>> that document I actually had to read and study and most native
>> born citizens barely have glanced at.
>
>
> By, "They", I must assume you to mean the politicians, and yet, you
> have described them as fulfilling the will of the people. If they
> truly express the will of the people, how can they be wrong?

Neither the people nor their elected leaders have limited themselves
to the powers enumerated to the Federal government in the Constitution.
This means we are less and less a nation of laws (a republic) and
increasingly a nation of sheer majority will (a mob).

>
>
>>> I won't move to Canada if McCain is elected - too much of my wardrobe
>>> is invested in Hawaiian shirts.
>> I plan to be buried in one ... and a thong. My wishes have been made
>> clear to my likely surviors. They shuddered at the horror of the
>> visual image.
>
> This is an unfortunate reference and I am totally of a mind with your
> potential decedents. "The horror...the horror...".

I herewith apologize for the damage done to your mind's eye.
Speaking of Canada, they make a soothing balm from rye
than can expedite your recovery.

>>> I would hope that you would not move to Canada either, since Robatoy
>>> would hunt you down like a dog - get you drunk - and make you sing, "I
>>> am a lumberjack and I'm OK...".
>>
>> Robbo couldn't catch me. Besides, my cousin is a Mountie and would
>> probably take my side. Well .... maybe not...
>
> You best watch out. The counter revolutionaries are deeply into the
> mounties.

I think it is clear that there is no nation more subversive than
Canada except, perhaps, for those pesky Lichtensteinians...
>
> (silly)
>
>
>
>
> tom watson
>
>
>


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

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:27:00 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:



>> If, "In an elected Democracy, the politicians ultimately really are a
>> reflection of the people", why would you have a problem with that? You
>> have chosen to live in the United States of America and the will of
>> the people is what it is, today.
>
>They've done so illegally by abrogating the limitations of power
>imposed on the Federal government by the Constitution. You know,
>that document I actually had to read and study and most native
>born citizens barely have glanced at.


By, "They", I must assume you to mean the politicians, and yet, you
have described them as fulfilling the will of the people. If they
truly express the will of the people, how can they be wrong?


>> I won't move to Canada if McCain is elected - too much of my wardrobe
>> is invested in Hawaiian shirts.
>
>I plan to be buried in one ... and a thong. My wishes have been made
>clear to my likely surviors. They shuddered at the horror of the
>visual image.

This is an unfortunate reference and I am totally of a mind with your
potential decedents. "The horror...the horror...".
>
>>
>> I would hope that you would not move to Canada either, since Robatoy
>> would hunt you down like a dog - get you drunk - and make you sing, "I
>> am a lumberjack and I'm OK...".
>
>
>Robbo couldn't catch me. Besides, my cousin is a Mountie and would
>probably take my side. Well .... maybe not...

You best watch out. The counter revolutionaries are deeply into the
mounties.

(silly)




tom watson

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

>I vote that you admit that both Marxism and liberal/progressive politics
>have a common cornerstone: The willingness to violate personal rights
>and personal property in the name of the "greater good". Whether
>we call it "the collective", "society at large", "the people", or
>whatever the code words du jour are, this fact is inescapable.
>You want to not be associated with Marxism? Quit supporting its
>central tenet: That the group has a right to violate the individual.

Are you seriously arguing that conservative politics, as commonly practiced,
does not do the same? As far as I can see, the only difference is what rights
they wish to violate.
-- Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I vote that you admit that both Marxism and liberal/progressive politics
>> have a common cornerstone: The willingness to violate personal rights
>> and personal property in the name of the "greater good". Whether
>> we call it "the collective", "society at large", "the people", or
>> whatever the code words du jour are, this fact is inescapable.
>> You want to not be associated with Marxism? Quit supporting its
>> central tenet: That the group has a right to violate the individual.
>
> Are you seriously arguing that conservative politics, as commonly practiced,
> does not do the same? As far as I can see, the only difference is what rights
> they wish to violate.
> -- Doug

I am arguing no such thing. The so-called "conservatives" today are
just about as guilty as the the liberals of this kind of thing, simply
in other matters, as you point out. They only thing that redeems them
at all is at least they still argue for the protection of the
individual's money (however poorly their policies actually end up
doing that), whereas - as best as I can tell - the current crop of
liberals protects *nothing* of the individual's from the predations of
the state/collective. Well ... that's not quite true. Liberals love to
protect the imagined rights of foreign invaders, illegal aliens, and
almost anyone *not* a legitimate US citizen or resident.

It used to be you could count on the liberals to defend civil
liberties and the conservatives to work to limit the power and size of
government. Both have sold us out completely in this regard.



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

t wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:42:21 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Given your professed deep knowledge of the definitions of socialism,
>>Marxism, and communism, please help the rest of us by participating in the
>>following exercise:
>>
>>1) Compare and contrast Marx's infamous quote: "From each according to
>>his ability, to each according to their need" with the following quote
>>from The One in response to the question, "You're going to raise my taxes,
>>aren't you?":
>
>
> My point was about the misuse of terminology. Here is the reading
> list from the seminar on Marxism and Socialist Thought:
>
>
> The Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. 1848.
>
> Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Friedrich Engels.
>
> State and Revolution. Vladimir Lenin.
>
> The Foundations of Leninism. Joseph Stalin.
>
> The New Class. Milovan Djilas.
>
> The Conspiracy of the Ivory Tower Intellectuals. Laszek Kolakowski.
>
> The New Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
>
> On Practice. Mao Tse-tung.
>
> Combat Liberalsim. Mao Tse-tung.
>
> Socialist Thought, A Documentary History. Albert Fried and Ronald
> Sanders.
>
>
>
> After you are done reading these you will better understand.
>

Rather than wasting a considerable amount of time reading that dreck (I've
seen and read sufficient excerpts to get the plot), I prefer to observe the
resulting catastrophes that have resulted from their implementation -- I
absolutely understand the toll on human lives, prosperity and productivity
that such systems have inflicted upon their nations' victims. Further,
from such observation, I see no reason why any person with more than two
working brain cells to rub together would want to see their own country
headed down that same path of wealth redistributionism and command economy.
That was my point, "from each according to his ability, to each according
to his need" isn't a very far step from "I believe that when you spread the
wealth around, it helps everybody".




>
>
> tom watson

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

t wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:42:21 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Given your professed deep knowledge of the definitions of socialism,
>> Marxism, and communism, please help the rest of us by participating in the
>> following exercise:
>>
>> 1) Compare and contrast Marx's infamous quote: "From each according to his
>> ability, to each according to their need" with the following quote from The
>> One in response to the question, "You're going to raise my taxes, aren't
>> you?":
>
>
> My point was about the misuse of terminology. Here is the reading
> list from the seminar on Marxism and Socialist Thought:
>
>
> The Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. 1848.
>
> Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Friedrich Engels.
>
> State and Revolution. Vladimir Lenin.
>
> The Foundations of Leninism. Joseph Stalin.
>
> The New Class. Milovan Djilas.
>
> The Conspiracy of the Ivory Tower Intellectuals. Laszek Kolakowski.
>
> The New Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
>
> On Practice. Mao Tse-tung.
>
> Combat Liberalsim. Mao Tse-tung.
>
> Socialist Thought, A Documentary History. Albert Fried and Ronald
> Sanders.
>
>
>
> After you are done reading these you will better understand.
>
>
>
> tom watson

It should be noted that several years after he wrote Das Capital (sp)
Karl Marx decided that communism would not work as a practical matter.
In 1991 he was proven right by the fall of the Soviet Union.

