On 26 Dec 2011 01:17:27 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 15:19:31 -0800, CW wrote:
>>
>>> I'm happy to learn that we share another philosophy. ;-)
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----------------
>>> Makes three of us.
>>
>> With Larry it's not a philosophy, it's a religion.
>>
>> One which I do not share :-).
>
>Freddie is (IMNSHO) a lowlife prostitute hawking bad mortgages.
Freddie Mac or Fred Thompson? What about your Obama, who whored for
ACORN and, as a member of the Democratic Black Caucus, helped force
Fannie Mae into making bad loans?
OK, I found the Fred Thompson spokesman ads. I'm surprise he's doing
them but he is, after all, an actor. Other than this, I haven't seen
him make any bad judgment calls.
>Ron Paul - I don't know how to describe him, so I won't ...
A smart and compassionate man who somehow got into office, against all
odds. I don't think he'd make a good President.
--
Truth loves to go naked.
--Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote
>> But first we have to get rid of those politicians who are
>>owned by the predators.
>
> Do you feel that bounties should be offered against predation?
No, just for the predators.
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:01:31 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Do you feel that bounties should be offered against predation?
What am I offered for Bernie Madoff's scalp?
Or Angelo Mozillo's?
Or the &%$! that keeps robocalling everyone and offering to fix our
credit card rates.
Unfortunately, by the time people like that have done enough damage that
we're sure they qualify, it's too late. But I sure would like to see
some of them in jail. And I don't mean a "country club" prison.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:37:28 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:02:43 +0000, Han wrote:
>
>>>>to me that a second mortgage wisely invested or a HELOC would be a
>>>>better deal.
>>>
>>> Agreed, but those have to be repaid, starting the next month with a
>>> payment. To some folks, it's either not an option or a bad one. YMMV
>>
>> Prolly. Too bad for them, but luckily I don't believe I have to worry.
>
>I may or may not have to worry, depending on how long we live, but the
>reverse mortgage is certainly a valid option in certain circumstances -
>like no money and no family.
>
>But as with everything, the con artists come out of the woodwork. That's
>why I don't agree with Larry J et al about government being the problem.
>Yes, government is a royal PITA, but we need some legal sanction for the
>predators. But first we have to get rid of those politicians who are
>owned by the predators.
Do you feel that bounties should be offered against predation?
--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> OK, I found the Fred Thompson spokesman ads. I'm surprise he's doing
> them but he is, after all, an actor. Other than this, I haven't seen
> him make any bad judgment calls.
He also misstepped really badly as a candidate for primary 4 years or so
ago (IMO, but I forget - luckily what his mistakes were). Until then he
seemed a semiviable candidate.
People running for office claim to hold the values of the people they
(aim to) represent. Example: I really didn't like some of the positions
Kirsten Gillibrand appeared to hold as House representative of her NY
district (NY 20th, a largely rural district near and including Saratoga
Springs, including parts of the Adirondacks, Catskills and upper Hudson
Valley). She won appointment to the US Senate replacing Hillary and, to
me at least, has been a pleasant surprise.
So one can argue whether changing one's tune is good or bad - but being
in tune with the most voters shouldn't necessarily be bad. As always, I
do respect others' views ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:38:35 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:36:59 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Some by laziness, some by lack of fortune. Lots of people live on what
>> they make, not being able to save even 10% for a safety pad. Most don't
>> have computers, large screen TVs, large houses (or Manhattan
>> apartments), two cars, or any of the amenities you take for granted. But
>> try to tell that to some idiot CONgresscritter whose bank account hasn't
>> seen the underside of a million dollars for decades. They live in a
>> whole 'nother world.
>
>Once again we agree - what *is* the world coming to!
Maybe you're _finally_ coming to your senses. ;)
--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 17:15:35 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:19:19 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Au contraire. I don't believe in any organized religion. If I did,
>> Perot, Thompson, and Paul would be the gods.
>
>I never claimed you were organized :-).
>
>But we do agree on religion. Except I'd elevate Tom Jefferson, Thomas
>Paine, and Terry Pratchett.
I'd agree on the first two, but having painfully tried to read
Pratchett, I cannot understand how anyone would/could/should.
I'm "out there" and can usually read others who are, but this guy? I
tried the first pages of several books and couldn't do it.
Clockwork Orange and Cuckoo's Nest were pristine sanity in comparison.
--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:00:01 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
> I'd agree on the first two, but having painfully tried to read
> Pratchett, I cannot understand how anyone would/could/should. I'm "out
> there" and can usually read others who are, but this guy? I tried the
> first pages of several books and couldn't do it.
Since we were talking about religion, did you try "Small Gods"? I admit
his humor is a bit strange, but apparently not to the British - he is (or
at least was) the best selling author there.
He has several different Discworld series, here's a link that puts them
in some kind of order. I discovered the witches first and liked them so
I read the series about Death (who always speaks in capitals) and then
the watch and finally unseen university (Rincewind in the chart).
<http://www.lspace.org/books/reading-order-guides/the-discworld-reading-
order-guide-20.jpg>
If you can find it at the library, try "The Last Hero" if you haven't
already. Pratchett found an illustrator who's just as strange as he is.
And always remember "It's turtles, all the way down!"
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"Dave" wrote
>
> Well, all the Christmas shopping is done, food is bought and I've
> wrestled my way through the liquor store. So, now I'm relaxing with a
> six pack and very happy there's no more crowds of crazed shoppers to
> navigate.
>
> Season's greetings to everyone here. <g>
>
I had to deal with the maddening crowds a number of times. I had to take
something back and exchange it in a store with far too many customers. Fun,
fun, fun! And I have to sneak around tonight and wrap the presents. Was a
chore hiding the presents because my beloved did some house cleaning. I hid
the presents in the trunk of my car for a couple of days. And I could not
find a suitable box. So I had to put it in a much larger, irregular shaped
box with a funny lid. I will just wrap and wrap till nothing underneath
shows. Tie some ribbon around it, put some bows on it and put it in a
prominent spot. It won't be pretty, but it will be colorful! I feel like a
thief sneaking around in the night.
Looking forward to Christmas dinner, opening presents, having a drink or two
and watching some football. Also, life is simpler when you don't have to
hide anything from your honey. We got a kitten recently and we are trying
to not put any presents out till the last day or two. Because we know she
will just tear up the wrapping and pull the ribbons off. She constantly
unties my shoe laces.
"Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 12/23/2011 8:16 PM, Dave wrote:
>>
>> Well, all the Christmas shopping is done, food is bought and I've
>> wrestled my way through the liquor store. So, now I'm relaxing with a
>> six pack and very happy there's no more crowds of crazed shoppers to
>> navigate.
>>
>> Season's greetings to everyone here.<g>
>>
>> Dave
>
> MERRY CHRISTMAS Dave!
The tamales are in the steamer, the capirotada is ready, the eggnog has just
a bit of Blue Agave Tequila.
Merry Christmas everybody!!
Max
"Larry Jaques" wrote
> I don't find many of the CONgresscritters to be likeable at all,
> Boenher included. And I don't want to have to vote for a single
> person running for the office of the President next year, either, from
> any party. I'd vote for Fred Thompson if Ron Paul ran as VP. That
> would be my dream ticket for this next administration. Maybe they
> could pare off about 3/4 of the gov't so it's down where it should be:
> watching out for our safety, not telling folks who can marry whom,
> etc. And if we're going to go to wholesale gov't-run healthcare, all
> that fat has to be cut out first, both in the gov't and in all sectors
> of the extremely bloated, greedy, healthcare field.
>
> Does that season your greetings? ;)
>
> Have a Happy!
>
I'm happy to learn that we share another philosophy. ;-)
Max
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I'll bet that you'd pee your pants if you found out what he was paid
> for those spots. (I'm guessing a whole lot.)
Freddie should pee in his pants, I am not going to <grin>. I would bet it
is more than my monthly retirement for sure. Which makes it only difficult
to justify for the mortgage company
> Define "awful reverse mortgages" for me, please. Or are you referring
> to one of many scams that are out there for regular and reverse
> mortgages?
Tell me which reverse mortgages are a good deal. I indeed think many if
not all are scams of one kind or another. This one surely is aimed at
elderly who are afraid to be without money and likely easy targets. Seems
to me that a second mortgage wisely invested or a HELOC would be a better
deal.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 26 Dec 2011 18:08:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> I only wish you'd heard his wonderful speeches...
>
>I remember that at first I thought, hey, here is a nice well-spoken
>conservative. He seems to have a chance at the nomination. Then, and I
>forget what it was that he said (so sorry), I thought Oops, that counts
>home out.
>
>I liked the way he acted on the cop show, a bit "wooden", but through and
>through honest. Now hawking those awful reverse mortgages, he lost my
>respect totally. That's a job for unknown and immature actors, not for
>well-respected mature real actors.
>
>YMMV!!!
I'll bet that you'd pee your pants if you found out what he was paid
for those spots. (I'm guessing a whole lot.)
Define "awful reverse mortgages" for me, please. Or are you referring
to one of many scams that are out there for regular and reverse
mortgages?
--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen
On 12/26/2011 10:20 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:16:23 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> My advice to CONgress: Read the damned Constitution and try to follow
>> its guidelines. It says nothing about abortion, gays, mandatory health
>> insurance to private companies, or anything like that.
>
> Actually, it doesn't say much about anything other than the things
> affecting an agrarian society ruled by landed white males.
>
> And of course it doesn't say anything about health care. Back then that
> consisted of folk remedies, bleeding, setting bones, and amputating limbs.
>
The 10th amendment says quite a bit. Of course, FDR effectively
repealed the 10th amendment.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
"Morgans" wrote
> Find a candidate, or party, you like and go to work.
> **********************************
> The system is broke. I don't know how to change it, so we will keep
> electing the lowest common denominator. That's the way it is.
>
> -- Jim in NC
I found a candidate I like. He is currently a state representative. A lot
of us El Pasoans would like to see him run for
Texas' 16th congressional district. We're working toward that goal.
Max
Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> "Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote in news:jdamc3$v1q$1
>>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> The system is broke.
>>>
>>> Indeed. Without question.
>>>
>>>> I don't know how to change it, so we will keep
>>>> electing the lowest common denominator.
>>>
>>> Ummm. To a degree. The Tea Party has made so much noise that the
>>> GOP is now impounded by them. Perhaps the time has come for noise
>>> from a different direction. The TP had their day. Refusal to make
>>> compromises has gotten us to here. No useful corrections to past
>>> wrongs, in large part because we all want the other guy/gal to pay
>>> for our sins.
>>>
>>
>> Like this?
>>
>> As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
>> There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
>> That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
>> And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
>>
>> And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
>> When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
>> As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
>> The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
>
> Sorry, this person doesn't recognize the quote(s). It sounds all very
> profound, but some guidance would be appreciated. Perhaps some other
> time. Grandkids are here ...
The Gods of the Copybook Headings, by Rudyard Kipling.
In English schools, a hundred years ago, there were things called
"copybooks." A copybook page consisted of a pithy statement at the top of
the page in excellent penmanship while the rest of the page was blank. It
was the student's task to copy the statement, matching the penmanship as a
means of improving his.
These "headings" were things like "Fire will surely burn," "A stitch in time
saves nine," and other proverb-type essentials.
Most observers view the poem as humanity deviating from basic truths as
influenced by commercial or other interests. Ultimately these faux "truths"
are discarded and humanity returns to the true, but sometimes inconvenient,
"copybook headings."
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> I'm happy to learn that we share another philosophy. ;-)
>
> Max
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Makes three of us.
> /////////////////////////////////
> I would so like to see another choice put on the ballot.
>
> NONE of the above. Try again to bring us someone we can vote for.
In an ideal world, "none of the above" would have the side effect of
permanently banning all of the above from holding elected office in the
future, so we don't have to vote them down again.
Larry Jaques wrote the following:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:20:17 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/24/2011 2:11 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> (I wonder what Islamic fetes are planned for the Whitehouse...)
>>
>> And WHO CARES!
>
> You should. He's our President and it can negatively affect our
> future.
It has already negatively affected our past.
I will wish him a happy retirement in 2012 tho.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
Han wrote:
> "Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote in news:jdamc3$v1q$1
> @speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> The system is broke.
>
> Indeed. Without question.
>
>> I don't know how to change it, so we will keep
>> electing the lowest common denominator.
>
> Ummm. To a degree. The Tea Party has made so much noise that the
> GOP is now impounded by them. Perhaps the time has come for noise
> from a different direction. The TP had their day. Refusal to make
> compromises has gotten us to here. No useful corrections to past
> wrongs, in large part because we all want the other guy/gal to pay
> for our sins.
>
Like this?
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 15:19:31 -0800, CW wrote:
>
>> I'm happy to learn that we share another philosophy. ;-)
>>
>> Max
>>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>> Makes three of us.
