OT: Dickheads Of The Year.

Robatoy wrote:

>> You're more than welcome to apply for U.S. citizenship and when you have
>> it, vote in the US. Until then...
>
> I have that right now. But I'm here in Canada by choice. NOwhere on
> this planet is true freedom enjoyed as much as it is in Canada.
> Bush: "Go shoot some ragheads for us."
> Chretien: "Fuck you."
>
> Can I be more clear?
>
> When it comes right down to it, there is no place on this God-given-
> green-free Earth that is truly a beacon for freedom and human rights
> like this gorgeous country called Canada.
>
> There are only 35 million of us, but I swear to God, do NOT try to
> fuck with us.
>
> Am I making myself clear?

...and even though mum was born in Mission, B.C., she moved to the U.S.
because she thought as great as Canada was, she thought the U.S. was
better.

And if you're not careful, we'll send you all our illegals and double
your population.

Am I making myself clear? ;-)

In article <[email protected]>, J T
<[email protected]> wrote:

> The little M15 troll dork needs to be added to t he list. That kid
> really needs to get a life.

He's been doing this for over a decade, and isn't going away anytime
soon.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A164404>

<http://www.five.org.uk/root/#hotchfaq>

--
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Dec 31, 8:04 pm, "Buck Turgidson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Leave us not forget Annie Coulter and her "It would be fun to A-bomb
> > Iran" style remarks. She's a beauty that one, she'd do really well at
> > a horse show.
>
> I actually feel sorry for her. She has nothing to offer. So she makes her
> outrageous remarks to get attention, and to try to stay relevant to the
> debate.
>
> She's very irrelevant to everything, and she knows it.

Actually, I don't think she cares. Her books seem to sell in the
quarter to half million copy range, with the odds being she gets
something woodworking writers don't get, standard Author's Guild
royalties at 15% of list. She makes outrageous statements for one
reason: money. I don't feel sorry for her or anyone of her
kind...Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al.

On Dec 29, 1:06=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> =A0 Came up with my own list that should be as valid as the predictable li=
st
> that Maher came up with (In no particular order)

I also have a list. It transcends the line between the Left and the
Right because dickheads come in all colours, genders and political
affiliations.
My list changes by the hour...I recognize many on your list.

>
> 1. Sean Penn: =A0For a person whose primary claim to fame was playing a
> dope-hazed stoner, he has demonstrated that his knowledge and understandin=
g
> of world political issues is as nuanced and deeply, intellectually, derive=
d
> as something Spicoli would have expounded upon. =A0He has not yet met a
> dictatorial thug that he doesn't like, having cozied up to such lovable
> freedom-loving dictators as Hugo Chavez and Saddam. =A0His belief that the=
se
> thugs and tyrants are superior to his own president earns him a spot on
> this list.
>
Yup, he's a dickhead. That 'snuggling-up' to dictators reminds me too
much of that Rumsfeld/Saddam picture, and of course that series of
photographs of Bush and Musharraf which we spread all over the news.

> 2. Cindy Sheehan. =A0At some point, one would think that she would have se=
en
> through the fog of grief that she was nothing more than a tool to be used
> and discarded by the anti-war left. =A0She never did and never did realize=

> that her 15 minutes have been well used up.

Yup, that there are people who would use grief as a tool is as
repulsive as Bush handing out Purple Hearts.
>
> 3. Harry Ried [snipped for brevity]

Ried is an asshole, one grade below dick-head. Pelosi is another one.
You got those right.

>
> 4. Hillary Clinton: =A0I'm warm and cuddly dammit! You people like me! nay=
,
> you people LOVE me! I demand it! =A0It must be true, after all, she has
> Chinese restaurant workers who barely make minimum wage donating the
> maximum amount to her campaign. =A0'nuff said.

Can you think of a more repulsive human being? Her canned responses
are so plastic, she drips hypocrisy.
I have never bought her 'Stand By Your Man' Tammy Wynette thang when
hubby Bill went kablooey all over a blue dress.
If she truly had any balls, she would have blown that idiot out of the
water....but alas, it served her better to hang on...

>
> 5. Dan Rather: =A0After attempting to influence a US presidential election=
by
> broadcasting a poorly vetted story that he later had to admit was "fake bu=
t
> accurate", he now has the 'nads to sue CBS for the debacle.
>

Rather is just plain pitiful. "This reporter, for one, has a better
insight than most" *pukes*

> 6. The Main Stream Media for their "independent" reporting of the war
> effort: =A0From the fact that news from Iraq goes quiet when things are go=
ing
> well, to the use of paid stringers with their own agenda, to the
> broadcasting of enemy snipers firing on US soldiers; the main stream media=

> has clearly demonstrated whose side they are on and it isn't ours.

MSM for doing what they can to ignore Ron Paul. MSM for lying on
command.
>
> 7. Nancy Pelosi: =A0

Say no more. Her Congress rates lower in the polls than W
himself...and that's a feat.
>
> 8. Al Gore: =A0For the absolute chutzpah he has demonstrated in taking sec=
ond
> rate science and attempting to make all of us little people suck it in
> while he jets around in his own Gulfstream; Gore is the epitome of all the=

> things the left projects onto GW Bush. =A0His desire for power over
> the "little people" while he gives up nothing, his comments declaring "the=

> debate is over" all demonstrate his desire to reign over the peasants.
>
Agreed... another first class dickhead. Hypocrisy his specialty. He
has yet to connect the temperature increases on Mars with the
increases here on Earth....such as they are.
> --

More to come.. taking no prisoners... upgrading to a Zebco 3

On Dec 31, 7:35 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> >> So there was NO reason to believe Sadaam was a threat and this the
> >> attack upon him was entirely unprovoked, right?
>
> >Threat to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia? Maybe. USA? Doubtful.
> >Bush was once intervied by ?? and video taped saying that "The hardest part
> >of my job is linking Iraq with the war on terror."
>
> Cite, please?
>

I was skeptical too. But Google is my friend.

That was a misquote, listen to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6U_lM7saNs

What he actually said was ""One of the hardest part
of my job is to connect Iraq with the war on terror."

--

FF

On Dec 29, 5:51=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 2:39 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:735d1be9-5466-4e5f-a077=
-
> >> [email protected]:
>
> >>>> You do have much to contribute wrt woodworking.
> >>> I try not to call attention to typos, but what does 'wrt' mean?
> >> Here, in Jersey, it means "with regard to", sometimes written WRT, IIRC=
.
>
> > In that case, Skippy said something nice....egg on MY face...
>
> <Hands Robatoy the Popeil Egg-Off-Your-Face-Remover he got for Christmas>
>

I best get an extra set of batteries for this thing then...LOL

On Dec 29, 3:34 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Jimmy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >And all this time I thought the Supreme Court elected the
> >President......damn..
>
> Oh, geez, not that crap again... still... Obviously, you never read the
> Supreme Court's decisions, which basically did nothing more than direct the
> state of Florida to follow the law.

I encourage you to read Souter's dissent.

Seven of the Justices found that Florida was in violation of the
14th amendment. Five of them voted to stop trying to get it right.

The best characterization I have seen of the decision is that it
was a mercy killing.

The result was that the person who got the most votes in Florida,
won the state, but IMHO that was mere coincidence.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Jan 4, 3:39 am, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>>> I'm a conservative liberal.
>>> I'm a liberal because I support the twin cornerstones
>>> of liberalism, Constitutional Government and respect
>>> for the rule of law. (Note, that's written law.) I am
>>> conservative because I prefer to deal with familiar
>>> rather than to replace them with new ones.
>>> Big changes always cause big problems. Small
>>> changes can add up to big improvements and
>>> allow us to correct the inevitable small problems
>>> as they come along.
>> Glad to hear it. I assume then you're also against any big changes to
>> the US health care system such as proposed by the major Democrat
>> presidential candidates.
>
> Indeed yes. I think we need to move more or less in the direction
> they
> wish, but one step at a time.

So in 10 or 20 years, folks will look back and say "How did this happen?"

Now it's clear what a "Conservative Liberal" believes in - incrementalism.

>
> When the founding Fathers wrote the Constitution health care was
> almost all provided free by family members or friends. That which
> was not, was provided by doctors, nurses and midwives and almost
> the entire cost of that service was the fee charged by the providers.
> Almost every American family could afford to pay a doctor, nurse or
> midwife for a few hours of their time.
>
> Today, almost every American family could afford to pay a doctor,
> nurse or midwife for a few hours of their time, were it not for all of
> the overhead costs the professionals have to pass on to their
> patients. Even then, my father's surgeon charged only $1200
> for gall bladder surgery, quite affordable. The hospital, however,
> charged ~$40,000.
>
> If the Founding Fathers had the medical technology and expenses
> we have today, I daresay they would have included provisions for it
> in the Constitution.

Not only incrementalism, but reverse clairvoyance!

>
> As it stands, the Federal Government may only regulate or finance
> health care incidental to that associated in some way with interstate
> commerce. Which is all of it, at least inasmuch as far as the ICC
> has been stretched. But I think it would have been much preferable
> for the New Deal and what has followed to have taken the form of a
> couple of Constitutional Amendments, instead of tortured
> interpretations
> that have been used.

We're together on this for sure.

>
> That would have circumscribed the Federal Government's new powers
> with far better clarity and reinforced the value of upholding American
> liberal tradition.

The "liberal tradition" was invented in the "new deal". The tradition
before that was limited federal government as described in the ninth and
tenth amendment to the Constitution.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."

On Dec 30, 9:16=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> >You know what? I still believe I can disarm a thirsty American with a
>
> pint of our finest..and by offering him a doobie, we'll be singing
> till dawn and part as friends.
> Because that is what we are.
>
> Start by going to Port Colburne, yes the place where the Brits trained
> fighter pilots in 1940, then find the yacht club.
>
> If you want a soft drink, don't put your money in their pop machune,
> since it doesn't have any soft drinks in it.
>
> Great fruit pies in the summer at the farmer's market next door.
>
> As long as you are a good old boy, who likes both the Country/Western
> music on the juke box and lots of cold Molsen, you will fit right in,
> even if some of them are stink boaters<Grin>
>
> Lew

I see you have met some of my friends..LOL
And here you thought the Sarnia Yacht Club people were party people.

Goderich was another place where in the 40's the sky would be black
with Lancasters.

I have a feeling you made it to Goderich, Lew. If you recall, there
was a Halifax (Lancaster) bomber on a pylon at the airport.
They totally restored it. It flew again, for the first time back in
1998. Four Merlins.
I almost had vapour-lock when I heard that. That bird flew by no more
than 100 feet over my head when the pilor let'r rip and shook the
earth.