Dave Nagel

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:42:21 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:


> Given your professed deep knowledge of the definitions of socialism,
>Marxism, and communism, please help the rest of us by participating in the
>following exercise:
>
>1) Compare and contrast Marx's infamous quote: "From each according to his
>ability, to each according to their need" with the following quote from The
>One in response to the question, "You're going to raise my taxes, aren't
>you?":


My point was about the misuse of terminology. Here is the reading
list from the seminar on Marxism and Socialist Thought:


The Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. 1848.

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Friedrich Engels.

State and Revolution. Vladimir Lenin.

The Foundations of Leninism. Joseph Stalin.

The New Class. Milovan Djilas.

The Conspiracy of the Ivory Tower Intellectuals. Laszek Kolakowski.

The New Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

On Practice. Mao Tse-tung.

Combat Liberalsim. Mao Tse-tung.

Socialist Thought, A Documentary History. Albert Fried and Ronald
Sanders.



After you are done reading these you will better understand.



tom watson

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:46:31 -0500, David G. Nagel wrote:
>
>> It should be noted that several years after he wrote Das Capital (sp)
>> Karl Marx decided that communism would not work as a practical matter.
>> In 1991 he was proven right by the fall of the Soviet Union.
>
> Very few people would claim that the Soviet Union practiced communism.
> They were just another dictatorship that used communism as a prop.
>
> However, Marx was right when he said it wouldn't work. Its main fallacy
> was ignoring human nature.
>

Like you, I don't claim that pure communism is practiced anywhere.

t wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:22:50 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> I suspect you have no idea what I know. I'm sure you would love to
>> explain how you also spent full semesters of work studying to gain
>> the "real" definition of socialism.
>
>
>
>
> I am the very model of a modern Major-General
> I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral
> I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
> From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical

Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,
If you want to rise to the top of the tree,
If your soul isn't fettered to an office stool,
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule —
Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navee!

I always did prefer doggerel to "real" poetry. To whit,
and in honor of our next VP:

There are strange things done in the midnight sun
By the men who moil for gold;
The Arctic trails have their secret tales
That would make your blood run cold;
The Northern Lights have seen queer sights,
But the queerest they ever did see
Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge
I cremated Sam McGee.


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

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:22:50 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:


> I suspect you have no idea what I know. I'm sure you would love to
>explain how you also spent full semesters of work studying to gain
>the "real" definition of socialism.




I am the very model of a modern Major-General
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical

I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse

With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotepotenuse

I'm very good at integral and differential calculus
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral
I am the very model of a modern Major-General

In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral
He is the very model of a modern Major-General

I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's
I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous

I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies
I know the croaking chorus from the Frogs of Aristophanes
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore

And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinapinafore

Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform
And tell you ev'ry detail of Caractacus's uniform
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral
I am the very model of a modern Major-General

In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral
He is the very model of a modern Major-General

In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin"
When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at
And when I know precisely what is meant by "commissariat"

When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy
You'll say a better Major-General had never sat a gee

You'll say a better Major-General had never sat a gee
You'll say a better Major-General had never sat a gee
You'll say a better Major-General had never sat a sat a gee

For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral
I am the very model of a modern Major-General

But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral
He is the very model of a modern Major-General


Gilbert and Sullivan



[Pirates of Penzance]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:46:31 -0500, David G. Nagel wrote:

> It should be noted that several years after he wrote Das Capital (sp)
> Karl Marx decided that communism would not work as a practical matter.
> In 1991 he was proven right by the fall of the Soviet Union.

Very few people would claim that the Soviet Union practiced communism.
They were just another dictatorship that used communism as a prop.

However, Marx was right when he said it wouldn't work. Its main fallacy
was ignoring human nature.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> t wrote:
>
>> National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5
>>
>> National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6
>>
>> National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6
>>
>> National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
>>
>> National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10
>>
>> National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9
>>
>> National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14
>
> Gee, you left off Zogby
>
> Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
> Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.
>
> If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
> to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
> happy with that which you have supported.
>

Mark -

I often agree with you, but I think you may have missed the elephant
in the room here. The nation itself is already "socialist".
In an elected Democracy, the politicians ultimately really *are*
a reflection of the people. The core problem here is not Obama.
It is that he is the canary in the coalmine signaling the death
of liberty. It is the people that have decided they can vote
away personal responsibility, personal integrity, honesty,
and ethical behavior. You yourself have noted that some of
the posters here have flatly defended outright barbaric practices
like watching children die. No, the problem is not Obama. It
is a culture in complete decay. Obama is merely the symbol.



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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> t wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:46:17 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Upscale wrote:
>>>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> But you didn't. And I didn't (having much the same experience as you
>>>>> describe). In fact most everyone I know didn't. Yet, somehow, this
>>>>> whole fiasco is being sold as the "banks' problem". It is nonsense.
>>>> Still picking on the poor eh Tim? As representatives of the stockholders,
>>> No. I am defending property rights for those who actually earned
>>> said property.
>>
>> So, your are in favor of an Oligarchy?
>>
>> The country that you are currently living in has rejected that as a
>> philosophical concept.
>>
>>
>>
>> tom watson
>
> I (unlike you evidently) am opposed to theft, force, threat and their
> various close relatives. Anyone willing to use force to *make* others
> dispose of their legitimately obtained property and/or assets against
> their will is a scoundrel. You can doll up your arguments with as much
> obscure literary reference and high minded sanctimony as you like,
> but this is not complicated: Either people have the right to dispose
> of their property as they wish (absent fraud, force, or threat)
> or someone - in part or in whole - can force them to do something
> other than what the owner wishes. The latter appears to be what you're
> defending. It's a moral abyss and shameful.

This site has good price for many products. I have used it many time.
http://www.thehardoncity.com/

:-)

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:00:52 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:


>I used *exactly* the term I meant with full intention. Obama is
>a Marxist with a Leninist patina.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/


You have clearly demonstrated that you don't know a fucking thing
about Marxism - Leninism, let alone Marxism in general.

Have you ever read the Russian Constitution?

Did you ever read the previous Constitution of the USSR?

Do you even understand a working definition of Socialism?

I will answer No for you on all counts and remonstrate that pseudo
intellectuals like you have done great harm to the body politic by
assuming that every attempt at the redistribution of wealth is a
Socialist pogram. Taxation, by its very nature is about the
redistribution of wealth and that is what I pointed out to you by my
reference to The Whiskey Rebellion. Name me a State that does not
engage in taxation.

My greatest problem with you, Tim, is that you are not an idiot. You
have benefited more than most from the big raft mentality of the USA.

Salute the flag and try to understand its core values.