>
> With Larry it's not a philosophy, it's a religion.
>
> One which I do not share :-).
Freddie is (IMNSHO) a lowlife prostitute hawking bad mortgages.
Ron Paul - I don't know how to describe him, so I won't ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 27 Dec 2011 03:02:43 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> The good ones are those with small origination fees and interest
>>> rates comparable to HELOCs. (prolly hard to find)
>>>
>>> http://itsjustmoney.blogs.com/its_just_money/2006/08/reverse_mortgag.
>>> ht
>>ml
>>> Balanced view?
>>
>>Interesting article. The "bad points" are the clincher to me. But,
>>there must be a proportion of people for whom it is the best option.
>>Regrettably, they got in that position by not having enough cushion
>>for old age expenditures.
>
> Some by laziness, some by lack of fortune. Lots of people live on what
> they make, not being able to save even 10% for a safety pad. Most
> don't have computers, large screen TVs, large houses (or Manhattan
> apartments), two cars, or any of the amenities you take for granted.
> But try to tell that to some idiot CONgresscritter whose bank account
> hasn't seen the underside of a million dollars for decades. They live
> in a whole 'nother world.
>
Amen to that
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:36:59 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Some by laziness, some by lack of fortune. Lots of people live on what
> they make, not being able to save even 10% for a safety pad. Most don't
> have computers, large screen TVs, large houses (or Manhattan
> apartments), two cars, or any of the amenities you take for granted. But
> try to tell that to some idiot CONgresscritter whose bank account hasn't
> seen the underside of a million dollars for decades. They live in a
> whole 'nother world.
Once again we agree - what *is* the world coming to!
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 27 Dec 2011 03:02:43 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> The good ones are those with small origination fees and interest rates
>> comparable to HELOCs. (prolly hard to find)
>>
>> http://itsjustmoney.blogs.com/its_just_money/2006/08/reverse_mortgag.ht
>ml
>> Balanced view?
>
>Interesting article. The "bad points" are the clincher to me. But,
>there must be a proportion of people for whom it is the best option.
>Regrettably, they got in that position by not having enough cushion for
>old age expenditures.
Some by laziness, some by lack of fortune. Lots of people live on what
they make, not being able to save even 10% for a safety pad. Most
don't have computers, large screen TVs, large houses (or Manhattan
apartments), two cars, or any of the amenities you take for granted.
But try to tell that to some idiot CONgresscritter whose bank account
hasn't seen the underside of a million dollars for decades. They live
in a whole 'nother world.
--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Have you been active in your local party of preference? Have you
> knocked on doors, raised money, signed petitions, passed out bumper
> stickers, attended conventions or town halls?
>
> If you're like most, you show up on election day to pick between
> Tweedledum and Tweedledee, then complain about the choices. You have
> no influence in the platforms, policies, or promises of the candidates
> and have no influence with the eventual office holder after the
> contest.
>
> Or, you might decide on election day to "make a statement" by voting
> for a third-party candidate. Here's a nasty little secret: the major
> parties hope you do. They would like nothing better than to rid
> themselves of the malcontents, nay-sayers, cut-purses, and
> rabble-rousers. They might even give you a going away present.
>
> Find a candidate, or party, you like and go to work.
Good post, I fully subscribe to your statements. There are also other
means than attending smoke-filled rooms to be effective. One reason
other than being cantankerous, that I distribute these bits and bytes
describing my (hopefully reasonable if different) views.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote in news:jdamc3$v1q$1
@speranza.aioe.org:
> The system is broke.
Indeed. Without question.
> I don't know how to change it, so we will keep
> electing the lowest common denominator.
Ummm. To a degree. The Tea Party has made so much noise that the GOP is
now impounded by them. Perhaps the time has come for noise from a
different direction. The TP had their day. Refusal to make compromises
has gotten us to here. No useful corrections to past wrongs, in large part
because we all want the other guy/gal to pay for our sins.
That's the way it is. The pendulum may swing the other way again.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> "Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote in news:jdamc3$v1q$1
>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> The system is broke.
>>
>> Indeed. Without question.
>>
>>> I don't know how to change it, so we will keep
>>> electing the lowest common denominator.
>>
>> Ummm. To a degree. The Tea Party has made so much noise that the
>> GOP is now impounded by them. Perhaps the time has come for noise
>> from a different direction. The TP had their day. Refusal to make
>> compromises has gotten us to here. No useful corrections to past
>> wrongs, in large part because we all want the other guy/gal to pay
>> for our sins.
>>
>
> Like this?
>
> As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
> There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
> That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
> And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
>
> And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
> When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
> As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
> The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Sorry, this person doesn't recognize the quote(s). It sounds all very
profound, but some guidance would be appreciated. Perhaps some other
time. Grandkids are here ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Morgans wrote:
>> "HeyBub" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Morgans wrote:
>>> I'm happy to learn that we share another philosophy. ;-)
>>>
>>> Max
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ------------------- Makes three of us.
>>> /////////////////////////////////
>>> I would so like to see another choice put on the ballot.
>>>
>>> NONE of the above. Try again to bring us someone we can vote for.
>>>
>>
>> Have you been active in your local party of preference? Have you
>> knocked on doors, raised money, signed petitions, passed out bumper
>> stickers, attended conventions or town halls?
>>
>> If you're like most, you show up on election day to pick between
>> Tweedledum and Tweedledee, then complain about the choices. You have
>> no influence in the platforms, policies, or promises of the
>> candidates and have no influence with the eventual office holder
>> after the contest.
>> Or, you might decide on election day to "make a statement" by voting
>> for a third-party candidate. Here's a nasty little secret: the major
>> parties hope you do. They would like nothing better than to rid
>> themselves of the malcontents, nay-sayers, cut-purses, and
>> rabble-rousers. They might even give you a going away present.
>>
>> Find a candidate, or party, you like and go to work.
>> **********************************
>> If you believe your work in a local party machine makes any
>> difference in presidential candidate selection, you are more naïve
>> than me.
>
> Maybe naive, but I'll bet I've got more experience. I've run for, and
> been elected to (minor) public office, attended national campaign
> management schools, and was an AA (Administrative Aide) to a United
> States Senator. In addition, I've worked in many campaigns and was a
> paid employee for the local party organization.