That evening Angela commented that we need more fly-by's like that.

Lyle, lives across the street from me. He's 90 now. He has a DFC
hanging on his wall.
My neighbours and I fight over who has the privilege to shovel than
man's driveway.

Besides my own, that will be a funeral I will attend.

On Dec 29, 1:09 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 12:54 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Robatoy" wrote:
> > > The reason I don't like him is because he is getting paid to smugly
>
> > stating the obvious.
>
> > Call it salesmanship or public speaking 101, the plan is always the
> > same.
>
> > 1)Tell the audience what you are going to tell them.
> > 2)Actually tell the audience what you want to tell them.
> > 3)Summarize by telling the audience what you just told them.
>
> > Lew
> > .
>
> LOL...sooo true, eh?

Hey, what do you think they teach in J school? and one of the first
admonitions to newly hatched freelance writers?

Same thing.

It works. And, often, it seems obvious by the end, but wasn't so
obvious at the beginning.

On Jan 4, 3:49 pm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > That would have circumscribed the Federal Government's new powers
> > with far better clarity and reinforced the value of upholding American
> > liberal tradition.
>
> The "liberal tradition" was invented in the "new deal".


No.

The United States was founded on the core principles
of Liberalism--Constitutional Government, and respect
for the rule of law.

--

FF

Fri, Dec 28, 2007, 8:02pm (EST-3) [email protected] (Robatoy)
doth sayeth:
I just stumbled onto this.
So, even this is from a pretty liberal magazine, it is hard not to agree
with much of it.
http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/17538811/dickheads_of_the_year

Not an accurate list, neither Clinton is on it.



JOAT
If you can read this you're in range.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> Note Crossposting.
>
> And let's not forget that the Democrats only control the House. There
> are 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats and two independents in the Senate,
> with a republican President of the Senate to cast tie-breaking votes.
> (Although some are of the opinion that Lieberman is more Republican
> than Independent.)

And the other - jumping Jim Jeffords?
>
>
>>> Those who would see S/S fail are that same small group that wants to
>>> see all gov't programs fail, usually by staffing with those who
>>> purposefully try to sabatoge of failure to fund.
>> Would that be the ones that wish to see the program in Iraq fail?

> How much income is accrued by SS? How much by the Iraq war?

The SS trust fund and the other federal trust funds guarantee over $300
billion added to the national debt annually. It doesn't matter what
happens with the rest of the budget, because the notes in the trust
funds are non-negotiable and can't be retired in any other manner than
the federal government paying them off, and that only in the amount of
any shortfall when it occurs.

The Iraq war is being financed at about the rate of $100 billion/year
and then only as approved each year by congress.
>
>
>> ...
>> Here's a few more references you may find enlightening. One is a
>> government report:
>>
>> http://www.heritage.org/research/socialsecurity/em940.cfm
>
> Ah yes, the heritage foundation. That is where Cheney and his
> fellows meet every Wednsday to decide on their talking points
> for the next week--which we often see posted Of Topic in
> various newsgroups by various persons who all say pretty much
> the same things at the same times.
>
>> http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/ss-mcare-trust05/index.htm

Why ignore the government report?

>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> FF
>

"Robatoy" wrote:

If you don't like Maher (and I don't) why don't you just say so?

Like him or not, at least Maher calls them as he sees them.

He certainly has enough material with the ongoig disaster we have had
since 2000.


Lew

"Robatoy" wrote:

> The reason I don't like him is because he is getting paid to smugly
stating the obvious.

Call it salesmanship or public speaking 101, the plan is always the
same.

1)Tell the audience what you are going to tell them.
2)Actually tell the audience what you want to tell them.
3)Summarize by telling the audience what you just told them.

Lew
.

todd wrote:

>
> "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> --
>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>>
>> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>I just stumbled onto this.
>>>> So, even this is from a pretty liberal magazine, it is hard not to
>>>> agree with much of it.
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/17538811/dickheads_of_the_year
>>>
>>> Yep, hard not to agree with a piece of shit like Bill Maher whose
>>> biggest claim to fame is, ummm, wait, don't tell me....
>>>
>>> I see he threw in the obligatory "Congressional Democrats", so he's all
>>> balanced and everything.
>>
>> If you watched his show (obviously you are not a fan so I gather you
>> don't tune in to 'Real Time'), you would know that he has been VERY
>> critical of the lame-ass democrats in congress.
>
> I don't have HBO. I used to watch him on Politically Incorrect, which is
> where I formed my opinion of him.
>

Came up with my own list that should be as valid as the predictable list
that Maher came up with (In no particular order)

1. Sean Penn: For a person whose primary claim to fame was playing a
dope-hazed stoner, he has demonstrated that his knowledge and understanding
of world political issues is as nuanced and deeply, intellectually, derived
as something Spicoli would have expounded upon. He has not yet met a
dictatorial thug that he doesn't like, having cozied up to such lovable
freedom-loving dictators as Hugo Chavez and Saddam. His belief that these
thugs and tyrants are superior to his own president earns him a spot on
this list.

2. Cindy Sheehan. At some point, one would think that she would have seen
through the fog of grief that she was nothing more than a tool to be used
and discarded by the anti-war left. She never did and never did realize
that her 15 minutes have been well used up.

3. Harry Ried and the band of 40 senators who wrote and signed "The Letter":
Like Rush or hate him, one should at least agree that the Senate of the
United States has no business trampling the constitution by attempting to
interfere with the first amendment rights of a private talk show host. The
fact that these idiots didn't bother to vet the story upon which the letter
was based, instead relying upon that profoundly "independent" analysis
group Media Matters for a story ripped torn and bleeding from its context
makes their attempt to destroy the career of someone they don't like even
more egregious. The brass that it took for Reid to later try to take
credit for the good being done when Limbaugh auctioned off the letter and
matched the winning bid for the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Association
charity was breathtaking. Making this bunch even more eligible for the
title is Ried's continued insistence that he was in the right, that
Limbaugh later doctored the tapes (he didn't) or that this was a rant
against our troops. Making the hypocrisy even more pronounced is the fact
that Harry Ried is the Senate leader who essentially indicated that our
soldiers were losers and that the war in Iraq was essentially lost. Yeah,
*that* really helped the morale of those serving.

4. Hillary Clinton: I'm warm and cuddly dammit! You people like me! nay,
you people LOVE me! I demand it! It must be true, after all, she has
Chinese restaurant workers who barely make minimum wage donating the
maximum amount to her campaign. 'nuff said.

5. Dan Rather: After attempting to influence a US presidential election by
broadcasting a poorly vetted story that he later had to admit was "fake but
accurate", he now has the 'nads to sue CBS for the debacle.

6. The Main Stream Media for their "independent" reporting of the war
effort: From the fact that news from Iraq goes quiet when things are going
well, to the use of paid stringers with their own agenda, to the
broadcasting of enemy snipers firing on US soldiers; the main stream media
has clearly demonstrated whose side they are on and it isn't ours.

7. Nancy Pelosi: From her coronation to the first 100 hours, to her
demonstration of "cleaning up the culture corruption" by wanting to
nominate an impeached judge as majority leader, to the demand for a jet
equivalent to Air Force One to take her and her entourage back and forth
from DC to California, Speaker Pelosi has demonstrated her hypocrisy, lust
for power, and ineffectivess.

8. Al Gore: For the absolute chutzpah he has demonstrated in taking second
rate science and attempting to make all of us little people suck it in
while he jets around in his own Gulfstream; Gore is the epitome of all the
things the left projects onto GW Bush. His desire for power over
the "little people" while he gives up nothing, his comments declaring "the
debate is over" all demonstrate his desire to reign over the peasants.



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

<[email protected]> wrote:

>I believe you were told to quit this crap; you really should take it
elsewhere.


Sound like you didn't get laid this morning.

Lew

"Maxwell Lol" wrote:

> Rule #1 - Before you start a war you better be DAMNED SURE your
> information is correct.

You forgot Rule #2 - If in doubt, refer to Rule #1.

Lew

Han wrote:

> I am no great
> admirer of any candidate for presidency, but Rudi is very much near
the
> end of the list.

Unfortunately, the Republican candidates appear to be little more than
a bunch of middle ages white guys who are running scared, and like
Chicken Little, are all running around screaming, "build the fence" or
some other equally absurd notion.

Up to this point, they are totally clueless.

I'm still waiting to hear something of value come from the mouth of
any of them.

As for as the Democrats are concerned, time will tell.

Lew

Somebody wrote:

> Fox 'News'

Mutually exclusive terms.

Lew

"Artemus" wrote:

> How about "Faux News"?
>
> Art

Works for me.

Lew

Brian Henderson wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:20:40 -0500, "Buck Turgidson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Don't you see that Maher, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Colmes, are
>>_entertainers_, not journalists? I think people seem to confuse the two
>>professions and take them too seriously.
>
> It's too bad that none of them are all that entertaining, isn't it?

It's been kind of amusing watching the vitriol that has been spewed
relative to these *commentators* with whom the posters apparently disagree.
At least these *commentators* are up-front with the fact that they are not
attempting to portray themselves as impartial journalists but are
commenting on the news and news items unlike most of the mainstream press
such as NBC, CBS, MSNBC, Reuters, AP, AFP, and the other alphabet channels
that hide their activism under the blanket of false objectivity.

It's apparent that if one does not hold the opinion that the government
owes them a living and that one's neighbors should be paying for your
health care, then anybody who disagrees with that opinion and expresses
such an opinion is just an entertainer and spewing "hate".


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

Doug Winterburn wrote:

> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 11:02 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I just stumbled onto this.
>>> So, even this is from a pretty liberal magazine, it is hard not to
>>> agree with much of it.
>>>
>>> http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/17538811/dickheads_of_the_...
>>
>> Ooo, OOo, I got another BIG dickhead in my sights:
>>
>> Fox 'News'
>> Bunch-a-bastards. Now they are violating everything 'Freedom' stands
>> for by excluding a candidate which has higher poll numbers than some
>> of the invited candidates.
>> Because he's Ron Paul and Fox is scared shitless of the guy.
>>
>> This should cost them their FCC license. They are NOT 'acting in the
>> public interest'.
>>
>> So here is where you bitch and complain:
>>
.... snip

Before you Ron Paulians go getting your panties all in a wad, you ought to
check out the facts. There is no January 6 debate and Fox News never
excluded crazy Uncle Ron from the party:

<http://www.nolanchart.com/article797.html> Which, by the way, is hardly a
right-wing site.


>
> He has lower numbers than that undecided candidate:
>
> <http://americanresearchgroup.com/>
>
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html>
>
> If you think anyone is scared shitless of a guy running dead last in the
> low single digits, then I suppose this is a real scandal.