National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5

National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6

National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10

National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9

National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14

t wrote:
> National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5
>
> National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6
>
> National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6
>
> National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
>
> National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10
>
> National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9
>
> National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14
>
>

In a confrontation between the irrational and the rational,
the irrational, the irrational always wins.

- Ayn Rand (paraphrased)



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

BTW - I forgot to include Obama's missed votes by way of comparison.

I submit the following for your edification:


John McCain has missed 407 votes (63.8%) during the current Congress."

Barack Obama has missed 303 votes (46.3%) during the current Congress.



thank you for playing.


tom watson.

t wrote:

> National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5
>
> National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6
>
> National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6
>
> National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
>
> National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10
>
> National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9
>
> National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14

Gee, you left off Zogby

Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.

If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.

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

On Oct 15, 12:59=A0am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>, we are all going to get
> to watch as the nation goes socialist. =A0Hope that in 5 years you are al=
l
> happy with that which you have supported.

You mean gov't bailing out your banks?
>

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> t wrote:
>>
>>> National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5
>>>
>>> National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6
>>>
>>> National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6
>>>
>>> National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
>>>
>>> National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10
>>>
>>> National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9
>>>
>>> National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14
>>
>> Gee, you left off Zogby
>>
>> Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any
>> surprise?
>> Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.
>>
>> If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to
>> get
>> to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
>> happy with that which you have supported.
>>
>
> Mark -
>
> I often agree with you, but I think you may have missed the elephant
> in the room here. The nation itself is already "socialist".

Haven't missed that elephant, and I don't disagree that we have too great
a degree of socialism already present. What I see though with this coming
election and choices is an exponential increase in that degree of socialism
to the point that it will take generations to undo the damage about to be
done. Look at how hard it is to shake the entitlement mentality wrought
over the past 40 years; getting more people dependent on government
redistribution is going to make it that much harder.

> In an elected Democracy, the politicians ultimately really *are*
> a reflection of the people. The core problem here is not Obama.
> It is that he is the canary in the coalmine signaling the death
> of liberty. It is the people that have decided they can vote
> away personal responsibility, personal integrity, honesty,
> and ethical behavior.

Yep, that is what is most frustrating. So many appear to be saying to the
government, "I can't do for myself, I want you to have other peoples' money
support me".

> You yourself have noted that some of
> the posters here have flatly defended outright barbaric practices
> like watching children die. No, the problem is not Obama. It
> is a culture in complete decay. Obama is merely the symbol.
>

Don't disagree with that, maybe that is why I have probably been a bit too
vocal in expressing my opinion -- I don't want to see our country continue
to embrace that decay but it appears that too many others not only embrace
it but are actively advocating to accelerate it.

>
>

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

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:46:17 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Upscale wrote:
>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> But you didn't. And I didn't (having much the same experience as you
>>> describe). In fact most everyone I know didn't. Yet, somehow, this
>>> whole fiasco is being sold as the "banks' problem". It is nonsense.
>>
>> Still picking on the poor eh Tim? As representatives of the stockholders,
>
>No. I am defending property rights for those who actually earned
>said property.


So, your are in favor of an Oligarchy?

The country that you are currently living in has rejected that as a
philosophical concept.



tom watson

t wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:46:17 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Upscale wrote:
>>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> But you didn't. And I didn't (having much the same experience as you
>>>> describe). In fact most everyone I know didn't. Yet, somehow, this
>>>> whole fiasco is being sold as the "banks' problem". It is nonsense.
>>> Still picking on the poor eh Tim? As representatives of the stockholders,
>> No. I am defending property rights for those who actually earned
>> said property.
>
>
> So, your are in favor of an Oligarchy?
>
> The country that you are currently living in has rejected that as a
> philosophical concept.
>
>
>
> tom watson

I (unlike you evidently) am opposed to theft, force, threat and their
various close relatives. Anyone willing to use force to *make* others
dispose of their legitimately obtained property and/or assets against
their will is a scoundrel. You can doll up your arguments with as much
obscure literary reference and high minded sanctimony as you like,
but this is not complicated: Either people have the right to dispose
of their property as they wish (absent fraud, force, or threat)
or someone - in part or in whole - can force them to do something
other than what the owner wishes. The latter appears to be what you're
defending. It's a moral abyss and shameful.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

t wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:00:52 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> I used *exactly* the term I meant with full intention. Obama is
>> a Marxist with a Leninist patina.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
>
> You have clearly demonstrated that you don't know a fucking thing
> about Marxism - Leninism, let alone Marxism in general.
>
> Have you ever read the Russian Constitution?
>
> Did you ever read the previous Constitution of the USSR?
>
> Do you even understand a working definition of Socialism?
>
> I will answer No for you on all counts and remonstrate that pseudo
> intellectuals like you have done great harm to the body politic by
> assuming that every attempt at the redistribution of wealth is a
> Socialist pogram. Taxation, by its very nature is about the
> redistribution of wealth and that is what I pointed out to you by my
> reference to The Whiskey Rebellion. Name me a State that does not
> engage in taxation.
>
> My greatest problem with you, Tim, is that you are not an idiot. You
> have benefited more than most from the big raft mentality of the USA.
>
> Salute the flag and try to understand its core values.
>
>
>
>
>

I love personal attacks ... they demonstrate the vacuity of the
speaker's position.

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

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:24:25 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

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


Could anyone be THAT tough?


tom watson

t wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:27:00 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Thank-you Tom. My purpose in making the above post was two-fold.
>> First,
>>I wanted to elicit that elitist "if you don't do all of this you can't
>>possibly know what you are talking about response". You didn't
>>disappoint.
>
> "Elitist". Leadership or rule by an elite.
>
> "Elite". The best or most skilled members of a group.
>

and you were fussing at others over definitions of terms. So, let's be
precise:

From the American heritage dictionary:
é·lit·ism
NOUN: 1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or
groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority,
as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. 2a. The sense of
entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. b. Control, rule, or
domination by such a group or class.
OTHER FORMS: e·litist —ADJECTIVE & NOUN

"Elitist" is one who considers himself to be a member of the elite, which
is not necessarily the same thing as being elite.



> Of course I want the best possible people to run the country. I am
> sorry if you disagree.
>

Yet you support those who want to punish them when they are in the private
sector.




... snip
>
>
> I'm no longer going to bother arguing with you. Your mind is closed.
> You ask for proof and when it is presented with you, you simply
> indulge in the same tired, reflexive rhetoric.
>
> Why?
>
> Because
>
>
> YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE PROOF!
>

Proof? What proof are you talking about?

That, based upon your readings, Obama can't possibly be a marxist or
socialist?

OK, fine Tom, Obama is not a Marxist or socialist, the rest of us were
wrong. He's a free market capitalist who advocates raising taxes on those
who succeed (the private sector elite per your definition above), taking
the fruits of their labor and re-distributing that wealth to those who
haven't. That he will benefit politically from those to whom he bestows
this "largesse" I'm sure isn't even in the equation. He's not a socialist
even though he advocates nationalizing 1/7 of the US economy by
nationalizing health care. I don't know what the rest of us were thinking.