>
> If you think local political parties are irrelevant, you are simply
> looking through the storefront window. The local parties are the
> bridge between campaigns - candidates come an go, but the local
> apparatus is forever. Local parties keep watch on the shenanigans of
> the opposition, maintain mailing and volunteer lists, do local
> research, raise money, act as a local spokesman for whatever comes up
> during the two years between campaigns, provide services for all the
> party's candidates (i.e., distributing yard signs, card pushers,
> poll-watchers, etc.), and more.
>
> Just one example: On a general election ballot in my county, there may
> be 100 names from one party. With over 1,000 voting precincts, that
> would require 100,000 poll watchers, just from one party, to monitor
> the election. One poll watcher, representing all a party's candidates,
> can do the job. These poll watchers are recruited by the local party,
> not the individual candidates.
>
> Here's an observation. When you go to vote, I'll bet you don't pay
> much attention to all the yard signs decorating the approaches to the
> polling place. Those signs didn't get there by accident. A massive
> logistical operation took place the night before involving scores of
> volunteers - and thousands of signs - working all night to get those
> signs erected. Then, on election day, there are card pushers,
> volunteers to deliver lunches to the card pushers, baby sitters,
> transportation drivers, and more. Virtually all these workers are
> organized and directed by the local party organization, not the
> individual candidates.
>
> Candidate selection? I recall one election where local organizations
> bound delegates from the precinct conventions to support a specific
> presidental candidate at the county convention which, in turn, bound
> the delegates to the state convention that bound all the delegates to
> the national convention to vote for a specific candidate.
>
> If you pay attention to the news, you hear a lot of amazement that
> Newt Gingrich was not able to qualify for the Virginia primary ballot.
> How do you think Romney & Paul were able to qualify? Perhaps by a
> miracle? No, it was the organization at the local level that made
> ballot access possible.
>
> I apologize for seeming too strident, but I've been there and done
> that.
That's indeed where "democracy" works ... And that is good if all
involved have good in mind and heart, which I sincerely hope is a correct
assumption.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Han <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> That's indeed where "democracy" works ... And that is good if all
> involved have good in mind and heart, which I sincerely hope is a
> correct assumption.
Sorry if this sounds rather apprehensive. My best friend is very much
right wing and proud of it. We differ in opinion and argue a lot about
things, mostly friendly, but always sincere, or knowingly joking. He
disagrees with me on the above, and means it. No further comment since he
doesn't read this and can't defend his opinions here.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:28:19 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 09:56:55 -0500, willshak<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Jaques wrote the following:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:20:17 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/24/2011 2:11 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> (I wonder what Islamic fetes are planned for the Whitehouse...)
>>>>>
>>>>> And WHO CARES!
>>>>
>>>> You should. He's our President and it can negatively affect our
>>>> future.
>>>
>>> It has already negatively affected our past.
>>> I will wish him a happy retirement in 2012 tho.
>>
>> DAMNED STRAIGHT.
>
>I hate to say anything political, but what do you think of the
>Speaker of the house: John Boehner? I don't find him very likeable.
I don't find many of the CONgresscritters to be likeable at all,
Boenher included. And I don't want to have to vote for a single
person running for the office of the President next year, either, from
any party. I'd vote for Fred Thompson if Ron Paul ran as VP. That
would be my dream ticket for this next administration. Maybe they
could pare off about 3/4 of the gov't so it's down where it should be:
watching out for our safety, not telling folks who can marry whom,
etc. And if we're going to go to wholesale gov't-run healthcare, all
that fat has to be cut out first, both in the gov't and in all sectors
of the extremely bloated, greedy, healthcare field.
Does that season your greetings? ;)
Have a Happy!
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 09:56:55 -0500, willshak <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Larry Jaques wrote the following:
>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:20:17 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/24/2011 2:11 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>> (I wonder what Islamic fetes are planned for the Whitehouse...)
>>>
>>> And WHO CARES!
>>
>> You should. He's our President and it can negatively affect our
>> future.
>
>It has already negatively affected our past.
>I will wish him a happy retirement in 2012 tho.
DAMNED STRAIGHT.
--
Truth loves to go naked.
--Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I only wish you'd heard his wonderful speeches...
I remember that at first I thought, hey, here is a nice well-spoken
conservative. He seems to have a chance at the nomination. Then, and I
forget what it was that he said (so sorry), I thought Oops, that counts
home out.
I liked the way he acted on the cop show, a bit "wooden", but through and
through honest. Now hawking those awful reverse mortgages, he lost my
respect totally. That's a job for unknown and immature actors, not for
well-respected mature real actors.
YMMV!!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 26 Dec 2011 16:36:40 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 26 Dec 2011 13:18:39 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> OK, I found the Fred Thompson spokesman ads. I'm surprise he's doing
>>>> them but he is, after all, an actor. Other than this, I haven't seen
>>>> him make any bad judgment calls.
>>>
>>>He also misstepped really badly as a candidate for primary 4 years or
>>>so ago (IMO, but I forget - luckily what his mistakes were). Until
>>>then he seemed a semiviable candidate.
>>>
>>
>> His biggest misstep was lack of enthusiasm. I thing he got caught up
>> in the hoopla that he should run, but did not really want to.
>
>Perhaps that was it. I can't remember any specific misstep, but it
>indeed appeared that he was rather lackluster as a candidate. And
>"hunger" for the presidency seems to be a prerequisite.
I only wish you'd heard his wonderful speeches...
--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen
"Max" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Larry Jaques" wrote
> I don't find many of the CONgresscritters to be likeable at all,
> Boenher included. And I don't want to have to vote for a single
> person running for the office of the President next year, either, from
> any party. I'd vote for Fred Thompson if Ron Paul ran as VP. That
> would be my dream ticket for this next administration. Maybe they
> could pare off about 3/4 of the gov't so it's down where it should be:
> watching out for our safety, not telling folks who can marry whom,
> etc. And if we're going to go to wholesale gov't-run healthcare, all
> that fat has to be cut out first, both in the gov't and in all sectors
> of the extremely bloated, greedy, healthcare field.
>
> Does that season your greetings? ;)
>
> Have a Happy!
>
I'm happy to learn that we share another philosophy. ;-)
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes three of us.
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The good ones are those with small origination fees and interest rates
> comparable to HELOCs. (prolly hard to find)
>
> http://itsjustmoney.blogs.com/its_just_money/2006/08/reverse_mortgag.ht
ml
> Balanced view?
Interesting article. The "bad points" are the clincher to me. But,
there must be a proportion of people for whom it is the best option.
Regrettably, they got in that position by not having enough cushion for
old age expenditures.
>>Seems
>>to me that a second mortgage wisely invested or a HELOC would be a
>>better deal.
