McCain/Palin 2008!

"Just Wondering" wrote:

> I dunno about others,but your link takes me to
> http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/Sausage-Balls-II/Detail.aspx

Yep, and pretty basic recipe at that.

More tasty with Italian sausage than basic ground pork.

Keep a little hot sauce on the side if you like it zippy.

BTW, yes I've made some using this recipe.

Lew

<<<__ Bøb __>>> wrote:
> saw a neat Alaskan bumper sticker .. .. .. "Our weather is COLD .. but
> our Governor is HOT !!"
>

And I thought I was the only one who noticed...

On actress scales, she's OK, but on Politician scale? <G>

B A R R Y wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>
>> Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is
>> still in force?
>
> Unions have been known to:
>
> a.) Protest Strike
> b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated
>

It's called "Blue Flu"

BTW: I'll be over with my tazer. Please have your kids ready.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:09:28 -0500, in alt.usenet.kooks, "David G.
Nagel" <[email protected]> bloviated:

>Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 11:19 am, §ñühwØ£f <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> America cant drill its way out of a situation where alternative forms dont
>>> supplant/surpass the current mode.
>>
>> American companies are not using all of the leases they currently
>> hold.
>> Having them sit on more leases where they don't drill won't help
>> either.
>>
>> --
>>
>> FF
>
>And as soon as the envirterrorists quit taking them to court on specious
>arguments they will explore them.

You really believe that is why the oil companies don't drill in places
like the outer shelf?

On Sep 5, 2:08=A0am, hex <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 2, 1:27=A0am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sean Monaghan wrote:
> > > [all jokes aside]
>
> > > I've never really shared my political views with the greater Usenet
> > > community, but there's a first for everything.
>
> > All jokes aside - better late than never.
>
> > > I was very disappointed at Barack Hussein Obama's clinch on the
> > > Democratic nomination earlier this year. =A0I'd like to go on record =
as
> > > such at this time.
>
> > Hmm - you might want to work on your timing (and perhaps your level of
> > effort).
>
> > After being steadfastly independent for years, I evaluated things
> > differently and acted accordingly:
>
> > =A0 =A0http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/Action.jpg
>
> > The point is that, if you have a preference for who's on the ticket,
> > it's necessary to pay attention and act on that preference. Your
> > primary/caucus vote and your convention vote(s) have a lot more effect
> > than your after-the-fact regrets.
>
> > > McCain's highly appropriate choice of a running mate was the deciding
> > > factor in my support for their candidacy for the White House in Novem=
ber.
>
> > That's fine - just don't forget to vote!
>
> > > Now, back to the beer-fridge.
>
> > --
> > Morris Dovey
> > DeSoto Solar
> > DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
>
> Good on ya Morris. =A0Those that cast a thoughtful vote are citizens,
> the rest are residents. =A0There are few things =A0I enjoy =A0more than
> shredding a resident when they dare to complain about political
> decisions. =A0Actually dragging one's lazy carcass to the polls (primary
> and election) buys you a right to complain; the rest may shut up.
> There's an interesting reform, all political donations must be made by
> actual voters who actually vote; kills two birds with one stone: no
> coprorate contributions AND makes it harder to smuggle foreign money
> in.
>
> hex
> -30-

Something sure as hell needs to be done.

We are looking at the first billion buck baby no matter who gets
elected. A billion buys the best--like hell. We got an old fart in
decent health--for an old fart, which means he can drop dead any
minute, to be replaced by a woman who smiles when she thinks of being
equated to a pit bull, which is pit-iful. We have another guy who
wants "change" which we sorely need, but isn't exactly explicit about
the change he wants to implement.

We need a change in the financing of compaigns, for sure: donations
allowed ONLY from registered voters, in amounts of $1,000 or under.
Double donating gets the second check/MO/cash confiscated.

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:22:44 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
Brian Mailman <[email protected]> got double secret probation for
writing:

>Aratzio wrote:
>
>> Really, we would be 100% dependant upon foreign oil if we had been
>> drilling all along.
>>
>> Since the oil would have run out YEARS ago the way we use up 25% of
>> the worlds production.
>
>Search on "Huppert Peak" (sometimes spelled Hubbard and Hubbert). In
>short, half the possible supply available was drilled by 1978. After
>that, it's more and more expensive to obtain less and less.
>
>B/

Like the $700,000,000 drill rigs required for the outer shelf and the
fact that only a couple shipyards in the USA can build them. And it
literally takes years tobuild them. Years to drill.

And then you don't even know you will get any oil.

The Oil companies have to be laughing their asses off at McCain. They
get PAID not to drill for oil. Why in the fuck would they actually
drill. They have leases for an estimated 30billion barrels of oil in
the gulf. Leases for which they already have drilling rights. Leases
that are in relative shallow water. Leases that have already been
proven. Yet they do not drill more wells there. It is called *banking
the resource*. If you punp all the oil the price drops and you make
less money over the long term because you run out of oil.