Oh, and he supports the second amendment,too. Just ask him. Pay no
attention to the fact that he has said, "I am consistently on the record as
opposing concealed carry" Chicago Tribune April 27, 2007
Has stated, "...just because you have an individual right does not mean
that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that
right" 2008 Philelphia primary debate. Has stated, "I'll continue to be in
favor of handgun registration requirements and licensing requirements for
training." Chicago Defender, July 5, 2001. Forget the fact that he voted
to allow prosecution of citizens who use a firearm for self-defense in the
home (Illinois SB 2165 3/25/04). But he supports the second amendment and
his followers should get in peoples' faces and let them know that (recent
campaign appearance).






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

On Oct 19, 9:28=A0pm, t <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:24:25 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
>
> Could anyone be THAT tough?
>
> tom watson

People can understand and do amazing things with very little in-depth
study or practise.
Flying 757's comes to mind.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:27:00 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:


> Thank-you Tom. My purpose in making the above post was two-fold. First,
>I wanted to elicit that elitist "if you don't do all of this you can't
>possibly know what you are talking about response". You didn't disappoint.

"Elitist". Leadership or rule by an elite.

"Elite". The best or most skilled members of a group.

Of course I want the best possible people to run the country. I am
sorry if you disagree.


> My second purpose was a bit more serious; that reading list is
>considerable and represents an immense investment of time and preparation
>for someone putting together such a seminar and a large investment of time
>on the part of those participating in such a seminar. The first question
>one should ask is what the purpose of such investment should be. Could this
>not be distilled into an examination of the key teachings of marxist
>doctrines along with an examination of the results of their attempted
>implementation? Were similar seminars offered that delved with equivalent
>depth into the bases of the representative democracy formed under the
>Constitution? Was equivalent depth provided for the federalist and
>anti-federalist papers, the writings of Locke, Jefferson, Madison and the
>founders?

Here is the reading list for the course on Social and Political
Philosophy:


The Republic. Plato.

The Crito. Plato.

Politics. Aristotle.

The Prince. Niccolo Machiavelli.

Leviathan. Thomas Hobbes.

The Second Treatise On Civil Government. John Locke.

The Social Contract. Jean Jacques Rousseau.

The Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson.

Act For Establishing Religious Freedom. Thomas Jefferson.

Letters. Thomas Jefferson.

On The Duty of Civil Disobedience. Henry David Thoreau.

On Liberty. John Stuart Mill.

The Doctrine of Fascism. Benito Mussolini.

Mein Kampf. Adolf Hitler.

Reconstruction In Philosophy. John Dewey.

Ethics. John Dewey (with James H. Tufts).

Non-Violent Resistance. M. K. Gandhi.




The various Federalist Papers were covered in a History course, rather
than a Philosophy course.
>

> Let's put this into an analogy to which you should be able to relate.

(False analogy deleted.)



I'm no longer going to bother arguing with you. Your mind is closed.
You ask for proof and when it is presented with you, you simply
indulge in the same tired, reflexive rhetoric.

Why?

Because


YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE PROOF!


(sorry Jack)



tom watson

t wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:25:18 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Oct 15, 6:55 pm, t <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:59:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> t wrote:
>>>>>> National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5
>>>>>> National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6
>>>>>> National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6
>>>>>> National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
>>>>>> National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10
>>>>>> National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9
>>>>>> National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14
>>>>> Gee, you left off Zogby
>>>>> Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
>>>>> Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.
>>>>> If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
>>>>> to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
>>>>> happy with that which you have supported.
>>>> If you had read carefully, you would have seen Zogby in line two.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still concerned about the Bradley problem. I wonder how many
>>>> points that is worth.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that you don't have a working definition of Socialism.
>>>>
>>>> tom watson
>>> I own a small business in Michigan. They are all looking bug-eyed at
>>> the government for some kind of help.
>>>
>>> Is that socialism?
>> yes
>
>
> You know, Tim, perhaps I am manacled by my training but I was taught
> to insist on a definition of terms as a precedent to the beginning of
> an argument. You have often declined to present definitions for any
> of the terms that you lob about like broken hand grenades.
>
> If you are a serious man with serious intent, you must come to grips
> with the definition of that which you fear. It is not enough to use a
> term as a cudgel without shedding light on its elements.
>
> Words like Socialism, Collectivism, etc. need to be unpacked before
> any rational dialogue can occur.
>
> In your discipline you may not be used to any kind of linguistic
> analysis but it is coin of the realm in the arena of serious political
> debate.
>
> Try to come to a definition of one of your terms as a sort of personal
> exercise. It has a wonderful capacity to focus the mind.
>
>
>
> tom watson
>
>
>

"socialism" is one of the convenient shorthands for collectivism:
The premise that the good of the good trumps the interest of
the individual. Whatever the term, I object - on moral grounds -
to all collectivist systems.

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

Mark & Juanita wrote:

> Thank-you Tom. My purpose in making the above post was two-fold. First,
> I wanted to elicit that elitist "if you don't do all of this you can't
> possibly know what you are talking about response". You didn't disappoint.
> Frankly, the idea that in order for someone to be able to discuss the
> merits/demerits of socialized, collectivized, or other re-distributionist
> command economy approaches they must complete that reading list or be
> considered unworthy of debating the points is beyond absurd and elitist.

Perhaps so - and on the other hand there are those who believe that
skimming Cliff Notes or a Schaum Outline is sufficient to consider
themselves educated in a subject area.

I've always been fascinated that the men I've tended to think of as the
"great thinkers" among our founding fathers found it necessary to learn
Greek and Latin so as to be able to read what they considered great
writings in the originators' own language and words...

> If you feel that a specific definition for some term must be employed in a
> discussion -- spit it out, let us know the definition to which you want to
> work. My second purpose was a bit more serious; that reading list is
> considerable and represents an immense investment of time and preparation
> for someone putting together such a seminar and a large investment of time
> on the part of those participating in such a seminar. The first question
> one should ask is what the purpose of such investment should be. Could this
> not be distilled into an examination of the key teachings of marxist
> doctrines along with an examination of the results of their attempted
> implementation? Were similar seminars offered that delved with equivalent
> depth into the bases of the representative democracy formed under the
> Constitution? Was equivalent depth provided for the federalist and
> anti-federalist papers, the writings of Locke, Jefferson, Madison and the
> founders? Similarly, were similar seminars offered on the workings of
> free-market economies? I know that the answer for that at several
> institutions of higher learning with which I was acquainted even 25 years
> ago would have been "no". There seems to be a fascination in academia with
> the works of Marx and his fellow travelers that is not exhibited toward
> those elements of the society that has enabled this and other western
> countries to achieve the levels of accomplishments that they have enjoyed.

That's too bad - and does not speak well of either faculties nor
administrations of those institutions. Perhaps as an alumnus you can
advocate for the missing balance.

Could it be that the fascination you describe is more with the various
notions of Utopia than with practical, real-world systems of governance?