>
> Agreed, but those have to be repaid, starting the next month with a
> payment. To some folks, it's either not an option or a bad one. YMMV
Prolly. Too bad for them, but luckily I don't believe I have to worry.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 27 Dec 2011 00:58:16 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> I'll bet that you'd pee your pants if you found out what he was paid
>> for those spots. (I'm guessing a whole lot.)
>
>Freddie should pee in his pants, I am not going to <grin>. I would bet it
>is more than my monthly retirement for sure. Which makes it only difficult
>to justify for the mortgage company
>
>> Define "awful reverse mortgages" for me, please. Or are you referring
>> to one of many scams that are out there for regular and reverse
>> mortgages?
>
>Tell me which reverse mortgages are a good deal. I indeed think many if
>not all are scams of one kind or another. This one surely is aimed at
>elderly who are afraid to be without money and likely easy targets.
The good ones are those with small origination fees and interest rates
comparable to HELOCs. (prolly hard to find)
http://itsjustmoney.blogs.com/its_just_money/2006/08/reverse_mortgag.html
Balanced view?
>Seems
>to me that a second mortgage wisely invested or a HELOC would be a better
>deal.
Agreed, but those have to be repaid, starting the next month with a
payment. To some folks, it's either not an option or a bad one. YMMV
--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:02:43 +0000, Han wrote:
>>>to me that a second mortgage wisely invested or a HELOC would be a
>>>better deal.
>>
>> Agreed, but those have to be repaid, starting the next month with a
>> payment. To some folks, it's either not an option or a bad one. YMMV
>
> Prolly. Too bad for them, but luckily I don't believe I have to worry.
I may or may not have to worry, depending on how long we live, but the
reverse mortgage is certainly a valid option in certain circumstances -
like no money and no family.
But as with everything, the con artists come out of the woodwork. That's
why I don't agree with Larry J et al about government being the problem.
Yes, government is a royal PITA, but we need some legal sanction for the
predators. But first we have to get rid of those politicians who are
owned by the predators.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 27 Dec 2011 00:58:16 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> I'll bet that you'd pee your pants if you found out what he was paid
>> for those spots. (I'm guessing a whole lot.)
>
>Freddie should pee in his pants, I am not going to <grin>. I would bet it
>is more than my monthly retirement for sure. Which makes it only difficult
>to justify for the mortgage company
>
>> Define "awful reverse mortgages" for me, please. Or are you referring
>> to one of many scams that are out there for regular and reverse
>> mortgages?
>
>Tell me which reverse mortgages are a good deal. I indeed think many if
>not all are scams of one kind or another. This one surely is aimed at
>elderly who are afraid to be without money and likely easy targets. Seems
>to me that a second mortgage wisely invested or a HELOC would be a better
>deal.
Utter nonsense. A HELOC doesn't guarantee that they can keep their home until
they die. It's a completely different deal. A reverse mortgage can be a very
good deal for some seniors.
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 09:56:55 -0500, willshak<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques wrote the following:
>>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:20:17 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/24/2011 2:11 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> (I wonder what Islamic fetes are planned for the Whitehouse...)
>>>>
>>>> And WHO CARES!
>>>
>>> You should. He's our President and it can negatively affect our
>>> future.
>>
>> It has already negatively affected our past.
>> I will wish him a happy retirement in 2012 tho.
>
> DAMNED STRAIGHT.
I hate to say anything political, but what do you think of the
Speaker of the house: John Boehner? I don't find him very likeable.
>
> --
> Truth loves to go naked.
> --Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 15:19:31 -0800, CW wrote:
> I'm happy to learn that we share another philosophy. ;-)
>
> Max
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Makes three of us.
With Larry it's not a philosophy, it's a religion.
One which I do not share :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
I'm happy to learn that we share another philosophy. ;-)
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes three of us.
/////////////////////////////////
I would so like to see another choice put on the ballot.
NONE of the above. Try again to bring us someone we can vote for.
-- Jim in NC
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:16:23 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
> My advice to CONgress: Read the damned Constitution and try to follow
> its guidelines. It says nothing about abortion, gays, mandatory health
> insurance to private companies, or anything like that.
Actually, it doesn't say much about anything other than the things
affecting an agrarian society ruled by landed white males.
And of course it doesn't say anything about health care. Back then that
consisted of folk remedies, bleeding, setting bones, and amputating limbs.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Han wrote:
>
> I agree about the Constitution and SCOTUS.
> But it's not complicated with the bible at all. It's a document
> written by humans, and sanctioned by this, that or another
> "authority". If you want to take the word in some way, you have to
> "believe". Nothing wrong with that, unless it impacts others
> adversely. Period.
I suppose you would apply that statement about beliefs to all beliefs -
biblical, and non-biblical, alike. Regardless of whether they are
pro-religious beliefs or not? Period. Though it sounds nice and tolerant,
it only takes a brief look at that statement to see that it cannot work in
any application.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:b1c25$4efa3ff0 [email protected]:
>
> I'm not sure I get it. If I do nothing to your belief, how can I
> impact you adversely? My saying that I do not believe something you
> do, is not impacting you in the least (IMNSHO).
Might have misunderstood you but the "as long as..." clause struck me as you
saying you put conditions on the beliefs of others. In this day and age of
political correctness, it's easy to imagine people saying they are offended
by this or that, simply because this or that exists - or other people hold a
belief in them. You are correct in your last point above though - your
beliefs do not impact me in the least - that's not what I was trying to
point out.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>
> As a "living" document, and since the SCOTUS has ultimate
> interpretation (and re-interpretation), the Constitution remains ope
> to discussion.
>
> And that's my final answer ...
Exactly! The Constitution is like the Bible. It doesn't matter what the
document SAYS, the only thing that counts in what the document MEANS.
With the Constitution, the authority for deciding what the document means is
vested with the Supreme Court. In the case of the Bible, it's a little more
complicated.
Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>> As a "living" document, and since the SCOTUS has ultimate
>>> interpretation (and re-interpretation), the Constitution remains ope
>>> to discussion.
>>>
>>> And that's my final answer ...
>>
>> Exactly! The Constitution is like the Bible. It doesn't matter what
>> the document SAYS, the only thing that counts in what the document
>> MEANS.
>>
>> With the Constitution, the authority for deciding what the document
>> means is vested with the Supreme Court. In the case of the Bible,
>> it's a little more complicated.
>
> I agree about the Constitution and SCOTUS.