Why in the hell would they even think about drilling in places like
the outer shelf (which is where the McCain campaign thinks they should
be drilling).

But I love these idiots that blame *ecoterrorists* for economic
decisions made by oil companies to protect their own long term
profits.

On Sep 4, 3:21=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:

> There are no shitdisturbers here at rec.woodworking.

On Sep 4, 3:21 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:

> There are no shitdisturbers here at rec.woodworking.

OK, Rob. Ya gotta give it up for the boys that got roped 'em in
again. Now you have to admit that even by your high watermark for
catching the guppies on this group, this has turned out to be a winner
for the troll brigade.

A quick review of SM's posting history and you can see his is a
trolling fool, an idiot that only started posting to NGs a month ago,
but has already covered 32 groups.

Even with a cohort named =A7=F1=FChw=D8=A3f
(WTF is that, BTW?) no one seemed to notice. They are gleefully
tearing each other up now, and as expected it has taken a pretty
sanctimonious tone.

Now if everyone had just stepped back and had a sausage ball....

Sigh.

Guess if you are sensitive enough, there is always someone that can
get your goat, even if you know it's being got.

Robert

On Sep 4, 4:48=A0pm, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
> > > And if your local paper is the Canberra Times then what's it to you,
> > > anyway?
>
> > Ah yes, confirmation you were the class idiot.
> > Looks like you have been able to maintain your status.
>
> Well, at least he's not plagiarizing anyone's work thus depriving them of=
a
> living. Whereas, you really are the shit disturber you admitted to being.
>
> Must be pretty boring running around all day like you do looking to cause=
an
> argument.

There are no shitdisturbers here at rec.woodworking.

DGDevin wrote:
>>>Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is
>>>still in force?
>>>
>>
>>Unions have been known to:
>>
>>a.) Protest Strike
>>b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated
>
>
> Yeah, but as they're risking a court order to force them back to work it's
> not something they do casually, and certainly not because one guy who is
> probably known as a jerk got a five-day suspension.
>
>

It's a moot point. In all states, almost invariably, public employees
working in the public safety field (police, fire, etc.) by law are not
allowed to strike.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

Robatoy wrote:

> On Sep 4, 4:48 pm, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
>> > > And if your local paper is the Canberra Times then what's it to you,
>> > > anyway?
>>
>> > Ah yes, confirmation you were the class idiot.
>> > Looks like you have been able to maintain your status.
>>
>> Well, at least he's not plagiarizing anyone's work thus depriving them of
>> a living. Whereas, you really are the shit disturber you admitted to
>> being.
>>
>> Must be pretty boring running around all day like you do looking to cause
>> an argument.
>
> There are no shitdisturbers here at rec.woodworking.

How tight do you have your blinders strapped on?
;-)
--
Froz...

On Sep 2, 7:05=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Add some fennel seeds.

Wow, Lew. This turned out to be a pretty good thread after all.
Fennel, huh?

I made some homemade pork sausage out of butt and shoulder and I used
fennel in it. I buy Italian sausages and they have it in it, but I
never thought about adding a few seeds in the sausage balls.

Robert

Aratzio wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:22:44 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> Brian Mailman <[email protected]> got double secret probation for
> writing:

>>> Since the oil would have run out YEARS ago the way we use up 25% of
>>> the worlds production.
>>
>>Search on "Huppert Peak" (sometimes spelled Hubbard and Hubbert). In
>>short, half the possible supply available was drilled by 1978. After
>>that, it's more and more expensive to obtain less and less.

> The Oil companies have to be laughing their asses off at McCain. They
> get PAID not to drill for oil. Why in the fuck would they actually
> drill. They have leases for an estimated 30billion barrels of oil in
> the gulf. Leases for which they already have drilling rights. Leases
> that are in relative shallow water. Leases that have already been
> proven. Yet they do not drill more wells there. It is called *banking
> the resource*. If you punp all the oil the price drops and you make
> less money over the long term because you run out of oil.

Well, the price would rise not drop. But your point would seem to be
that the price rises due to "running out of oil elsewhere" would make
those oil "banks" more profitable in the long run.

> But I love these idiots that blame *ecoterrorists* for economic
> decisions made by oil companies to protect their own long term
> profits.

Yeah. You'd think it was a given that businesses make decisions based
on business.

B/

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> What I posted was that the average Republican delegate had net assests of
>> $500K and was a male white person.
>>
>> A review of the audience showed a lot of shall we say "mature" white
>> people in attendance.
>
>>
>> The Democratic convention delegates were on average, much younger than
>> the Republican delegates
>
>> You can draw your own conclusions, but my comment was pretty obvious to
>> me.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>
> OK, the conclusion is obvious. Young people start out as poor Democrats,
> then get smart and become rich Republicans.

:-)

Just out of curiosity, how many million dollar sky boxes were for sale at
the RNC? Seems like there were quite a few of those boxes at the
convention and stadium where the guy who was only going to take money from
the common people was speaking. (Maybe his definition of common people is
a bit different than yours and mine).