Crazy ol' Uncle Ron sure has an internet following though. Can't have an
internet poll anywhere without it being spammed and flooded by RP hackers.



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

Doug Winterburn wrote:

> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> Ooo, OOo, I got another BIG dickhead in my sights:
>>
>> Fox 'News'
>> Bunch-a-bastards. Now they are violating everything 'Freedom' stands
>> for by excluding a candidate which has higher poll numbers than some
>> of the invited candidates.
>> Because he's Ron Paul and Fox is scared shitless of the guy.
>>

Umm, why exactly is this violating anything? The guy barely registers in
most untainted polls.

If you were to claim this as an egregious violation, why not the same
screaming about the exclusions of much more legitmate Democrat candidates
during some recent debates?

In any case, the whole story is bogus, so this is a non-issue, it's just
funny to see the reactions emanating from the Ron Paulians.

>> This should cost them their FCC license. They are NOT 'acting in the
>> public interest'.
>>
>> So here is where you bitch and complain:
>>
>> 1) At the beginning of EACH email or FAX to an affiliate (actual
>> broadcaster, not the network) ask that the comment be placed in their
>> "FCC Public File." They are required to comply with your request.
... snip of Ron Paul website instructions to followers.
>
> He has lower numbers than that undecided candidate:
>
> <http://americanresearchgroup.com/>
>
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html>
>
> If you think anyone is scared shitless of a guy running dead last in the
> low single digits, then I suppose this is a real scandal.

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

"Robatoy" wrote:

>You know what? I still believe I can disarm a thirsty American with a
pint of our finest..and by offering him a doobie, we'll be singing
till dawn and part as friends.
Because that is what we are.

Start by going to Port Colburne, yes the place where the Brits trained
fighter pilots in 1940, then find the yacht club.

If you want a soft drink, don't put your money in their pop machune,
since it doesn't have any soft drinks in it.

Great fruit pies in the summer at the farmer's market next door.

As long as you are a good old boy, who likes both the Country/Western
music on the juke box and lots of cold Molsen, you will fit right in,
even if some of them are stink boaters<Grin>

Lew

"Robatoy" wrote:

> I have a feeling you made it to Goderich, Lew.

Of course, they once built a steel boat, the Goderich 35 there.

>If you recall, there
was a Halifax (Lancaster) bomber on a pylon at the airport

Missed that one, but they have a Brit fighter on a pylon in down town
Port Colbourne..

>They totally restored it. It flew again, for the first time back in
1998. Four Merlins.
I almost had vapour-lock when I heard that. That bird flew by no more
than 100 feet over my head when the pilor let'r rip and shook the
earth.

Here in SoCal, every year they fly a bunch of WWII vintage aircraft
around for a while.

Still recognize the P-38

>That evening Angela commented that we need more fly-by's like that.

>Lyle, lives across the street from me. He's 90 now. He has a DFC
hanging on his wall
.
>My neighbours and I fight over who has the privilege to shovel than
man's driveway.

>Besides my own, that will be a funeral I will attend.

Speaking of funerals, do you remember the classic "Pat & Mike" joke?
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pat lay dying on his bed.

Mike asks Pat, "Is there anything I can do for you before you go?"

Pat answers, "No, not in this life, but after I'm gone, would you get
that bottle of Irish in my closet, and sprinkle it over me grave?"

Mike thinks for a minute, then asks, "No, but do ye mind if I run it
thru me kidneys first?"

Lew

"Robatoy" wrote:

> A well established Jewish retailer in Amsterdam passed away due to
old
> age. he was 94. As was customary, son # 1 put 500,000 guilders in
his
> ol' man's casket.
> Son # 2 added another 500K in cash.
> Son # 3 wrote a check for 1.5 million, took the 1 mil in cash and
> stuck it in his pocket.

Talk about ancient, kicked the slats out of the cradle first time I
heard it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Speaking of Jewish people, a young Jewish couple got married.

Years later, the husband saw the wife putting a coin in a bottle after
one of their little "parties".

"What are you doing", asked the husband.

"Putting $0.10 in a bottle to celebrate, after we have our little
party. Been doing it since we got married", replies the wife.

"WHY didn't you tell me?", asks the husband.

"I would have given you ALL my business."

Lew

"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

> And if you're not careful, we'll send you all our illegals and
double
> your population.

And when you do, who is going to keep Social Security solvent when all
the "boomers" retire?

Lew

"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

> Maybe the 25% of our jailed criminals who are illegals?

Wasn't aware that being incarcerated also required you to pay S/S
taxes.

> Or maybe the 4% of the illegals who work the fields?

Interesting number, what is the source?

> Or maybe the million or so gang members who cause untold havoc,
mayhem
> and murder who happen to be illegals?

Again an interesting number, what is the source?

> Perhaps the 12,000 babies of illegals who are born in Dallas alone?

Again an interesting number, what is the source?

By comparison to Los Angeles, Dallas is a wide place in the road.

Wonder how many illegal births in L/A?

> Shouldn't be a problem, they're entering the country at about 3
million
> a year.

If that's all, what's the big deal?

Retiring "Boomers" are greater than 3 million a year.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

>
> "Doug Winterburn" wrote:
>
>> And if you're not careful, we'll send you all our illegals and
> double
>> your population.
>
> And when you do, who is going to keep Social Security solvent when all
> the "boomers" retire?
>
> Lew

You actually believe that the illegals are going to keep SS solvent?


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

trikeDriber wrote:

> On Dec 28, 9:04 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> You vastly oversimplify a very complicated world. While I am no fan of
>> most of W's decisions, I also acknowledge that he was left with poor
>> choices no matter what he did. Imagine he did nothing and there
>> *were* WMDs or Sadaam *did* continue to plot to overthrow his
>> neighbors by force. You and yours would then be howling about how
>> *little* he had done. The simple fact is that a relatively small
>
> This may be the most whacked out rationale yet for the dimwit's
> caper." Imagine he did nothing and there
> *were* WMDs or Sadaam *did* continue to plot to overthrow his
> neighbors by force." This one is making my head spin.
>

The only dimwit in evidence here is someone who has vastly oversimplified
a situation in which the intelligence agencies from many nations had
concluded that WMD's were in Saddam's possession, or that he had spirited
them off to another country (Syria being most likely).


> So I see this guy walking down the street and I go out and blow his
> head off with my .12 gauge. The judge ask "why did you do it". I tell
> the judge, "He might have been out to get me". He orders me injected
> not because I murdered the guy but because I'm too damn crazy to live.
> Pal, don't let the big nurse see what your writing or you'll lose your
> posting privileges at the Cuckoo's Nest.

Please try to come up with something a bit more credible as an analogy
next time. I think a subsequent poster answered the above idiocy quite
nicely.

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

Charlie Self wrote:

> On Dec 29, 12:38 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Dec 29, 12:27 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Robatoy" wrote:
>>
>> > If you don't like Maher (and I don't) why don't you just say so?
>>
>> > Like him or not, at least Maher calls them as he sees them.
>>
>> > He certainly has enough material with the ongoig disaster we have had
>> > since 2000.
>>
>> The reason I don't like him is because he is getting paid to smugly
>> stating the obvious.
>> Left or Right, EVERYbody knows Bush was a clusterfuck who had NO
>> qualms burning everything in sight to appease the puppet masters.
>
> You don't live around here, that's obvious. We have a fair number of
> assholes who think Shitbird Bush is doing a superb job--if youc all
> bankrupting the country fiscally, morally and physically, superb, I
> guess he is.

Let's see, unemployment at record lows, revenue to the treasury up, Iraq
surge working, Afghanistan islamofascist regime replaced. No BJ's in the
oval office, no perjury committed by the president. Enron and MCI debacles
were initiated during the previous adminstration so not sure what moral
bankruptcy of which you speak.

Yeah, he's doing a pretty pitiful job of it.

The overspending by the democrat-lite Republicans during the last sessions
is what got them booted. Unfortunately, the new majority who took their
place would like to exercise even greater control over our private lives
and would like to take and spend even more of our wealth than the
democrat-lite Republicans they replaced.

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

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

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

It fits.

Lew

"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

> Believe it or no, inmates get a salary.
>
> http://www.azcorrections.gov/policies/903.htm

Lots of mumbo-jumbo, but the pay scale attachment is conveniently
missing.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/04/america/export.php

Just good old resourcefullness if you ask me.

Nothing about the basic problem except to try to avoid what the
Congress won't address.

> http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mac_donald04-13-05.htm

Looks like an opinion piece designed to scare "whitey"

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp

Again, an opinion piece designed to scare "whitey"

Just by chance, Parkland Hospital in Dallas wouldn't be the primary
hospital serving the indigent, would it?

If so, it would certainly distort the stats.

> You're correct, LA is in shambles

I take it you have visited here lately.

> http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp

Again, an opinion piece designed to scare "whitey"

> What do you have against boomers?

Absolutely nothing, but without additional immigrant labor
contributions to the S/S fund, the boomers will be in trouble 15-20
years from now.

In summary:
>
> http://kerryfoxlive.com/wordpress/?p=8633

Again, an opinion piece designed to scare "whitey"

IMHO, the decendants of white European immigrants into the US are
running scared to death that the world will come to an end, simply
because they are no longer the majority.

There are some, who fan the winds of hatred, in an attempt to take
advantage of this fear.

Yes, illegal immigration is a problem, but running around screaming,
"build s fence, send all the wet backs back home, etc, etc", is not
going to solve the problem.

Whether we want to admit it or not, it is basically an economic
problem of our own making which will require some calm heads getting
together and seriously working to solve the problem, not just give it
lip service in an election year.

Lew

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

> You actually believe that the illegals are going to keep SS
solvent?

That's not what I said; however, they will contribute their share,
which when added to the pot, csn solve the problem.

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

It fits.

Lew

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:

>Have you been to the Restaraunt near LAX, "The Proud Bird"?
>
> Mostly repros, but I think some of the planes on display are real.
>
> Plus you can watch planes landing at LAX while sitting outside
> sipping your Margaritas.


I avoid LAX like it was the plague.

More headaches than it is worth.

Lew

"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

> Here's the problem:
>
> http://mysocialsecurity.org/main/news.php?ItemsID=165

Funny thing about the folks who want to seel S/S fail.

They have been ranting against S/S predicting it's downfall since FDR.

It hasn't happened, and it won't be allowed to happen, as long as we
can keep the dick skinners of those who want to destroy the system
away from it.

> You can conveniently dismiss the information I gave you, but if you
> think importing hordes of uneducated, unskilled, low paid labor is
the
> solution to our fiscal problems, then maybe we have been going about
> things backwards in this country.