> But it's not complicated with the bible at all. It's a document
> written by humans, and sanctioned by this, that or another
> "authority". If you want to take the word in some way, you have to
> "believe". Nothing wrong with that, unless it impacts others
> adversely. Period.
Uh, no. There are at least three distinct methods.
In the Jewish view, the authority and ability to reach a ruling is contained
in the text itself and that text devolves its technique thusly: "If a matter
comes before you that is too hard for you to judge, take the matter to the
sages of the generation and be bound by their decision."( See Deut 17:8.)
[This probably comes closest to our current civil law].
In the Catholic tradition, the authority for interpretation is vested with
the Church as an institution.
In the non-catholic tradition, the authority for interpretation is vested
with the individual as guided by the Holy Spirit.
Most of the time these three methods reach the same answer (i.e., "Thou
shalt not murder"), but sometimes not. Consider abortion:
* Under Jewish law, abortion is sometimes mandated!
* Under the Catholic Canon, since no good can come from an immoral act,
abortion is always banned.
* In the non-catholic tradition, I know of no organized Protestant church
that has an official position on the subject, leaving the decision, instead,
up to the individual.
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 12/26/2011 10:20 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:16:23 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> My advice to CONgress: Read the damned Constitution and try to
>>> follow its guidelines. It says nothing about abortion, gays,
>>> mandatory health insurance to private companies, or anything like
>>> that.
>>
>> Actually, it doesn't say much about anything other than the things
>> affecting an agrarian society ruled by landed white males.
>>
>> And of course it doesn't say anything about health care. Back then
>> that consisted of folk remedies, bleeding, setting bones, and
>> amputating limbs.
>>
>
> The 10th amendment says quite a bit. Of course, FDR effectively
> repealed the 10th amendment.
I am (now) not arguing one way or the other, but Wikipedia says
(referring a bit to the Articles of Confedderation):
After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar
amendment limiting the federal government to powers "expressly"
delegated, which would have denied implied powers.[3] However, the word
"expressly" ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified,
and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not reject the powers implied by
the Necessary and Proper Clause.
As a "living" document, and since the SCOTUS has ultimate interpretation
(and re-interpretation), the Constitution remains ope to discussion.
And that's my final answer ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>>
>> As a "living" document, and since the SCOTUS has ultimate
>> interpretation (and re-interpretation), the Constitution remains ope
>> to discussion.
>>
>> And that's my final answer ...
>
> Exactly! The Constitution is like the Bible. It doesn't matter what
> the document SAYS, the only thing that counts in what the document
> MEANS.
>
> With the Constitution, the authority for deciding what the document
> means is vested with the Supreme Court. In the case of the Bible, it's
> a little more complicated.
I agree about the Constitution and SCOTUS.
But it's not complicated with the bible at all. It's a document written
by humans, and sanctioned by this, that or another "authority". If you
want to take the word in some way, you have to "believe". Nothing wrong
with that, unless it impacts others adversely. Period.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree about the Constitution and SCOTUS.
>> But it's not complicated with the bible at all. It's a document
>> written by humans, and sanctioned by this, that or another
>> "authority". If you want to take the word in some way, you have to
>> "believe". Nothing wrong with that, unless it impacts others
>> adversely. Period.
>
> I suppose you would apply that statement about beliefs to all beliefs
> - biblical, and non-biblical, alike. Regardless of whether they are
> pro-religious beliefs or not? Period. Though it sounds nice and
> tolerant, it only takes a brief look at that statement to see that it
> cannot work in any application.
Sorry, I'm basically an agnostic. I do not believe in any god-given word
as the final say-so for any religion, quasi-religion or movement. That
doesn't mean you can't. That would be just fine with me, unless it
impacts others in any adverse way.
And to confuse everyone even more, I fully subscribe to my Mother's
saying that God put you and me on this world to do good.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:b1c25$4efa3ff0
[email protected]:
I'm not sure I get it. If I do nothing to your belief, how can I impact
you adversely? My saying that I do not believe something you do, is not
impacting you in the least (IMNSHO).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As a "living" document, and since the SCOTUS has ultimate
>>>> interpretation (and re-interpretation), the Constitution remains
>>>> ope to discussion.
>>>>
>>>> And that's my final answer ...
>>>
>>> Exactly! The Constitution is like the Bible. It doesn't matter what
>>> the document SAYS, the only thing that counts in what the document
>>> MEANS.
>>>
>>> With the Constitution, the authority for deciding what the document
>>> means is vested with the Supreme Court. In the case of the Bible,
>>> it's a little more complicated.
>>
>> I agree about the Constitution and SCOTUS.
>> But it's not complicated with the bible at all. It's a document
>> written by humans, and sanctioned by this, that or another
>> "authority". If you want to take the word in some way, you have to
>> "believe". Nothing wrong with that, unless it impacts others
>> adversely. Period.
>
> Uh, no. There are at least three distinct methods.
>
> In the Jewish view, the authority and ability to reach a ruling is
> contained in the text itself and that text devolves its technique
> thusly: "If a matter comes before you that is too hard for you to
> judge, take the matter to the sages of the generation and be bound by
> their decision."( See Deut 17:8.) [This probably comes closest to our
> current civil law].
>
> In the Catholic tradition, the authority for interpretation is vested
> with the Church as an institution.
>
> In the non-catholic tradition, the authority for interpretation is
> vested with the individual as guided by the Holy Spirit.
>
> Most of the time these three methods reach the same answer (i.e.,
> "Thou shalt not murder"), but sometimes not. Consider abortion:
>
> * Under Jewish law, abortion is sometimes mandated!
> * Under the Catholic Canon, since no good can come from an immoral
> act, abortion is always banned.
> * In the non-catholic tradition, I know of no organized Protestant
> church that has an official position on the subject, leaving the
> decision, instead, up to the individual.
Sure, here you should take my use of "belief" as the belief that there is
a religious authority of one kind or another for your "group". Fine by
me, as long as you do not apply your religious "rules" on me. And, no, I
do not believe <grin> that "anything goes". There are rules very much
like the laws based on our Constitution, or the Dutch "grondwet" or
"basic law", or those based on our Judeo-Christian basis. But my rules
and your rules may differ. Again, no harm as long as you allow me my
laws, and as long as my laws do not harm others.
Btw, in many Protestant groups, there are many rather official rules
and/or laws and/or customs that you better follow if you want to belong.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Han wrote:
>
> Sorry, I'm basically an agnostic. I do not believe in any god-given
> word as the final say-so for any religion, quasi-religion or
> movement. That doesn't mean you can't. That would be just fine with
> me, unless it impacts others in any adverse way.