> The origin of this discussion, the fact that the democrat candidate has in
> multiple instances indicated the desire to implement re-distributionist
> policies and continued implementation of socialist policies was the heart
> of the original elements of the discussion. If you want to categorize and
> refine the degree of socialism and more specifically identify with which
> statist phylum his ideas are associated, that's fine, it doesn't change the
> idea that this candidate is seeking greater government control, larger
> government aggrandizement of wealth for the purpose of re-distributing it
> to his political gain, and punishing success in the name of fairness.

Interesting. With the substitution of "productivity" for "success",
that's pretty much how I'd have characterized the behavior of the
current administration. :-)

> Let's put this into an analogy to which you should be able to relate. You
> have posted extensively about you and your son's participation in pine car
> derby as well as the accompanying successes. What if the pine car derby
> judges were to make the following pronouncement for next year's contest:
> Given that you and your son and other winners have been so successful over
> the past several years, being able to savor the joy of victory and
> competition, the judges have determined that it is not fair that other
> disadvantaged children, often not of their own fault, not be capable of
> enjoying some degree of success. Therefore, in order to implement a policy
> of fairness and assure that the most disadvantaged be able to do well also,
> those who have, for the past several years been finalists and winners (the
> top 5%) will be required to build and provide two pine cars -- the judges
> will then choose one of those entries and provide that car to one of the
> losers from previous years (you know the ones, the kid who shows up with
> the wheels nailed to the pine car block, not all of them touching the
> ground, if he took some time, he may have decorated it with crayon or magic
> marker) so that child will also be able to enjoy the thrill of the
> competition. We're sure you see the fairness in this new approach and look
> forward to your two entries in the coming derby.

Another scenario: If your child's car did not finish in the top 1/5,
then your child is required to contribute toward the purchase of
(expensive) ball bearing wheels to be distributed only to that top 20%.

> That, in a nutshell is what the re-distributionist, "I think when you
> spread the wealth around, everybody benefits" policy of the democrat
> nominee is proposing. It is no longer about government revenue or seeing
> to the constitutionally defined roles of the federal government, it is
> about "fairness". Earlier this summer, when it was pointed out to him that
> increasing capital gains tax rates have actually been shown to reduce
> revenue, he stated he didn't care, it was just fair that capital gains be
> taxed at a higher rate than they are now.

A good compromise solution might be to boost short-term capital gains
taxes (to discourage disruptive speculation) and simultaneously
decreasing long-term capital gains taxes (to encourage responsible
investment).

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

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:

>> Another scenario: If your child's car did not finish in the top 1/5,
>> then your child is required to contribute toward the purchase of
>> (expensive) ball bearing wheels to be distributed only to that top 20%.
>
> In what way does your analogy come close to the current state? You surely
> are not implying that those in the bottom 80% are having their taxes raised
> and that money being re-distributed to the top 20%? Just because people
> don't understand basic math doesn't mean that an across-the-board tax cut
> doesn't benefit everyone and it certainly doesn't mean those of lesser
> means are subsidizing those of greater. We already have the case where the
> top 25% are paying 86% of all income taxes while their adjusted gross
> income share is only 68%. So, what do you consider fair? When the top 25%
> are paying 90%, 95%, 100%? At what point does this become the dictatorship
> of the majority where the 75% non-taxpayers see a way to get something for
> nothing by demanding higher taxes on those other than themselves and
> distribution of those funds to benefit themselves?

Math isn't a serious problem for me until you move significantly beyond
partial differential equations. It was my major area of study.

You can shift the burden downward in either of two ways: either by

[1] introducing a relative increase in the rate of taxation on those
with lower incomes, or by

[2] introducing a relative decrease in the rate of taxation on those
with higher incomes.

However, without regard for the specific tax rates du jour, if the
middle class contracts beyond some 'healthy' threshold, then the entire
social structure (not just its financial or economic aspects) becomes
unstable.

I'm definitely not a socio-economics guru, so I can't specify where that
threshold lies - but not even a geek like me could miss the historical
pattern or doubt the irrelevance of specific tax rates if/when that
threshold is crossed.

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

Mark & Juanita wrote:

> I was directing that more at main stream media and various
> congressional propagandists who, when tax cuts were announced (as an
> across-the board percentage) complained that the "rich" were going to
> benefit more, citing how the "rich" would be able to buy a car with
> their tax decrease while those with only lower incomes would be able
> to buy a muffler. That both groups received the same percentage
> decrease was lost on (or ignored by) these propagandists, labeling
> this as unfair to those with lower income.

It's an interesting situation perhaps made especially so by our
preoccupation with and confusion of "fairness" (same rules apply to all)
with "justice" (equity in all transactions - social as well as financial).

Regardless of the economic theory one espouses, there is a point at
which observers note that <whatever> system is not working when those at
the top of the scale receive compensation in excess of what they can
reasonably enjoy while those at the bottom of the scale are unable to
meet basic needs regardless of effort expended.

When/if that happens, the issue becomes one of justice - and it is not
the level of taxation that is called into question, but rather the worth
of the entire social structure that fails to provide equity.

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

Morris Dovey wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>>> Another scenario: If your child's car did not finish in the top 1/5,
>>> then your child is required to contribute toward the purchase of
>>> (expensive) ball bearing wheels to be distributed only to that top 20%.
>>
>> In what way does your analogy come close to the current state? You
>> surely
>> are not implying that those in the bottom 80% are having their taxes
>> raised
>> and that money being re-distributed to the top 20%? Just because people
>> don't understand basic math doesn't mean that an across-the-board tax cut
>> doesn't benefit everyone and it certainly doesn't mean those of lesser
>> means are subsidizing those of greater. We already have the case where
>> the top 25% are paying 86% of all income taxes while their adjusted gross
>> income share is only 68%. So, what do you consider fair? When the top 25%
>> are paying 90%, 95%, 100%? At what point does this become the
>> dictatorship of the majority where the 75% non-taxpayers see a way to get
>> something for nothing by demanding higher taxes on those other than
>> themselves and distribution of those funds to benefit themselves?
>
> Math isn't a serious problem for me until you move significantly beyond
> partial differential equations. It was my major area of study.
>

Wasn't intending to imply that you did not -- your work on CNC equipment
and other endeavors show otherwise. I was directing that more at main
stream media and various congressional propagandists who, when tax cuts
were announced (as an across-the board percentage) complained that
the "rich" were going to benefit more, citing how the "rich" would be able
to buy a car with their tax decrease while those with only lower incomes
would be able to buy a muffler. That both groups received the same
percentage decrease was lost on (or ignored by) these propagandists,
labeling this as unfair to those with lower income.