When immigrant labor is no longer needed to do back breaking, low
educational skill level tasks, they will stop coming here.

Meanwhile, "Whitey" needs them to produce a profit.

He may not need you, but he needs them.

> Rather than promoting education and
> high paying jobs as a result, perhaps we should have been pushing
for
> more high school dropouts breeding like rabbits to bail us out of
the
> situation.

I'm of the opinion that the parenting skills of the boomers and beyond
are not necessarily the best, but them I'm prejudiced.

> Somehow, I don't think these types of jobs are going to
> generate $75+ trillion in government revenue since currently
illegals
> cost the federal government $10 billion annually and state and local
> governments many billions more.

Need some data on that one.

> I know you'll probably dismiss this one
> also, but many other studies come to the same conclusion:
>
> http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalconclusion.html

I did not dismiis any of the info, only recognised it as an opimion
piece rather than a fact sheet.

Big difference.

I'm reminded of something my father told me when I was a young boy.

"Son, remember, figures don't lie, but lisrs csn figure".

Or as the debaters and the lawyers like to say, " If you have the
facts, use them, if you don't, throw lots of crap out there and maybe
something will stick."

THere are some facts buried in there, but also a lot of crap, IMHO.

Lew

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:w7Yej.33195> OK, since you think there's no problem with the SS system
continuing on
> as is for the long run, lets start with a question and answer format:
>
> 1) How much is in the SS trust fund (and other federal trust funds) to
> cover the short falls that are less than a decade away?

The SS crisis is just about as dumb or as relevant as global warming....both
are largely invented problems that some proponents expect to profit from.

At the point that the currently well overfunded SS trust fund is in need
....withholding rates can be raised by 10-20% and/or payout can be lowered
by 10-20%......any combination of the above makes the fund solvent for a
century and beyond. Something so simple and affordable is not by any
definition a crisis.....Last I checked the current surplus will not run out
for a QTR of a century or so...it also bears noting any prediction of
economic conditions or problems 25 years out are always wrong...in fact both
the feds and states routinely fail to properly predict income or expenses
for as little as 1 year out


> 2) Where did the money come from to invest in the SS trust fund and why?

Payroll withholding......The elderly and infirm were a great source of
poverty and need......Civilized or moral societies arrange assets for such
needs. Soylent green was not considered a viable alternative<G>.

> 3) What is the SS trust fund invested in?

Federal debt...... Rod

"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

> I don't want to see it fail, and I don't know anyone else who wants
that
> either.

43 comes to mind.

Also a large percentage of his handlers would probably qualify.

> Exactly who are the "dick skinners" and what do they have to do with
SS
> and how could they destroy the system?

"dickskinners", slang for hands.

Sorry for the confusion. Tough enough to properly communicate this
way, no sense making things more difficult.

Those who would see S/S fail are that same small group that wants to
see all gov't programs fail, usually by staffing with those who
purposefully try to sabatoge of failure to fund.

That's not to say there are some real $ sucking failures contained in
some gov't programs.

Presently, none bigger than the war in Iraq, but certainly not limited
to that.

> I thought you said they were going to help solve the SS problem
(which
> you implied above doesn't exist).

Yes, they pay into the S/S fund, and yes, the S/S program needs some
attention.

After all, it has been 20 years since the last update.

It has not yet reached critical mass by a long ways.

> What do "whiteys profits have to do with the SS problem?

They don't, but they do drive the illegal immigrant problem which was
my point in the first place.

> 3) What is the SS trust fund invested in?

It is not an "Investment" in the normal financial sense, but rather an
investment in community.

Those who are receiving S/S payments have in some fashion, earned
those payments.

I certainly am not an naturalist, don't even play one on TV, but can
say that S/S was and will continue to be the most cost effective
social safety net yet devised.

Yes, as previously stated S/S needs some attention, but to think that
the illegal immigrant problem is sucking the S/S trust dry is a sorry
commentary.

Lew

Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
> http://mwhodges.home.att.net/deficit-trusts.htm

Your link while mildly entertaining is misguided and quite wrong on at least
a few points...significant ones at that. Most significantly Federal trust
funds do receive interest from their surplus or borrowed funds. Whether the
Feds owe China (or anyone else) for Gov. securities or owe the SS trust fund
it realistically makes little difference.....And since the world does
consider Uncle Sam a rather good credit risk, with low interest and no
shortage of bond investors, it makes for a fairly safe and prudent SS
investment.

While the parlor tricks our officials may play with what is a budget surplus
or a deficit may indeed reek of smoke and mirrors consistently of accounting
methods count for more and most importantly whether payroll and bond
payments are met and will be met.

Regrettably most arguments about SS leave out the valuable service the "SS
tax" provides for medical and disability...that approx. 20% of FICA
withholding provide for this valuable social net gets lost in retirement
arguments. Rod

"Doug Winterburn" wrote

> Would that be the ones that wish to see the program in Iraq fail?

> The annual debt being accrued by SS is about three times the annual
Iraq
> expenditures.

>The last update raised full retirement age and withhoding rates and
> ceilings, and didn't "fix" the problem. What it did do was increase
the
> national debt at a faster rate.
> >
> >> What do "whiteys profits have to do with the SS problem?

> > They don't, but they do drive the illegal immigrant problem which
was
> > my point in the first place.
>
> Arizona has implemented a law that punishes any employer that hires
> illegals.

That's a bad joke, but since you live there, you have to live with it.

> Before it was even enacted at the first of the year, some
> illegals have been leaving the state, either back home or to other
> states.

Would call that AZ's loss, and some other state's gain.

> The investment is in national debt!

Others have addressed the fallacy of that statement, so I'll pass.

> Here's a few more references you may find enlightening.

http://www.heritage.org/research/socialsecurity/em940.cfm

Ah yes, the Heritage Foundation or is that Cheny's planning group?

At a minimum, they certainly have at least been instrumental in
guiding the country down the slippery slope of the last 7 years.

> They are not currently drawing from the trust fund, but from current
> receipts of the SS tax. Remember, SS was supposed to be a pay as
you go
> system, not a source of revenue for the general fund.

Talk to 43 about that one.

> So by that you mean you approve of the Enron style accounting,
double
> taxation, passing our debt to future generations and diminishing
> benefits SS will have to provide therefore breaking promises made to
> future recipients?

Where did that come from?

> My point was not that the illegals were
> sucking SS dry, but they certainly were not any sort of solution to
the
> problem of paying off the [increasing] debt contained in the SS
trust fund.

Guess I missed that one, but it sure sounded that way.

Lew

Robatoy wrote:

> Well, well, well well...
>
> http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=NWS&time=5dy

Not sure what your point here is; the whole market is not doing really
great right now -- look at the 5 year tally and it doesn't look all that
bad. Not sure why all the derangement over Fox news. They hire
conservative (instead of token conservative strawmen) commentators, but
could hardly be considered a conservative news outlet. Their feeds come
from the same biased AP, Reuters, and AFP sources as the rest of the media,
they just don't slant it quite so far left.

You want to see what *real* blowback looks like? Take a gander at
<http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=NYT&time=5yr>
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

> Glad to hear it. I assume then you're also against any big changes
to
> the US health care system such as proposed by the major Democrat
> presidential candidates.

Major accomplishment would be something as simple as a standardized
electronic record keeping system, obviously with necessity info
security incleded.

Talk about reforming an inadequate, bloated operation.

Lew

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> On Jan 4, 4:21 am, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > Well, well, well well...
>>
>> >http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=NWS&time=5dy
>>
>> Wow. That is really meaningful. News Corp lost 5% of their value is the
>> last 5 days. Since you think that is significant, I'm waiting to hear
>> your analysis on the NYT losing roughly 55% of their value of the last 3
>> years as Mark pointed out.
>
> Gee, do you suppose that may have been a consequence of the NYT
> playing lapdog to the Administration?
>

Come now, not even you can believe that. The NYT in the pocket of the
administration? That must be why they ran the Abu Gharaib story on the
front cover for weeks on end, a story that, at most was worthy of only a
few days coverage and most of those not on the front page. That must be
why the only news from Iraq that they print is when it is bad news. That
must be why they were so eager to print leaked documents. The
counter-examples to your patently absurd statement are so numerous, there's
not enough time or room to list them all.

Pinchy Solzberger rooting for Bush. Yeah, and I've got a bridge I'll give
you a real good deal on.

How about the real fact that their circulation is going down in an
increasing death spiral because of their patently anti-American slant and
the fact that most citizens recognize that and are looking elsewhere for
news and information? Newspapers are one of the few businesses that
actually despise and look down upon their customers -- the NYT went a bit
too far with that attitude and is paying the price.

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

"Doug Winterburn wrote:

> Back to the problems with trust funds, including the SS trust fund - after
> much studying of the situation, here is what I have concluded.
>
> Federal trust funds, including the Social Security Trust Fund, are an
> illusion. They serve one purpose and one purpose only - they hide deficit
> spending in current federal budgets by transferring debt from the federal
> budget to the trust funds.

You're basic assumption that gov't debt is bad is not one I necessarily
accept.

Notice I said GOV'T, not PERSONAL.

To most of us, debt is to be avoided in our personal lives.

Exceptions would include home and some personal property purchases such as
automobiles, college expenses, etc; however, we have been taught that long
term debt is to be repaid as quickly as possible.

From early childhood, we are taught to save for a "rainy day", take care of
ourselves, be independent, etc, etc.

The idea of debt, no matter whose it is, runs counter to our learned culture
largely as a legacy of our colonial founders.

OTOH, Gov't can, does, and should use debt as a financial tool, not only to
make large investments in infrastructure for the common good, but to also to
guide the economy by either tightening or easing the flow of money, and thus
debt

Since this country, of necessity, got off the gold standard back in the
30's, the $ is essentially backed by the world's belief in the US gov't.

When those sitting in the counting houses of the world, lose faith in the US
gov't to guarantee the $, then as a country, we will start to see a problem.

That's not going to happen any time soon, for a lot of reasons such as:

1) While the debt is a big number, it is a small percentage of the GNP,
which represents our ability to repay the debt.

2) The world can't afford to let the US fail as the leader of the world,
especially since most of the world's currencies are tied to the $.

3) Yes, the $ will and is taking a beating right now against the world's
currencies. That is simply called "pay back" for the last 7 years of gov't
stupidity.

As far as S/S is concerned, yes the cap needs to be increased, to adjust for
inflation, and if for no other reason than to make the tax, which these days
represents the largest tax many pay, more equitable to all.

The majority of tax payers earn less than $100K of taxable income.