Beliefs are beliefs and everybody is entitled to theirs, but what about the
agnostic belief? What if it impacts others in an adverse way? That's the
point I was getting at. To qualify whether another can hold a belief by
saying "as long as..." just can't work. Not to mention that it's a bit
presumptuous. Who decides what defines "impacts"? The thing with beliefs
is that they just have to be accepted (not necessarily agreed with), and
can't be qualified by another.
> And to confuse everyone even more, I fully subscribe to my Mother's
> saying that God put you and me on this world to do good.
That's ok - we all have that part of us that is a walking contradiction.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Morgans wrote:
> I'm happy to learn that we share another philosophy. ;-)
>
> Max
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Makes three of us.
> /////////////////////////////////
> I would so like to see another choice put on the ballot.
>
> NONE of the above. Try again to bring us someone we can vote for.
>
Have you been active in your local party of preference? Have you knocked on
doors, raised money, signed petitions, passed out bumper stickers, attended
conventions or town halls?
If you're like most, you show up on election day to pick between Tweedledum
and Tweedledee, then complain about the choices. You have no influence in
the platforms, policies, or promises of the candidates and have no influence
with the eventual office holder after the contest.
Or, you might decide on election day to "make a statement" by voting for a
third-party candidate. Here's a nasty little secret: the major parties hope
you do. They would like nothing better than to rid themselves of the
malcontents, nay-sayers, cut-purses, and rabble-rousers. They might even
give you a going away present.
Find a candidate, or party, you like and go to work.
**********************************
If you believe your work in a local party machine makes any difference in
presidential candidate selection, you are more naïve than me.
All the big decisions are made in a closed rooms with big politics people,
all with big money. What you do may affect local elections, but make
absolutely no difference in the party selections of presidential candidates.
Then the masses of asses with little or no education make the decisions on
which candidates are eliminated for us. The uneducated masses have more
kids than educated intelligent people. It is all about statistics.
The states that have early primaries select who we will get to vote for. By
the time they get to NC, the choices have been made for us.
Yet more blame must be put on the medial. Who with a half of brain and true
dedication to the country would want to put through all of the muck raking
that goes on? I would not want to be on display for every minute of every
day for every choice I have ever made.
The system is broke. I don't know how to change it, so we will keep
electing the lowest common denominator. That's the way it is.
-- Jim in NC
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 07:46:29 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
> As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
> There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
> That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
> And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
There are very few occasions when one cannot find a fitting quote from
Kipling. If you like his poetry and fiction, see if you can find a copy
of some of the travel articles he wrote for the newspaper - some of his
opinions of the US and Canada are hilarious - and usually right on :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 11:13:30 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 12/23/2011 8:16 PM, Dave wrote:
>>
>> Well, all the Christmas shopping is done, food is bought and I've
>> wrestled my way through the liquor store. So, now I'm relaxing with a
>> six pack and very happy there's no more crowds of crazed shoppers to
>> navigate.
>>
>> Season's greetings to everyone here.<g>
>>
>> Dave
>
>MERRY CHRISTMAS Dave!
Yes, Seasoned Greetings and Happy Kwanzaa to all!
(I wonder what Islamic fetes are planned for the Whitehouse...)
--
Truth loves to go naked.
--Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 00:25:52 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 15:19:31 -0800, CW wrote:
>
>> I'm happy to learn that we share another philosophy. ;-)
>>
>> Max
>>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Makes three of us.
>
>With Larry it's not a philosophy, it's a religion.
>
>One which I do not share :-).
Au contraire. I don't believe in any organized religion.
If I did, Perot, Thompson, and Paul would be the gods.
--
Truth loves to go naked.
--Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:19:19 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Au contraire. I don't believe in any organized religion. If I did,
> Perot, Thompson, and Paul would be the gods.
I never claimed you were organized :-).
But we do agree on religion. Except I'd elevate Tom Jefferson, Thomas
Paine, and Terry Pratchett.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:20:17 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 12/24/2011 2:11 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>
>> (I wonder what Islamic fetes are planned for the Whitehouse...)
>
>
>And WHO CARES!
You should. He's our President and it can negatively affect our
future.
--
Truth loves to go naked.
--Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732
Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 26 Dec 2011 13:18:39 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> OK, I found the Fred Thompson spokesman ads. I'm surprise he's doing
>>> them but he is, after all, an actor. Other than this, I haven't seen
>>> him make any bad judgment calls.
>>
>>He also misstepped really badly as a candidate for primary 4 years or
>>so ago (IMO, but I forget - luckily what his mistakes were). Until
>>then he seemed a semiviable candidate.
>>
>
> His biggest misstep was lack of enthusiasm. I thing he got caught up
> in the hoopla that he should run, but did not really want to.
Perhaps that was it. I can't remember any specific misstep, but it
indeed appeared that he was rather lackluster as a candidate. And
"hunger" for the presidency seems to be a prerequisite.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:28:12 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:55:48 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>>Once again we agree - what *is* the world coming to!
>>
>> Maybe you're _finally_ coming to your senses. ;)
>
>Or the other way around :-).
I dunno. I've been a liberally moderate conservative for a lonnnnng
time now.
--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen
On 26 Dec 2011 13:18:39 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> OK, I found the Fred Thompson spokesman ads. I'm surprise he's doing
>> them but he is, after all, an actor. Other than this, I haven't seen
>> him make any bad judgment calls.
>
>He also misstepped really badly as a candidate for primary 4 years or so
>ago (IMO, but I forget - luckily what his mistakes were). Until then he
>seemed a semiviable candidate.
>
His biggest misstep was lack of enthusiasm. I thing he got caught up
in the hoopla that he should run, but did not really want to.
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:48:19 -0700, "Max" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>> But first we have to get rid of those politicians who are
>>>owned by the predators.
>>
>> Do you feel that bounties should be offered against predation?
>
>No, just for the predators.
Bad Max. Go lie down.
--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen
On 26 Dec 2011 13:18:39 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> OK, I found the Fred Thompson spokesman ads. I'm surprise he's doing
>> them but he is, after all, an actor. Other than this, I haven't seen
>> him make any bad judgment calls.
>
>He also misstepped really badly as a candidate for primary 4 years or so
>ago (IMO, but I forget - luckily what his mistakes were). Until then he
>seemed a semiviable candidate.
I don't recall that misstep, Han. I thought it was his realization of
'what a clustergrope the media/political scene in America was' which
drove him out. (He stated it was the low voter support in a Primary.)