> You can shift the burden downward in either of two ways: either by
>
> [1] introducing a relative increase in the rate of taxation on those
> with lower incomes, or by
>
> [2] introducing a relative decrease in the rate of taxation on those
> with higher incomes.
>
> However, without regard for the specific tax rates du jour, if the
> middle class contracts beyond some 'healthy' threshold, then the entire
> social structure (not just its financial or economic aspects) becomes
> unstable.
>
> I'm definitely not a socio-economics guru, so I can't specify where that
> threshold lies - but not even a geek like me could miss the historical
> pattern or doubt the irrelevance of specific tax rates if/when that
> threshold is crossed.
>

Looking at the current tax burdens, I would say we are getting close to
that threshold. At some time, the burden is going to have to be shifted
back downward -- the current setup is open to the abuse I described
previously -- the tyranny of the majority. A majority that demands, it pay
little or nothing and that all the burden be carried by the minority (upper
25%). If nothing else, by shifting that tax burden more equitably, those
in the lower tiers will begin demanding accountability and frugality from
their government -- that's not a bad thing. Unfortunately, that's not an
easy thing to accomplish. Nobody in the lower tiers is going to willingly
accept a greater tax burden. The only way to make this work is to start
cutting government largesse and granting tax cuts to the upper tiers while
keeping the lower tier tax rates unchanged. This will be treated with
howls of protest, but it's going to have to happen sooner or later. If it
happens later, it very well could be that it happens by those toting the
load giving up and either voting with their feet or becoming members of the
receiving class as well.



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

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:51:06 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:


> Rather than wasting a considerable amount of time reading that dreck

sigh...





tom watson

t wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:51:06 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Rather than wasting a considerable amount of time reading that dreck
>
> sigh...
>
>
>
>
>
> tom watson


Thank-you Tom. My purpose in making the above post was two-fold. First,
I wanted to elicit that elitist "if you don't do all of this you can't
possibly know what you are talking about response". You didn't disappoint.
Frankly, the idea that in order for someone to be able to discuss the
merits/demerits of socialized, collectivized, or other re-distributionist
command economy approaches they must complete that reading list or be
considered unworthy of debating the points is beyond absurd and elitist.
If you feel that a specific definition for some term must be employed in a
discussion -- spit it out, let us know the definition to which you want to
work. My second purpose was a bit more serious; that reading list is
considerable and represents an immense investment of time and preparation
for someone putting together such a seminar and a large investment of time
on the part of those participating in such a seminar. The first question
one should ask is what the purpose of such investment should be. Could this
not be distilled into an examination of the key teachings of marxist
doctrines along with an examination of the results of their attempted
implementation? Were similar seminars offered that delved with equivalent
depth into the bases of the representative democracy formed under the
Constitution? Was equivalent depth provided for the federalist and
anti-federalist papers, the writings of Locke, Jefferson, Madison and the
founders? Similarly, were similar seminars offered on the workings of
free-market economies? I know that the answer for that at several
institutions of higher learning with which I was acquainted even 25 years
ago would have been "no". There seems to be a fascination in academia with
the works of Marx and his fellow travelers that is not exhibited toward
those elements of the society that has enabled this and other western
countries to achieve the levels of accomplishments that they have enjoyed.


The origin of this discussion, the fact that the democrat candidate has in
multiple instances indicated the desire to implement re-distributionist
policies and continued implementation of socialist policies was the heart
of the original elements of the discussion. If you want to categorize and
refine the degree of socialism and more specifically identify with which
statist phylum his ideas are associated, that's fine, it doesn't change the
idea that this candidate is seeking greater government control, larger
government aggrandizement of wealth for the purpose of re-distributing it
to his political gain, and punishing success in the name of fairness.

Let's put this into an analogy to which you should be able to relate. You
have posted extensively about you and your son's participation in pine car
derby as well as the accompanying successes. What if the pine car derby
judges were to make the following pronouncement for next year's contest:
Given that you and your son and other winners have been so successful over
the past several years, being able to savor the joy of victory and
competition, the judges have determined that it is not fair that other
disadvantaged children, often not of their own fault, not be capable of
enjoying some degree of success. Therefore, in order to implement a policy
of fairness and assure that the most disadvantaged be able to do well also,
those who have, for the past several years been finalists and winners (the
top 5%) will be required to build and provide two pine cars -- the judges
will then choose one of those entries and provide that car to one of the
losers from previous years (you know the ones, the kid who shows up with
the wheels nailed to the pine car block, not all of them touching the
ground, if he took some time, he may have decorated it with crayon or magic
marker) so that child will also be able to enjoy the thrill of the
competition. We're sure you see the fairness in this new approach and look
forward to your two entries in the coming derby.

That, in a nutshell is what the re-distributionist, "I think when you
spread the wealth around, everybody benefits" policy of the democrat
nominee is proposing. It is no longer about government revenue or seeing
to the constitutionally defined roles of the federal government, it is
about "fairness". Earlier this summer, when it was pointed out to him that
increasing capital gains tax rates have actually been shown to reduce
revenue, he stated he didn't care, it was just fair that capital gains be
taxed at a higher rate than they are now.

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

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Frankly, the idea that in order for someone to be able to discuss the
>> merits/demerits of socialized, collectivized, or other re-distributionist
>> command economy approaches they must complete that reading list or be
>> considered unworthy of debating the points is beyond absurd and elitist.

Morris Dovey wrote:
> Perhaps so - and on the other hand there are those who believe that
> skimming Cliff Notes or a Schaum Outline is sufficient to consider
> themselves educated in a subject area.

This reminds me when I was a younger man and running Unix System V which
came with a ton of utilities including AWK, a text processing language.
The documentation for AWK was about 2 pages double spaced. It was the
most amazing and concise documentation I've ever come across. Many
books have been written to teach AWK programing, but if you were smart
enough, and determined enough, about everything was contained in those 2
pages of super concise writings.

Any how, any goof that thinks he needs to read that list of crap Tom
posted to get a working definition of socialism has some sort of
learning deficiency.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=1&q=socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=0&Keyword=socialism&goquery=Find+it!&Language=ENG
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=socialism

Shouldn't take more than a few minutes reading any of the definitions of
socialism to understand whats up with it. Moreover, if Tom wants to
discuss a definition or explain what he's learned after reading all that
crap, he should say something other than give people a reading list. If
what he's learned differs from what any of the above sources define as
socialism, then he is free to make his case.

> A good compromise solution might be to boost short-term capital gains
> taxes (to discourage disruptive speculation) and simultaneously
> decreasing long-term capital gains taxes (to encourage responsible
> investment).

There is already a different rate for short and long term capital gains.
Not sure what problem boosting that will solve, other than pushing the
fast and loose gambler to the government run gambling casinos and
lotteries? Personally, I think they should boost short term capital
gains taxes by elimination of long term capital gains taxes.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:46:31 -0500, "David G. Nagel"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>It should be noted that several years after he wrote Das Capital (sp)
>Karl Marx decided that communism would not work as a practical matter.
>In 1991 he was proven right by the fall of the Soviet Union.
>
>Dave Nagel


It should further be noted that I am not acting as a proponent of the
political theories discussed. Neither were any of the other students.
Neither was the prof.

Education is about familiarizing oneself with multiple viewpoints. It
may be the case that you have to hold your nose while you are learning
about some things.

Let me tell you a very short story.

I surprised my father-in-law one day while he was reading The New York
Times. As he was a life-long Republican, I expressed my dismay at his
choice of reading material.

Not missing a beat (he was an attorney, and used to impromptu
calumnies and vague innuendo) he said, "I like to know what the enemy
is thinking."