Raising the cap by any amount, would have no impact on their S/S payment, so
for them it becomes moot the amount of increase, but an increase to at least
$100K seems like a step in the right direction, since for those earning more
than $100K, they added amount they will pay is going to be more
proportionally closer to what is being paid by lower income groups.

There is another issue about treating investment income as earned income,
then taxing at the same rates, but that is for another day.

The older I get, the more I realize that gov't has a responsibility to
provide a safe environment as well as the infrastructure necessary for
private enterprise to flourish.

As a young man, my attitude was the gov't was a monkey on my back and
anything that could be done to eliminate it was in my best interests.

I once thought that randomly selecting 100K politicians every day, from all
levels of gov't, and shooting them, was an idea that had merit.

Hell, at the end of 10 years, the number of politicians would only have
doubled, since they breed by incest.

Needless to say, didn't find much support which was good.

Wouldn't have solved much anyway since the civil servants still remain long
after the politicians are gone.

The older I get, the more I realize that gov't has the responsibility to
provide services and infrastructure so as to allow our country not only to
exist as we know it, but to flourish.

The country is kind of like a three (3) legged milk stool.

All legs are required to function.

Gov't serves as one of those legs, the economy (business) as the 2nd, and
the people as the 3rd.

All three (3) have to work together or we don't survive.

The gov't operates in what many, myself included, sometimes seems to be in a
very inefficient way, but that is by design, thanks to the founders.

The representatives who write the laws, have the vested interests of their
constituents in mind when the write them.

Makes for a very messy process.

Making laws should be at least a slow, if not difficult process, since in
the end, laws have such an impact on our lives.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

>
> "Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> Back to the problems with trust funds, including the SS trust fund -
>> after much studying of the situation, here is what I have concluded.
>>
>> Federal trust funds, including the Social Security Trust Fund, are an
>> illusion. They serve one purpose and one purpose only - they hide
>> deficit spending in current federal budgets by transferring debt from the
>> federal budget to the trust funds.
>
> You're basic assumption that gov't debt is bad is not one I necessarily
> accept.
>
> Notice I said GOV'T, not PERSONAL.
>
> To most of us, debt is to be avoided in our personal lives.
>
> Exceptions would include home and some personal property purchases such as
> automobiles, college expenses, etc; however, we have been taught that long
> term debt is to be repaid as quickly as possible.
>
> From early childhood, we are taught to save for a "rainy day", take care
> of ourselves, be independent, etc, etc.
>
> The idea of debt, no matter whose it is, runs counter to our learned
> culture largely as a legacy of our colonial founders.
>
> OTOH, Gov't can, does, and should use debt as a financial tool, not only
> to make large investments in infrastructure for the common good, but to
> also to guide the economy by either tightening or easing the flow of
> money, and thus debt
>

That's all well and good if there are years where the government pays down
some of that debt. That has not happened. When an individual dies, all of
his assets are first apportioned to debt-holders before the heirs receive
any proceeds and thus the debt is cancelled either by payout or by loss of
invested capital in the case where the estate is too low in value to
satisfy all debts. In the case of the government, it doesn't die, so the
debt continues with the need to at minimum pay the interest on the federal
debt. As the debt continues to grow, the interest will continue to take an
increasingly larger amount of the budget. This is not a good thing.


> Since this country, of necessity, got off the gold standard back in the
> 30's, the $ is essentially backed by the world's belief in the US gov't.
>

Why was this "of necessity"?

> When those sitting in the counting houses of the world, lose faith in the
> US gov't to guarantee the $, then as a country, we will start to see a
> problem.
>
> That's not going to happen any time soon, for a lot of reasons such as:
>
> 1) While the debt is a big number, it is a small percentage of the GNP,
> which represents our ability to repay the debt.
>

Which implies the confiscation of more private properties of some sort to
make good on that debt.


> 2) The world can't afford to let the US fail as the leader of the world,
> especially since most of the world's currencies are tied to the $.
>
> 3) Yes, the $ will and is taking a beating right now against the world's
> currencies. That is simply called "pay back" for the last 7 years of gov't
> stupidity.

This "it's all Bush's fault" BS is getting very tiresome. Particularly in
respect to the economy. The US economy is *not* at the point of soup lines
and cardboard box houses despite the media's continued attempt since the
election of 2000 to make that happen. The real-estate market adjustment is
just that, an adjustment, prices in real-estate had shot up unrealistically
in the past several years and a correction was due. Employment? 5% is
considered full employment, the economy has been at that level or below for
several years. Yet, any economic perturbation causes the press to shout
with joy, "recession brought about by Bush's ... is just around the
corner!" Just as a point of reference in how the press has treated
unemployment rates over the past few years, the following is quite
illustrative (taken from
<http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-math-again.html#links>)

So how does the MSM report the news? As always, it depends on who's in the
White House:

CNN, July 5, 1996:

Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different
from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did
fall -- to 5.3 percent.

CBS's Dan Rather, June 7, 1996:

The government came out today with its latest report on unemployment. It
says the unemployment rate rose slightly, 2/10ths of a point last month, up
to 5.6 percent – still low overall.

Washington Post, March 6, 2004:

[T]he unemployment rate held steady at 5.6 percent because hundreds of
thousands of people stopped looking for work, the Labor Department reported
yesterday. The weak jobs report provided fresh fuel for partisan combat in
this presidential election year.

Associated Press, January 4, 2008:

Wary employers clamped down on hiring and pushed the unemployment rate
to a two-year high of 5 percent in December, an ominous sign that the
economy may slide into recession. President Bush explored a rescue package,
including a tax cut, with his economic advisers. . .

The disappointing employment figures sent Wall Street into a nosedive,
thrust the White House into damage control and ratcheted up the blame game
as Republicans and Democrats battle for the presidency.

CNN, January 4, 2008:

Employers added far fewer jobs in the month than had been forecast,
while the unemployment rate shot up to 5 percent, which was a two-year
high, according to a government report Friday.

Stocks sold off sharply on rising fears of a possible recession and
there was a widespread belief in the markets that the Federal Reserve would
have to respond to this report with a sharp drop in interest rates.

"December's bleak jobs report represents the siren call that this
business cycle is just about over," said Bernard Baumohl, the managing
director of the Economic Outlook Group, an economic research firm in
Princeton, NJ. "We're about to tilt over to the other side of the economic
curve and begin the downswing."

So, with Clinton in the White House, everything was rosy at 5.6%. Now,
with Bush in the White House, 5% is the verge of disaster.


>
> As far as S/S is concerned, yes the cap needs to be increased, to adjust
> for inflation, and if for no other reason than to make the tax, which
> these days represents the largest tax many pay, more equitable to all.
>

Huh? How does this make the tax more "equitable"?

> The majority of tax payers earn less than $100K of taxable income.
>
> Raising the cap by any amount, would have no impact on their S/S payment,
> so for them it becomes moot the amount of increase, but an increase to at
> least $100K seems like a step in the right direction, since for those
> earning more than $100K, they added amount they will pay is going to be
> more proportionally closer to what is being paid by lower income groups.
>

Well, since the cap this year is $97,500 and has been going up every year,
it seems that the cap is pretty close to your $100k mark anyway.

> There is another issue about treating investment income as earned income,
> then taxing at the same rates, but that is for another day.
>

Why is it that the economy flourishes after tax cuts, but tends to stumble
when taxes increase? Could it be that the resulting loss of investment
capital and discretionary income impact the economy?


> The older I get, the more I realize that gov't has a responsibility to
> provide a safe environment as well as the infrastructure necessary for
> private enterprise to flourish.
>

Sounds like that is heading more toward a "gimme" attitude.

What are you going to do when the government decides that citizens owning
power saws or other dangerous equipment is not a "safe environment"?


> As a young man, my attitude was the gov't was a monkey on my back and
> anything that could be done to eliminate it was in my best interests.
>

You were apparently much wiser as a young man.

... snip

> The older I get, the more I realize that gov't has the responsibility to
> provide services and infrastructure so as to allow our country not only to
> exist as we know it, but to flourish.
>
> The country is kind of like a three (3) legged milk stool.
>
> All legs are required to function.
>
> Gov't serves as one of those legs, the economy (business) as the 2nd, and
> the people as the 3rd.
>
> All three (3) have to work together or we don't survive.
>
> The gov't operates in what many, myself included, sometimes seems to be in
> a very inefficient way, but that is by design, thanks to the founders.
>
> The representatives who write the laws, have the vested interests of their
> constituents in mind when the write them.
>
> Makes for a very messy process.
>
> Making laws should be at least a slow, if not difficult process, since in
> the end, laws have such an impact on our lives.
>
> Lew

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

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

> Why was this "of necessity"?

Time to revisit your 7th grade civics and gov't classes.

The economy has grown to the size thhat the amount of currency required to
operate is larger than all the gold that exists.

It required abandoning the "gold standard" to get the joib done.

> Which implies the confiscation of more private properties of some sort to
> make good on that debt.

Really now, I think not. One has nothing to do with the ever.

> This "it's all Bush's fault" BS is getting very tiresome.

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

> Particularly in
> respect to the economy. The US economy is *not* at the point of soup
> lines
> and cardboard box houses despite the media's continued attempt since the
> election of 2000 to make that happen.

> Huh? How does this make the tax more "equitable"?

Good grief, I'm not here to teach 5th grade math.

Think about it?

> Sounds like that is heading more toward a "gimme" attitude.

Hardly.

You want to open a business in an area without adequate gov't services such
as police, fire, sanitation, etc, or would make sure those services were
provided before opening your business.

Lew

"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

> No, My basic assumption is that the sole result of all federal trust funds
> is a masking of current year deficits.

I still remember a calculus class where one of my classmates offered a
hypnosis regarding some math.

The instructor listened to my classmate, thought for a moment, then said,
"According to classmate's theory, the following would be true; however, the
theory is false".

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

... snip
>
>> Particularly in
>> respect to the economy. The US economy is *not* at the point of soup
>> lines
>> and cardboard box houses despite the media's continued attempt since the
>> election of 2000 to make that happen.
>
>> Huh? How does this make the tax more "equitable"?
>
> Good grief, I'm not here to teach 5th grade math.
>

Given that benefits are pegged to the amount paid in but are capped at an
amount based upon the upper limit, again, I ask, how does would raising the
cap beyond that more equitable. Sounds confiscatory to me.

> Think about it?
>
>> Sounds like that is heading more toward a "gimme" attitude.
>
> Hardly.
>
> You want to open a business in an area without adequate gov't services
> such as police, fire, sanitation, etc, or would make sure those services
> were provided before opening your business.
>

What you are now describing is properly the realm of state and local
governments, not the fed.