>People running for office claim to hold the values of the people they
>(aim to) represent. Example: I really didn't like some of the positions
>Kirsten Gillibrand appeared to hold as House representative of her NY
>district (NY 20th, a largely rural district near and including Saratoga
>Springs, including parts of the Adirondacks, Catskills and upper Hudson
>Valley). She won appointment to the US Senate replacing Hillary and, to
>me at least, has been a pleasant surprise.
>
>So one can argue whether changing one's tune is good or bad - but being
>in tune with the most voters shouldn't necessarily be bad. As always, I
>do respect others' views ...
I agree with you there. Changing their tune in line with new
realizations and truths is usually good.
--
Truth loves to go naked.
--Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732
Morgans wrote:
> I'm happy to learn that we share another philosophy. ;-)
>
> Max
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Makes three of us.
> /////////////////////////////////
> I would so like to see another choice put on the ballot.
>
> NONE of the above. Try again to bring us someone we can vote for.
>
Have you been active in your local party of preference? Have you knocked on
doors, raised money, signed petitions, passed out bumper stickers, attended
conventions or town halls?
If you're like most, you show up on election day to pick between Tweedledum
and Tweedledee, then complain about the choices. You have no influence in
the platforms, policies, or promises of the candidates and have no influence
with the eventual office holder after the contest.
Or, you might decide on election day to "make a statement" by voting for a
third-party candidate. Here's a nasty little secret: the major parties hope
you do. They would like nothing better than to rid themselves of the
malcontents, nay-sayers, cut-purses, and rabble-rousers. They might even
give you a going away present.
Find a candidate, or party, you like and go to work.
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 14:48:00 -0700, "Max" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Larry Jaques" wrote
>
>> I don't find many of the CONgresscritters to be likeable at all,
>> Boenher included. And I don't want to have to vote for a single
>> person running for the office of the President next year, either, from
>> any party. I'd vote for Fred Thompson if Ron Paul ran as VP. That
>> would be my dream ticket for this next administration. Maybe they
>> could pare off about 3/4 of the gov't so it's down where it should be:
>> watching out for our safety, not telling folks who can marry whom,
>> etc. And if we're going to go to wholesale gov't-run healthcare, all
>> that fat has to be cut out first, both in the gov't and in all sectors
>> of the extremely bloated, greedy, healthcare field.
>>
>> Does that season your greetings? ;)
>>
>> Have a Happy!
>>
>
>I'm happy to learn that we share another philosophy. ;-)
They're -that- bad (only a SIX percent "goog" approval rating now:
http://goo.gl/PHNk .)
And since I have all the liberal twits filtered, I won't hear all the
"It's Bush' Fault!" and "Bammy's My Baby!" cries unless some idiot
quotes them.
My advice to CONgress: Read the damned Constitution and try to follow
its guidelines. It says nothing about abortion, gays, mandatory health
insurance to private companies, or anything like that.
--
Truth loves to go naked.
--Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732
On 12/23/2011 8:16 PM, Dave wrote:
>
> Well, all the Christmas shopping is done, food is bought and I've
> wrestled my way through the liquor store. So, now I'm relaxing with a
> six pack and very happy there's no more crowds of crazed shoppers to
> navigate.
>
> Season's greetings to everyone here.<g>
>
> Dave
MERRY CHRISTMAS Dave!
Morgans wrote:
> "HeyBub" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Morgans wrote:
>> I'm happy to learn that we share another philosophy. ;-)
>>
>> Max
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Makes three of us.
>> /////////////////////////////////
>> I would so like to see another choice put on the ballot.
>>
>> NONE of the above. Try again to bring us someone we can vote for.
>>
>
> Have you been active in your local party of preference? Have you
> knocked on doors, raised money, signed petitions, passed out bumper
> stickers, attended conventions or town halls?
>
> If you're like most, you show up on election day to pick between
> Tweedledum and Tweedledee, then complain about the choices. You have
> no influence in the platforms, policies, or promises of the
> candidates and have no influence with the eventual office holder
> after the contest.
> Or, you might decide on election day to "make a statement" by voting
> for a third-party candidate. Here's a nasty little secret: the major
> parties hope you do. They would like nothing better than to rid
> themselves of the malcontents, nay-sayers, cut-purses, and
> rabble-rousers. They might even give you a going away present.
>
> Find a candidate, or party, you like and go to work.
> **********************************
> If you believe your work in a local party machine makes any
> difference in presidential candidate selection, you are more naïve
> than me.
Maybe naive, but I'll bet I've got more experience. I've run for, and been
elected to (minor) public office, attended national campaign management
schools, and was an AA (Administrative Aide) to a United States Senator. In
addition, I've worked in many campaigns and was a paid employee for the
local party organization.
If you think local political parties are irrelevant, you are simply looking
through the storefront window. The local parties are the bridge between
campaigns - candidates come an go, but the local apparatus is forever. Local
parties keep watch on the shenanigans of the opposition, maintain mailing
and volunteer lists, do local research, raise money, act as a local
spokesman for whatever comes up during the two years between campaigns,
provide services for all the party's candidates (i.e., distributing yard
signs, card pushers, poll-watchers, etc.), and more.
Just one example: On a general election ballot in my county, there may be
100 names from one party. With over 1,000 voting precincts, that would
require 100,000 poll watchers, just from one party, to monitor the election.
One poll watcher, representing all a party's candidates, can do the job.
These poll watchers are recruited by the local party, not the individual
candidates.
Here's an observation. When you go to vote, I'll bet you don't pay much
attention to all the yard signs decorating the approaches to the polling
place. Those signs didn't get there by accident. A massive logistical
operation took place the night before involving scores of volunteers - and
thousands of signs - working all night to get those signs erected. Then, on
election day, there are card pushers, volunteers to deliver lunches to the
card pushers, baby sitters, transportation drivers, and more. Virtually all
these workers are organized and directed by the local party organization,
not the individual candidates.
Candidate selection? I recall one election where local organizations bound
delegates from the precinct conventions to support a specific presidental
candidate at the county convention which, in turn, bound the delegates to
the state convention that bound all the delegates to the national convention
to vote for a specific candidate.
If you pay attention to the news, you hear a lot of amazement that Newt
Gingrich was not able to qualify for the Virginia primary ballot. How do you
think Romney & Paul were able to qualify? Perhaps by a miracle? No, it was
the organization at the local level that made ballot access possible.
I apologize for seeming too strident, but I've been there and done that.