I rest my case.



tom watson

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:25:18 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Robatoy wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 6:55 pm, t <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:59:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> t wrote:
>>>>> National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5
>>>>> National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6
>>>>> National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6
>>>>> National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
>>>>> National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10
>>>>> National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9
>>>>> National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14
>>>> Gee, you left off Zogby
>>>> Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
>>>> Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.
>>>> If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
>>>> to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
>>>> happy with that which you have supported.
>>> If you had read carefully, you would have seen Zogby in line two.
>>>
>>> I'm still concerned about the Bradley problem. I wonder how many
>>> points that is worth.
>>>
>>> I suspect that you don't have a working definition of Socialism.
>>>
>>> tom watson
>>
>> I own a small business in Michigan. They are all looking bug-eyed at
>> the government for some kind of help.
>>
>> Is that socialism?
>
>yes


You know, Tim, perhaps I am manacled by my training but I was taught
to insist on a definition of terms as a precedent to the beginning of
an argument. You have often declined to present definitions for any
of the terms that you lob about like broken hand grenades.

If you are a serious man with serious intent, you must come to grips
with the definition of that which you fear. It is not enough to use a
term as a cudgel without shedding light on its elements.

Words like Socialism, Collectivism, etc. need to be unpacked before
any rational dialogue can occur.

In your discipline you may not be used to any kind of linguistic
analysis but it is coin of the realm in the arena of serious political
debate.

Try to come to a definition of one of your terms as a sort of personal
exercise. It has a wonderful capacity to focus the mind.



tom watson

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:33:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Blanchard wrote:

>> BTW, our local newspaper endorsed almost all national, regional, and local
>> Republicans and still gets accused of being liberal.
>
> Probably because of the news feeds they use.

One can't argue with that kind of logic.



--
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.

t wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:46:31 -0500, "David G. Nagel"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>It should be noted that several years after he wrote Das Capital (sp)
>>Karl Marx decided that communism would not work as a practical matter.
>>In 1991 he was proven right by the fall of the Soviet Union.
>>
>>Dave Nagel
>
>
... snip
>
> Not missing a beat (he was an attorney, and used to impromptu
> calumnies and vague innuendo) he said, "I like to know what the enemy
> is thinking."
>
>
> I rest my case.
>

Tom, I was not advocating knowing the enemy nor the philosophies espoused.
I was taking exception to your insinuation that unless someone had read
your defined reading list, they were unworthy to discuss the topic at hand.
There are numerous ways to obtain such knowledge, full immersion into the
doctrine is not necessarily the only way to do so. Others will accuse you
of having not done enough because you did not read them in the original
language.

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

Morris Dovey wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
... snip
>
> That's too bad - and does not speak well of either faculties nor
> administrations of those institutions. Perhaps as an alumnus you can
> advocate for the missing balance.
>
> Could it be that the fascination you describe is more with the various
> notions of Utopia than with practical, real-world systems of governance?
>

From what I observed, I would say that is a correct assessment. Seems
that the advocates and apologists were always making the statement
that, "it just hasn't been done right". They kind of miss the basic needs
and nature of humans and the fact that in order for their utopian visions
to work, force is required; which, unfortunately kind of destroys that
utopian feeling.

>> The origin of this discussion, the fact that the democrat candidate has
>> in
>> multiple instances indicated the desire to implement re-distributionist
>> policies and continued implementation of socialist policies was the heart
>> of the original elements of the discussion. If you want to categorize
>> and refine the degree of socialism and more specifically identify with
>> which statist phylum his ideas are associated, that's fine, it doesn't
>> change the idea that this candidate is seeking greater government
>> control, larger government aggrandizement of wealth for the purpose of
>> re-distributing it to his political gain, and punishing success in the
>> name of fairness.
>
> Interesting. With the substitution of "productivity" for "success",
> that's pretty much how I'd have characterized the behavior of the
> current administration. :-)
>

Aside from the unfortunate addition of yet another major socialist program
(the prescription drug benefit), I'm not seeing that quest for more
government power.



>> Let's put this into an analogy to which you should be able to relate.
>> You
>> have posted extensively about you and your son's participation in pine
>> car
>> derby as well as the accompanying successes. What if the pine car derby
>> judges were to make the following pronouncement for next year's contest:
>> Given that you and your son and other winners have been so successful
>> over
>> the past several years, being able to savor the joy of victory and
>> competition, the judges have determined that it is not fair that other
>> disadvantaged children, often not of their own fault, not be capable of
>> enjoying some degree of success. Therefore, in order to implement a
>> policy of fairness and assure that the most disadvantaged be able to do
>> well also, those who have, for the past several years been finalists and
>> winners (the top 5%) will be required to build and provide two pine cars
>> -- the judges will then choose one of those entries and provide that car
>> to one of the losers from previous years (you know the ones, the kid who
>> shows up with the wheels nailed to the pine car block, not all of them
>> touching the ground, if he took some time, he may have decorated it with
>> crayon or magic marker) so that child will also be able to enjoy the
>> thrill of the
>> competition. We're sure you see the fairness in this new approach and
>> look forward to your two entries in the coming derby.
>
> Another scenario: If your child's car did not finish in the top 1/5,
> then your child is required to contribute toward the purchase of
> (expensive) ball bearing wheels to be distributed only to that top 20%.
>

In what way does your analogy come close to the current state? You surely
are not implying that those in the bottom 80% are having their taxes raised
and that money being re-distributed to the top 20%? Just because people
don't understand basic math doesn't mean that an across-the-board tax cut
doesn't benefit everyone and it certainly doesn't mean those of lesser
means are subsidizing those of greater. We already have the case where the
top 25% are paying 86% of all income taxes while their adjusted gross
income share is only 68%. So, what do you consider fair? When the top 25%
are paying 90%, 95%, 100%? At what point does this become the dictatorship
of the majority where the 75% non-taxpayers see a way to get something for
nothing by demanding higher taxes on those other than themselves and
distribution of those funds to benefit themselves?

It also does not follow that the tax burden on those in the top 25% has
declined, as a matter of fact, just the opposite:

1986 76.02
1987 76.92
1988 77.84
1989 77.22
1990 77.02
1991 77.29
1992 78.48
1993 79.27
1994 79.55
1995 80.36
1996 81.32
1997 81.67
1998 82.69
1999 83.54
2000 84.01
2001 82.90
2002 83.90
2003 83.88
2004 84.86
2005 85.99
2006 86.27

So, where does this end, the bottom end of the distribution continues to
have less and less stake in assuring that government expenditures are
well-managed and appropriate. As a matter of fact, since they benefit
disproportionately, it is in their interest to vote those into office who
promise the most. This is not a healthy situation in which our country
finds itself.


... snip
>

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

On Oct 13, 3:43=A0pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
> > The more I read about Palin and her stud puppy, the more the hair on
> > the back of my neck stands up.
>
> Charlie
> That Palin has no close ties with any such a group is quite beside the po=
int
> as the claim is simply part of the organized bash Palin campaign.....But
> your political views are so predictable that your hair was standing up lo=
ng
> before you ever heard her name. Confusing reasoned thought with personal
> political preference might make you feel better but its a little transpar=
ent
> from here. =A0Rod

You are saying Todd never belonged to a secessionist group?