> Lew

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

"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

> Without hypnotizing me, could you point out any fallacies in what I said
> concerning the trust funds?

Now that is like putting me in a knife fight with one hand tied behind my
back and the other guy has a S&W .44.

Smoke and mirrors rule.

If the gov't was so successful at hiding these things activities, we
wouldn't be having this discusssion.

They can make work to make it difficult, but if somebody really wants to get
the data, it is there.

Lew

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

> Given that benefits are pegged to the amount paid in but are capped at an
> amount based upon the upper limit, again, I ask, how does would raising
> the
> cap beyond that more equitable. Sounds confiscatory to me.

Let's eliminate the confusion between benefits received and contributions
made.

The discussion is about contributions only.

Worker "A" earns $75,000/yr
Worker "B" earns $150,000/yr

For simplicity, set the cap at $100K.

Worker "A" pays on 100% of their $75,000/yr earnings.
Worker "B" pays 66.7% of their $150,000/yr earnings.

Now raise the cap to $150K

Worker "A" still pays on 100% of their $75,000/yr earnings
Worker "B" now also pays 100% of their $150,000/yr earnings.

Sounds like parity to me, or as some like to promote, a flat tax.

> What you are now describing is properly the realm of state and local
> governments, not the fed.

Then up the ante a little.

Make that a software business here in SoCal doing software development for
the US military that has the software stolen by employees that are working
for foreign gov'ts.

Yes is has happened within the last year.

Don't think the City and/or County of Los Angeles or even "The Arnold" could
help, it took the feds.

Gov't authority or necessity of existance is a matter of scope and
definition.

Maybe you are old enough to remember the "States Right" party.

It an old idea that was found wanting back then and faded away, and still is
wanting today.

Lew

"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

> In other words, you don't have a clue how the trust funds work.

No, actually I'm getting bored.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

> "Mark & Juanita" wrote:
>
>> Given that benefits are pegged to the amount paid in but are capped at an
>> amount based upon the upper limit, again, I ask, how does would raising
>> the
>> cap beyond that more equitable. Sounds confiscatory to me.
>
> Let's eliminate the confusion between benefits received and contributions
> made.
>

When discussing Social Security, and particularly OASD, the two are
inextricably linked.


> The discussion is about contributions only.
>

Then you have just negated the basic premise of the social security OASD
structure and have moved into a different realm.


> Worker "A" earns $75,000/yr
> Worker "B" earns $150,000/yr
>
> For simplicity, set the cap at $100K.
>
> Worker "A" pays on 100% of their $75,000/yr earnings.
> Worker "B" pays 66.7% of their $150,000/yr earnings.
>
> Now raise the cap to $150K
>
> Worker "A" still pays on 100% of their $75,000/yr earnings
> Worker "B" now also pays 100% of their $150,000/yr earnings.
>
> Sounds like parity to me, or as some like to promote, a flat tax.
>

No, what you have just done is changed the entire OASD structure and
turned it into another taxing mechanism. That is not the way the system is
structured and for you to change the premise of the discussion makes the
discussion moot.

Not even close to parity -- unless you are going to change the benefits in
correlation with the amount you raise worker "B"'s contributions, you have
just made worker B start paying for Worker "A"'s benefits.



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

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

> When discussing Social Security, and particularly OASD, the two are
> inextricably linked.

I don't know what you're smoking, but it is good stuff.

Stay with it.

As for me, I'm outta here.

Lew

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> On Jan 5, 2:22 am, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>>>... the core principles of Liberalism--Constitutional Government, and respect
>>>for the rule of law.
>>
>>Can you cite authority for that proposition? 'Cause it shur don't seem that's
>>how modern liberals think, Hillary Clinton being a good example of someone who
>>is unquestionably a modern liberal, who doesn't seem to give more than bare lip
>>service to either of those principles.
>
>
> Pretty much every author on the subject of social and political
> philosophies has a different take on the subject. But even todays 'social
> conservatives' describe the US as a Liberal Democracy. As you will recall, provided
> you were graduated from high school here in the US, and paid attention in
> class, the US relies on written law, both statute and case law, and thus
> differs somewhat from the English common law tradition. The US Constitution
> is the highest law in the land.
>
> If you google "Classic Liberalism", "Constitutional Liberalism" and
> "Social Liberalism", you can read how over the centuries a good idea was put
> into practice and then corrupted. Today's "Social Liberals" are no
> more liberal than today's "Social Conservatives" are conservative.
>

1. I don't see an answer to my question, which was, Can you cite authority for
the proposition that constitutional government and respect for the rule of law
are core principles of liberalism? I'd still like an answer to that question.

2. The USA is not a democracy and never was.

How about "Faux News"?

Art

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Somebody wrote:
>
> > Fox 'News'
>
> Mutually exclusive terms.
>
> Lew
>
>

On Dec 30, 10:16=A0pm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> >> You're more than welcome to apply for U.S. citizenship and when you hav=
e
> >> it, vote in the US. =A0Until then...
>
> > I have that right now. But I'm here in Canada by choice. NOwhere on
> > this planet is true freedom enjoyed as much as it is in Canada.
> > Bush: "Go shoot some ragheads for us."
> > Chretien: "Fuck you."
>
> > Can I be more clear?
>
> > When it comes right down to it, there is no place on this God-given-
> > green-free Earth that is truly a beacon for freedom and human rights
> > like this gorgeous country called Canada.
>
> > There are only 35 million of us, but I swear to God, do NOT try to
> > fuck with us.
>
> > Am I making myself clear?
>
> ...and even though mum was born in Mission, B.C., she moved to the U.S.
> because she thought as great as Canada was, she thought the U.S. was
> better.
>
> And if you're not careful, we'll send you all our illegals and double
> your population.
>
> Am I making myself clear? ;-)

hahahah. Nice play, Doug.

Tell your mom I also think there were times things were better in the
US.
These days?

Note Crossposting.

On Jan 3, 2:34 pm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > "Doug Winterburn" wrote:
>
> >> I don't want to see it fail, and I don't know anyone else who wants
> > that
> >> either.
>
> > 43 comes to mind.
>
> > Also a large percentage of his handlers would probably qualify.
>
> More Bush derange ment syndrome! HITH could 43 or his "handlers" sneak
> into a democrat controlled congress and change the SS laws to make SS fail?

Again, I do not think he is deranged.

However, his refusal, a few years back, to compromise on any aspect
of
his proposed fix to the system shows him to at least be recalcitrant.

The Republican controlled congress might have given us the private
accounts he wanted if only he had compromised on raising with-
holding to cover the anticipated shortfall in the near term.

And let's not forget that the Democrats only control the House. There
are 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats and two independents in the Senate,
with a republican President of the Senate to cast tie-breaking votes.
(Although some are of the opinion that Lieberman is more Republican
than Independent.)


>
> > Those who would see S/S fail are that same small group that wants to
> > see all gov't programs fail, usually by staffing with those who
> > purposefully try to sabatoge of failure to fund.
>
> Would that be the ones that wish to see the program in Iraq fail?

Yes and no. It's the yahoo types that usually want to see government
fail. Some may want to see Iraq make it as a democratic state while
others are hoping for the situation to escalate into a larger regional
war.

>
> > Presently, none bigger than the war in Iraq, but certainly not limited
> > to that.
>
> The annual debt being accrued by SS is about three times the annual Iraq
> expenditures.

How much income is accrued by SS? How much by the Iraq war?


> ...
> Here's a few more references you may find enlightening. One is a
> government report:
>
> http://www.heritage.org/research/socialsecurity/em940.cfm

Ah yes, the heritage foundation. That is where Cheney and his
fellows meet every Wednsday to decide on their talking points
for the next week--which we often see posted Of Topic in
various newsgroups by various persons who all say pretty much
the same things at the same times.

>
> http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/ss-mcare-trust05/index.htm
>
>
>

--

FF

On Dec 31, 3:00 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> trikeDriber wrote:
>
>...
>
> So there was NO reason to believe Sadaam was a threat and this the
> attack upon him was entirely unprovoked, right? He never had a history
> of chemical warfare? He never invaded several of his neighbors killing
> over a million "soldiers" in the process, many of them young teenage
> boys? He never perpetrated acts of genocide on the ethnic minorities
> in his country? He never stood by passively while his sons fed people
> into industrial shredders while those people were still alive - feet
> first, so they could be heard screaming in agony? He never encouraged
> (with money) the children of other people in other lands to suicide in
> the name of some tribal savagery?

No. He was no threat because he had no nuclear weapons, no
nuclear weapons program, all of his nuclear materials were still
under IAEA seal just as they had been throughout the 1990s. His
chemical weapons factories were destroyed in 1991 and never
rebuilt, and, with the exception of mustard, Iraq had never made
any with a shelf life longer than a few months so that it was
aboslutely
crystal clear that Iraq had no nuclear or chemical weapons. No
evidence for bio weapons was found either. He had no Air Force
and his army that was under-equipped, technilogically obsolete,
poorly motivated, and had never won a war.

We knew this before the first American crossed the border from
Kuwait because it is what the UN inspectors told us.

--

FF

The little M15 troll dork needs to be added to t he list. That kid
really needs to get a life.



JOAT
You can't always judge by appearances, the early bird may have been up
all night.

In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Came up with my own list that should be as valid as the predictable list
> that Maher came up with (In no particular order)

I like your list better.

--
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Dec 29, 8:20=A0pm, "Buck Turgidson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Don't you see that Maher, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Colmes, are
> _entertainers_, not journalists? =A0I think people seem to confuse the two=

> professions and take them too seriously.
>
> Hannity, Colmes, Henny Youngman, Sammy Davis Jr, Frank Sinatra, Wayne
> Newton. =A0All the same profession.
>
> Isn't it funny, though, that Rush is a drug addict, and Bill O was sued by=
a
> co-worker for sexual harassment, and settled out of court, the terms of
> which are sealed?
>
> Makes me chortle with glee.

You forgot to mention that prick Glenn Beck. Now THAT is a USDA grade
asshole.

GarageWoodworks wrote:
> It really cracks me up that the same people who hate Bill Maher are the same
> ones that don't watch his show. Then claim to know what he stands for.

I *have* watched his show - both the original one on network television
and his current abortion on HBO ... many times ... enough to no
longer waste my time on his folly.

>
>> He is a liar and a fool and those who take
>> him seriously at any level - whether as an entertainer, sage, or
>> commentator - are similarly foolish.
>
> He lied about what?

He has repeatedly declared himself to be "libertarian" politically
even though his stated views on many things are clearly politically
very left and at great odds with libertarian ideology. He has done
so even when confronted about this issue.

>
>> The world is not as simple as "Bush/The U.S./The U.K/Islam... were
>> right/wrong/evil/ good etc. The world is complex because people are
>> complex and history makes them moreso.
>
> I think you are confusing Maher with Bush and co. Who repeatedly states
> that "They hate us for our freedom!" Can that be any more over simplified
> and inaccurate at the same time? Where is the complexity in that?

Mahers lack of sophistication and erudition does not speak one way
or the other to Bush's. (-1 for misdirection on your part.) The
difference is that Bush's actions are held under very close media
and political scrutiny while Maher can pound away with impunity
no matter how stupid what he says may be. I choose to reward this
stupidity by no longer watching his show.

>
>> Maher - along with his
>> similarly puerile fellow travelers like Jon Stewart - should be held
>> in contempt precisely because he trivializes the complex and important
>> topics of our day.
>
> Just like our commander in chief with his one liner bumper sticker slogans
> he drills into our heads over and over and over (We have to fight them over
> there so we don't have to fight them here!) with one exception - Maher and
> Stewart are correct and entertaining.

-2 for further misdirection. Neither Maher nor Stewart have remotely
the responsibility or scrutiny of a sitting U.S. President. They
are free to be intellectual children precisely because they answer
to no one other than their easily led audiences.

>
>> Only those who do not care about the results have the luxury of
>> oversimplifying modern geopolitics, policy, and international
>> relations.
>
> Sounds like Bush and co. again...
>
>
-3 ibid.

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

On Dec 28, 11:24=A0pm, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >I just stumbled onto this.
> > So, even this is from a pretty liberal magazine, it is hard not to
> > agree with much of it.
>
> >http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/17538811/dickheads_of_the_...
>
> Yep, hard not to agree with a piece of shit like Bill Maher whose biggest
> claim to fame is, ummm, wait, don't tell me....
>
> I see he threw in the obligatory "Congressional Democrats", so he's all
> balanced and everything. =A0His main objection to Guiliani is that he arre=
sted
> potheads while in office. =A0Libtarded asswipe.

If you don't like Maher (and I don't) why don't you just say so?

On Dec 29, 12:27=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
> If you don't like Maher (and I don't) why don't you just say so?
>
> Like him or not, at least Maher calls them as he sees them.
>
> He certainly has enough material with the ongoig disaster we have had
> since 2000.

The reason I don't like him is because he is getting paid to smugly
stating the obvious.
Left or Right, EVERYbody knows Bush was a clusterfuck who had NO
qualms burning everything in sight to appease the puppet masters.

Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 29, 1:04 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [brevitised]
>> Moreover, if you seriously believe your "puppetmaster" theory
>> you should:
>>
>> A) Adjust your tinfoil hat because the black helicopters are
>> on the way to pick you up for medical experiments in
>> Area 51 while the Aliens look on with the help of
>> the Illuminati, the Catholic Church, and the Girl Scouts.
>
> That type of humour is beneath you, Tim.

I was more-or-less kidding. For the record I do not personally
think the Girls Scouts are part of any conspiracy other than
the one to sell cookies (which is most eeeeviiill in its own
right).

> Ask yourself WHO benefited from the war in Iraq. (Hint: Cheny's Alma
> Mater, KBR et al, The Carlyle Group et al.) And NO, I'm not suggesting
> they started the 9/11 debacle.

So, your theory is that there is sufficient power among those
in the arms business to get 10s of millions of voters to
elect this guy? C'mon, be serious. Bush got elected (twice -
nevermind that Al "The Whiner" Gore can't read the Constitution)
for one very simple reason: The intellectual and political
Left in the West is utterly vacuous and bankrupt. The people
who put Bush over the top in these elections did not vote
*for* him - they voted against the political sewage that ran
*against* him. This carried into his Presidency. Note that
even as a lame duck President, the U.S. Democrats *still*
cannot accomplish anything. The Left is fundamentally broken
and the population knows it. Can people with money influence
an election? Sure. But not as much as the millions of
greedy retirees who want what they have not paid for (e.g.,
The drug coverage Bush caved on). Oh, and BTW, one of the
"beneficiaries" most often named is Halliburton, home of
that Eeeeeevil man, Cheney. Oh, wait ... it was *Clinton*
that gave Halliburton the contracts in question. I say this
as someone with (almost as much) contempt for the Right as
the Left. But it was the Left that put Bush in power as much
as anything else in the last 8 years - blame them for their
stupidity, ineptitude, national self loathing, and ever
giving Rosie O'Donnell and Michael Moore air time in any venue...



>> B) Get a grip. The one thing that government - ANY government -
>> cannot do effectively is keep quiet. The probability of there
>> being a vast conspiracy to run Western governments as
>> oligarchies is approximately .00000000000000001. Why?
>> Because no one in power can stand not to be noticed - they
>> *crave* it and thus run around trumpeting how important they
>> are.
>
> Could you take a break and stop putting words in my mouth?
> The Puppetmasters I speak of, are those who 'help' put their puppets
> into the White House. Unless you think that GWB got there entirely on
> his own merit and stellar record as a business man and military hero.

He got there because his opponents in both elections were
execrable. Bush was the better choice. Gore is a fraud and
Kerry is a demonstrable liar. I've got a lot of buddies who
went to Viet Nam who I am certain never acted in "the manner
of Ghengis Khan".

> Bush got the job, and he owed big. Thousands of bodies BIG.

And this is different than ANY politician, how? As one
small example, review the pardon record of Bill Clinton
as he exited office. He paid off too .... to *convicted
criminals*. There are many similar examples that cross
ideological boundaries.

> He's arrogant enough not to give a damn about the little people.

It's not his job to care about "little people". It's his
job to "defend and preserve the Constitution". He has not done
this in every case, and for that he *should be criticized*.
But failing to care deeply about Connie The Crackwhore, Lazy
Larry, or Greedy Grampa is not within the Constitutional purview
of the Presidency.

>
> And you are too smart not to see that.

Well, thanks for that. I hope I am also "smart enough" to
not believe conspiracy theories, that there is any real difference
between politicians of any stripe, or that anyone else in Bush's
position would have been able to make better geopolitical
choices - different maybe, better, no.


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

Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2:39 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:735d1be9-5466-4e5f-a077-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>>> You do have much to contribute wrt woodworking.
>>> I try not to call attention to typos, but what does 'wrt' mean?
>> Here, in Jersey, it means "with regard to", sometimes written WRT, IIRC.
>>
> In that case, Skippy said something nice....egg on MY face...
>

<Hands Robatoy the Popeil Egg-Off-Your-Face-Remover he got for Christmas>

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

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:04:35 -0500, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:

>Ummm, how about for starters NOT putting the Emergency Command Center in
>the vulnerable (and already targeted once) World trade center. Too
>obvious?

In hindsight, that was bad. However, I also don't know why they
chose the spot they did. Has the documentation from the committee
that chose the location ever been released?

As I said in another post, security measures in lower Manhattan was
seriously upgraded after attack #1. I also remember the WTC was
designed to survive an airplane strike, but by an airplane of the
1960's.

I've been involved in setting up off-site, "business continuation
plan", command centers for my employer, and the overall process that
goes into choosing locations is pretty rigorous. I would find it
hard to believe that a location was chosen with a dartboard.

The hardest part of disaster and security planning is that nobody gets
much notoriety for success.

---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:33:01 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> <Hands Robatoy the Popeil Egg-Off-Your-Face-Remover he got for Christmas>
>>
>
>I best get an extra set of batteries for this thing then...LOL


I heard Festool is developing a version specifically for American
politicians, due to the upcoming election. <G>

Brian Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:02:01 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I just stumbled onto this.
>> So, even this is from a pretty liberal magazine, it is hard not to
>> agree with much of it.
>
> Oh, I agree with much of it, but they only got the list half right,
> they missed all the liberal dickheads out there. That's the problem
> with partisan politics, they always ignore the failings of their own
> side.

How about this instead: There are no meaningful political parties.
There are mostly only people who will - in varying degrees - cave into
the mooching population to give them what said population has not
earned, paid for, or is otherwise entitled to, so as to buy that
population's votes. In 500 years have moved from being Explorers, to
Conquerors, to an Aristocracy, to a Democratic Republic, and now are
departing this last (very happy) state to become Populist Swine. The
politicians smell this and play the game that will get them elected.
The pigs are at the through and expect the politicians to feed them.



Viva Ron Paul.

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

On Dec 29, 8:41 pm, "Buck Turgidson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You forgot to mention that prick Glenn Beck. Now THAT is a USDA grade
> > asshole.
>
> Yeah, there's another one who's either unwilling or unable to think beyond
> that which he learned in bible school.

Leave us not forget Annie Coulter and her "It would be fun to A-bomb
Iran" style remarks. She's a beauty that one, she'd do really well at
a horse show.

trikeDriber wrote:
> On Dec 28, 9:04 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> You vastly oversimplify a very complicated world. While I am no fan of
>> most of W's decisions, I also acknowledge that he was left with poor
>> choices no matter what he did. Imagine he did nothing and there
>> *were* WMDs or Sadaam *did* continue to plot to overthrow his
>> neighbors by force. You and yours would then be howling about how
>> *little* he had done. The simple fact is that a relatively small
>
> This may be the most whacked out rationale yet for the dimwit's
> caper." Imagine he did nothing and there
> *were* WMDs or Sadaam *did* continue to plot to overthrow his
> neighbors by force." This one is making my head spin.
>
> So I see this guy walking down the street and I go out and blow his
> head off with my .12 gauge. The judge ask "why did you do it". I tell
> the judge, "He might have been out to get me". He orders me injected
> not because I murdered the guy but because I'm too damn crazy to live.
> Pal, don't let the big nurse see what your writing or you'll lose your
> posting privileges at the Cuckoo's Nest.
>

So there was NO reason to believe Sadaam was a threat and this the
attack upon him was entirely unprovoked, right? He never had a history
of chemical warfare? He never invaded several of his neighbors killing
over a million "soldiers" in the process, many of them young teenage
boys? He never perpetrated acts of genocide on the ethnic minorities
in his country? He never stood by passively while his sons fed people
into industrial shredders while those people were still alive - feet
first, so they could be heard screaming in agony? He never encouraged
(with money) the children of other people in other lands to suicide in
the name of some tribal savagery?

You - like so many - want the world to be simple enough that you
can apprehend it with a minimum of thought, analysis, or
concentration. Events and people cannot be examined in a moment-in-time,
the exist in a context and continuum of activity. You may want to
actually go read a book or two rather than getting your 'news' from
Maher or moveone.org ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Dec 31, 3:05 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>...
>
> Here in SoCal, every year they fly a bunch of WWII vintage aircraft
> around for a while.
>
> Still recognize the P-38
>

Have you been to the Restaraunt near LAX, "The Proud Bird"?