After listening to Palin lie and dodge, or attempt to, through
interviews and a debate, my hair stood on end. I was looking for
information, and got plenty, none of it anywhere close to favorable to
her. If you feel otherwise, then that's your privilige.

Your denigration of my tinking abilities goes far to proving that
you're basically an asswipe without much, or any, acceptance of other
people's opinions.

Your stance on Mt. Olympus is a shade shaky, Zeus.

On Oct 16, 12:17=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 10:59 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The picture I get is more like a ski boat towing around a fallen skier
> >> that refuses to let go of the rope.
>
> >> You're right, it is a lot of fun.
>
> > Especially if you can imagine him yelling: "I'm skiing!! I'm skiing!!"
>
> Much more colorful than my vision of an angry/impatient guy sitting at
> his keyboard in Des Plaines taking it out on all the "unworthies"
> because John Galt hasn't (yet) invited him to Happy Valley in the
> Colorado Rockies.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

BTW, my apologies for my bit of fun at Tim's expence. I know you're
not fond of the flames. I will try to behave. .....but it's so
hard!!!!!!
174 hits isn't too shabby though...*guilty grin*

On Oct 15, 9:03=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> >>> My, my, =A0you guys are getting desperate. (Pssst.. did you know he's
> >>> shhhh... black??? shhhhh)
>
> Jack asks:
>
> >> Walter Williams is also black, whats your point?
> > Well, you see.....naaa.. forget it...
>
> Pointless dribble is not hard to forget, so OK.
>
> While it's still fresh in my mind, before I forget it, it sounds to me
> like you are the racist?
>
Nope. Not me. Read that original post of mine again. It is a
question.
Let me translate it for you. " What's next? Are the rightwingers going
to make his race an issue next??"

It is a whisper heard behind the hands of the hypocritical right wing
illustrating that they'll stop at nothing to stop Obama.
All I did, was point out that his race has been put into play, out in
the open at least, yet.

And then we get some clown stating that 'The Right' isn't
racist.....as in 'none of them'...

On Oct 14, 10:26=A0pm, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> ...a family member is getting desperate too?
> I also didn't know this was about collecting or giving away points.
>
> It's not, but since he's a troll with a good measure of loony tune thrown
> in, it's the only way he can keep count. Everybody else is evil and he's =
the
> only sane person here. That by itself should answer all questions.

I think he's having himself some fun.
Because there is NO way he can be serious.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:48:34 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> ... his work to defeat a bill to prevent infanticide ...
>
> Isn't English a wonderful language? Someone on the other side of that
> issue might have said "his work to defend legal and safe abortions instead
> of coat hangers" to describe the very same actions :-).
>
> It seems there's red English and blue English.
>
> Not to mention real English from across the pond :-).
>

What is the proper language to describe:

Babies that survived abortion attempts were put into a closet
to die. (This is not hyperbole nor is it in dispute. It was
reported and verfied some time ago.) When this was reported to
Obama in his capacity as a state legislator, his response was
more-or-less, "so what, its not my problem". Yes, yes, I know
there are more nuances to this - that other laws were in place
and so forth. But he essentially treated it as not much of an
issue. I guess it isn't ... if you're not that baby.


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

On Oct 16, 10:59=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > In summation:
> > The Wreck is a wonderful source of relevant woodworking information...
> > AND a lot of fun.
> > So many here are so serious! It is impossible to resist the incredible
> > beauty of Tim chowing down on a lure and then tailwalking the
> > shimmering lake towards the horizon, dragging a few thousand feet of
> > 12 pound test behind him.
>
> The picture I get is more like a ski boat towing around a fallen skier
> that refuses to let go of the rope.
>
> You're right, it is a lot of fun.
>
> --
> Jackhttp://jbstein.com

Especially if you can imagine him yelling: "I'm skiing!! I'm skiing!!"

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:48:34 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> ... his work to defeat a bill to prevent infanticide ...
>
> Isn't English a wonderful language? Someone on the other side of that
> issue might have said "his work to defend legal and safe abortions instead
> of coat hangers" to describe the very same actions :-).
>

What else would you call leaving a born-alive infant left to die in a
closet after a "botched" abortion? That was the subject of the
legislation. That legislation was brought into consideration because these
situations actually happened. You can call it what you want, but the fact
that the victim of that "legal and safe abortion" could have survived had
medical care been given doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room to call it
anything other than infanticide.

> It seems there's red English and blue English.
>

Yeah, I know, the ugliness of the truth hurts that feel-good feeling about
the "right to choose", doesn't it?

> Not to mention real English from across the pond :-).

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

On Oct 14, 10:42=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> I think he's having himself some fun.
> >> Because there is NO way he can be serious.
>
> > It really is funny though. Push one button and he dances like a marione=
tte
> > for five minutes. Now he's trotting out the black side of his family tr=
ee.
>
> Only because I was accused of being racist for opposing Obama.
>
You are a liar.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
...a family member is getting desperate too?
I also didn't know this was about collecting or giving away points.

It's not, but since he's a troll with a good measure of loony tune thrown
in, it's the only way he can keep count. Everybody else is evil and he's the
only sane person here. That by itself should answer all questions.

On Oct 14, 12:28=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
> > Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:48:34 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> >>> ... his work to defeat a bill to prevent infanticide ...
>
> >> Isn't English a wonderful language? =A0Someone on the other side of th=
at
> >> issue might have said "his work to defend legal and safe abortions
> >> instead
> >> of coat hangers" to describe the very same actions :-).
>
> >> It seems there's red English and blue English.
>
> >> Not to mention real English from across the pond :-).
>
> > And anyway, infanticide is the killing of infants or newborn children.
> > Abortion is abortion. =A0Sometimes I find myself making excuses for Mar=
k,
> > Tim, and a few others that are a small part of my life. =A0They live li=
ves
> > in the area between "quiet desperation" (HDT) and "fear and trembling"
> > (SK). =A0To them, the Zen of any situation must be smothered in verbiag=
e
> > slanted to prove their point.
>
> > Sitting quietly, doing nothing, spring comes, and the grass grows by
> > itself. =A0Think.
> > =A0 =A0 jo4hn
>
> I hope you find great peace knowing that your favored candidate thinks
> that letting babies that survived and abortion attempt die alone in
> a closet isn't much of an issue.
>

My, my, you guys are getting desperate. (Pssst.. did you know he's
shhhh... black??? shhhhh)

Upscale wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I think he's having himself some fun.
>> Because there is NO way he can be serious.
>
> It really is funny though. Push one button and he dances like a marionette
> for five minutes. Now he's trotting out the black side of his family tree.

Only because I was accused of being racist for opposing Obama.

> If he really does have some black relatives that do know him, I'm sure
> they're aghast at being drawn into Tim's raving. I can just see them saying
> to themselves, "God, Tim's involved me in this, where do I hide, where do I
> hide?" :)

Actually, I am loved by all who know me. Chicks dig me, men want to
be me, my enemies fear me so they talk trash 'cuz they can't keep up.


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