Mostly repros, but I think some of the planes on display are real.

Plus you can watch planes landing at LAX while sitting outside
sipping your Margaritas.

--

FF

On Jan 1, 3:37 pm, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:69f02b68-b802-4ee6-8a58-fcb3911f6ac8@z11g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 1, 12:33 am, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> You are free to presume anything you like. I formed my opinion of Dr.
> >> Blix
> >> at the time he headed UNMOVIC. I'm sorry I don't have a bibliography of
> >> the
> >> various reports I read/heard at the time. You are free to disagree. The
> >> fact that he was in charge of a UN group should practically be prima
> >> facie
> >> evidence of incompetence, however.
>
> >> todd
>
> > And a statement like your last is biased enough that I'm going to
> > disregard everything you have written thus far.
>
> Well, Charlie, the last sentence was a joke.

So were your first comments on Dr Blix.

Were you upset with the UNMOVIC reports because
Dr Blix had obtained far better access than UNSCOM,
and thereby demonstrated that Iraq was not a threat to
its neighbors, much less to the US?

--

FF

--
www.garagewoodworks.com

"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>I just stumbled onto this.
>> So, even this is from a pretty liberal magazine, it is hard not to
>> agree with much of it.
>>
>> http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/17538811/dickheads_of_the_year
>
> Yep, hard not to agree with a piece of shit like Bill Maher whose biggest
> claim to fame is, ummm, wait, don't tell me....
>
> I see he threw in the obligatory "Congressional Democrats", so he's all
> balanced and everything.

If you watched his show (obviously you are not a fan so I gather you don't
tune in to 'Real Time'), you would know that he has been VERY critical of
the lame-ass democrats in congress.


> His main objection to Guiliani is that he arrested potheads while in
> office. Libtarded asswipe.

No. It has more to do with how little he prepared NY in between Trade
Center attack #1 and attack #2. And how he wears 911-hero on his sleeve.

It really cracks me up that the same people who hate Bill Maher are the same
ones that don't watch his show. Then claim to know what he stands for.

>He is a liar and a fool and those who take
> him seriously at any level - whether as an entertainer, sage, or
> commentator - are similarly foolish.

He lied about what?

> The world is not as simple as "Bush/The U.S./The U.K/Islam... were
> right/wrong/evil/ good etc. The world is complex because people are
> complex and history makes them moreso.

I think you are confusing Maher with Bush and co. Who repeatedly states
that "They hate us for our freedom!" Can that be any more over simplified
and inaccurate at the same time? Where is the complexity in that?

>Maher - along with his
> similarly puerile fellow travelers like Jon Stewart - should be held
> in contempt precisely because he trivializes the complex and important
> topics of our day.

Just like our commander in chief with his one liner bumper sticker slogans
he drills into our heads over and over and over (We have to fight them over
there so we don't have to fight them here!) with one exception - Maher and
Stewart are correct and entertaining.

>
> Only those who do not care about the results have the luxury of
> oversimplifying modern geopolitics, policy, and international
> relations.

Sounds like Bush and co. again...

> I *have* watched his show - both the original one on network television
> and his current abortion on HBO ... many times ... enough to no
> longer waste my time on his folly.
>
>>
>>> He is a liar and a fool and those who take
>>> him seriously at any level - whether as an entertainer, sage, or
>>> commentator - are similarly foolish.
>>
>> He lied about what?
>
> He has repeatedly declared himself to be "libertarian" politically
> even though his stated views on many things are clearly politically
> very left and at great odds with libertarian ideology. He has done
> so even when confronted about this issue.

This is the best example of him lying that you could come up with? You are
stating your opinion here that his views are "clearly politically very left
and at great odds with libertarian ideology". Is this the best you could
come up with? Can you elaborate on which of his views are too far left to
fall with in the realm of the libertarian ideology?


>>> The world is not as simple as "Bush/The U.S./The U.K/Islam... were
>>> right/wrong/evil/ good etc. The world is complex because people are
>>> complex and history makes them moreso.
>>
>> I think you are confusing Maher with Bush and co. Who repeatedly states
>> that "They hate us for our freedom!" Can that be any more over
>> simplified and inaccurate at the same time? Where is the complexity in
>> that?
>
> Mahers lack of sophistication and erudition does not speak one way
> or the other to Bush's. (-1 for misdirection on your part.) The
> difference is that Bush's actions are held under very close media
> and political scrutiny while Maher can pound away with impunity
> no matter how stupid what he says may be. I choose to reward this
> stupidity by no longer watching his show.

IMHO this disqualifies you from giving a critique of his political ideology.

>>> Maher - along with his
>>> similarly puerile fellow travelers like Jon Stewart - should be held
>>> in contempt precisely because he trivializes the complex and important
>>> topics of our day.
>>
>> Just like our commander in chief with his one liner bumper sticker
>> slogans he drills into our heads over and over and over (We have to fight
>> them over there so we don't have to fight them here!) with one
>> exception - Maher and Stewart are correct and entertaining.
>
> -2 for further misdirection.

Sorry professor.

>Neither Maher nor Stewart have remotely
> the responsibility or scrutiny of a sitting U.S. President. They
> are free to be intellectual children precisely because they answer
> to no one other than their easily led audiences.

-2 Ad hominem attack (1 for referring to Maher as an intellectual child
and 1 for indirectly referring to me as easily led).


>>> Only those who do not care about the results have the luxury of
>>> oversimplifying modern geopolitics, policy, and international
>>> relations.
>>
>> Sounds like Bush and co. again...
> -3 ibid.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

> What was he supposed to do? Install anti-aircraft missiles on the twin
> towers?

Ummm, how about for starters NOT putting the Emergency Command Center in
the vulnerable (and already targeted once) World trade center. Too
obvious?

>Name any city in the nation that would have been more prepared than NY.

--
www.garagewoodworks.com

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> I *have* watched his show - both the original one on network television
>>> and his current abortion on HBO ... many times ... enough to no
>>> longer waste my time on his folly.
>>>
>>>>> He is a liar and a fool and those who take
>>>>> him seriously at any level - whether as an entertainer, sage, or
>>>>> commentator - are similarly foolish.
>>>> He lied about what?
>>> He has repeatedly declared himself to be "libertarian" politically
>>> even though his stated views on many things are clearly politically
>>> very left and at great odds with libertarian ideology. He has done
>>> so even when confronted about this issue.
>>
>> This is the best example of him lying that you could come up with? You
>> are
>
> One lie and you're a liar especially when you persist in the lie
> after having it pointed out to you.
>
>> stating your opinion here that his views are "clearly politically very
>> left and at great odds with libertarian ideology". Is this the best you
>> could come up with? Can you elaborate on which of his views are too far
>> left to fall with in the realm of the libertarian ideology?
>
> The ones involving the use of the Federal treasury to act on
> domestic matters that do no fall within the enumerated rights
> of the Federal Government found in the Constitution. Maher
> nearly had an aneurysm as he foamed away at the Bush administration
> response to the New Orleans mess. A libertarian would have argued
> that it was at most a State matter until/unless national security
> was at stake. There are many other such issues.

So by your rationale, if you claim that you are a libertarian, a democrat, a
republican, and you don't conform with all of their ideologies, you are a
liar.

If this is the case than you must think that Rudi Giuliani is lying when he
says he is a Republican. Rudi DOESN'T support a ban on partial birth
abortion (anti to a core Republican value).

Their are other LIARS as well according to YOUR political rationale.

>>>>> The world is not as simple as "Bush/The U.S./The U.K/Islam... were
>>>>> right/wrong/evil/ good etc. The world is complex because people are
>>>>> complex and history makes them moreso.
>>>> I think you are confusing Maher with Bush and co. Who repeatedly
>>>> states that "They hate us for our freedom!" Can that be any more over
>>>> simplified and inaccurate at the same time? Where is the complexity in
>>>> that?
>>> Mahers lack of sophistication and erudition does not speak one way
>>> or the other to Bush's. (-1 for misdirection on your part.) The
>>> difference is that Bush's actions are held under very close media
>>> and political scrutiny while Maher can pound away with impunity
>>> no matter how stupid what he says may be. I choose to reward this
>>> stupidity by no longer watching his show.
>>
>> IMHO this disqualifies you from giving a critique of his political
>> ideology.
>
> Because I no longer listen to his drivel? Once you've heard the same
> nonsense repeated, it does not bear further scrutiny and I feel quite
> comfortable calling it was it is ... mental sewage.

Your opinion and I encourage you to spew your garbage anywhere you please.
I still feel you are not qualified to critique him.

>>>>> Maher - along with his
>>>>> similarly puerile fellow travelers like Jon Stewart - should be held
>>>>> in contempt precisely because he trivializes the complex and important
>>>>> topics of our day.
>>>> Just like our commander in chief with his one liner bumper sticker
>>>> slogans he drills into our heads over and over and over (We have to
>>>> fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here!) with one
>>>> exception - Maher and Stewart are correct and entertaining.
>>> -2 for further misdirection.
>>
>> Sorry professor.
>>
>>> Neither Maher nor Stewart have remotely
>>> the responsibility or scrutiny of a sitting U.S. President. They
>>> are free to be intellectual children precisely because they answer
>>> to no one other than their easily led audiences.
>>
>> -2 Ad hominem attack (1 for referring to Maher as an intellectual
>> child
>
> What else do you call someone who oversimplifies the complicated, lies
> about his own views, demonstrates the analytical breadth of a
> sixth grader, and passionately defends the most libertine behavior
> while demanding simultaneously that they not be held to account?

Umm, I would call him George Bush.


> Oh, I know ... a modern Leftie...
>
>> and 1 for indirectly referring to me as easily led).
>
> Since the shoe apparently fits ... I do not object to you
> sharing his views, you are so entitled. But defending him as
> a credible commentator on modern politics exhibits a pretty
> fundamental lack of analytical sophistication.

Again. Your opinion and you are welcome to spew it (as unqualified as you
are).

> It's like
> depending on a five year old to check your calculus homework
> knowing full well they haven't a clue what it's about.

I am getting that same feeling right now reading your responses.

> It is interesting to me that the Left excoriates the Right
> lemmings for parroting people like O'Reilley and Limbaugh
> (and they do so properly).

-1 Misdirection.

>But either of those two are
> towering intellectual giants compared to Maher. he just
> swears more.

Haaa Haaaa. Thanks for the laugh. O'Reilley... <insert snicker sound
bite>





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