BTW, I saw quite a few women and minorities in the audience shots taken
during the Palin speech. Also haven't heard any news about how the
organizers for the RNC were looking for certain "demographics" to sit in
the high-profile audience areas; did hear that about the other guys. But
I'm sure that was just smear by the highly Republican biased main stream
media.


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

Someone please set me straight. Sara Paulin bragged that she didnt
take Fed money to build a bridge. She said that if we build a bridge
that we will use our (state) money. If I'am a taxpayer in Alaska dont
I want the federal $ instead of State $ to pay for it.

DGDevin wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>
>>If there's an "abuse of power" it seems to me that it's by the cop who
>>zaps the little kid with a Taser. Sounds to me like if there's a real
>>scandal here it's why it took her so long to act against the SOB.
>
>
> The way it's supposed to work is via due process, not by politicians pulling
> strings. Do you really want politicians going around the usual disciplinary
> process and getting people fired not on the basis of evidence and a fair
> hearing, but because someone powerful wants the guy gone? This is about
> more than one cop who happens to be a jerk, it's about whether politicians
> have to follow the same rules as the rest of us.
>
>

If you heard someone threaten to kill one of you family members would
you report that individual and do whatever you could to stop it from
happening?

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

"charlieb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
> How about something simple.
>
> 1. If you can't vote for the person you're giving money to
> for his/her campaign - you can't give him/her ANY money.

You don't believe in freedom much do you?

> That eliminates Corporate Donations, PAC donations, Lobbyist
> donations, Special Interest Groups donations, etc.

So groups of people with a important view or interest (at least to them)
should not be allowed to communicate or be heard?


> 2. You cannot donate more than - oh lets say - $5K total to
> any single candidate - that you can vote for.

So you wish to raise the current campaign contribution limit of $2300?

> Now if we can somehow change the latest Supreme Court Ruling
> that says Money = Speech and limiting political contributions
> is limiting "free speech" . . . The iron of "free" in "free speech"
> being the same as Mo' Money! still astounds me. But that's just
> one example of some pretty convoluted legal "reasoning" we've
> encountered over the last 8 years.

Since we have very stringent and very specific campaign finance limits with
serious reporting requirements. What issue begs such concern? All we really
need is specific knowledge of where the money comes from, where the money
goes and how our politicians vote.

Since Obama has significantly "changed" his public position of election
funding for his campaign(no limits) and McCain did not and since McCain did
pass significant bipartisan campaign finance reform I assume McCain is
ideologically your kind of guy.

The free speech issue with campaign finance limits is that voices will not
or cannot be heard. National and even local media will have and can have a
huge propaganda advantage to their will. The past weekends unfounded and
largely false attacks on Palin are a ready case in point of possibilities,
as the airwaves were flooded with much vile. How does one respond to such
type of attacks if like minded people are not allowed to pool resources and
communicate? Rod

Charlie Self wrote:

> We need a change in the financing of compaigns, for sure: donations
> allowed ONLY from registered voters, in amounts of $1,000 or under.
> Double donating gets the second check/MO/cash confiscated.


How about something simple.

1. If you can't vote for the person you're giving money to
for his/her campaign - you can't give him/her ANY money.

That eliminates Corporate Donations, PAC donations, Lobbyist
donations, Special Interest Groups donations, etc.

2. You cannot donate more than - oh lets say - $5K total to
any single candidate - that you can vote for.

Now if we can somehow change the latest Supreme Court Ruling
that says Money = Speech and limiting political contributions
is limiting "free speech" . . . The iron of "free" in "free speech"
being the same as Mo' Money! still astounds me. But that's just
one example of some pretty convoluted legal "reasoning" we've
encountered over the last 8 years.

Sean Monaghan wrote:
> [all jokes aside]
>
> I've never really shared my political views with the greater Usenet
> community, but there's a first for everything.

All jokes aside - better late than never.
>
> I was very disappointed at Barack Hussein Obama's clinch on the
> Democratic nomination earlier this year. I'd like to go on record as
> such at this time.

Hmm - you might want to work on your timing (and perhaps your level of
effort).

After being steadfastly independent for years, I evaluated things
differently and acted accordingly:

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/Action.jpg

The point is that, if you have a preference for who's on the ticket,
it's necessary to pay attention and act on that preference. Your
primary/caucus vote and your convention vote(s) have a lot more effect
than your after-the-fact regrets.

> McCain's highly appropriate choice of a running mate was the deciding
> factor in my support for their candidacy for the White House in November.

That's fine - just don't forget to vote!

> Now, back to the beer-fridge.

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

Charlie Self wrote:
> Something sure as hell needs to be done.
>
> We are looking at the first billion buck baby no matter who gets
> elected. A billion buys the best--like hell. We got an old fart in
> decent health--for an old fart, which means he can drop dead any
> minute, to be replaced by a woman who smiles when she thinks of being
> equated to a pit bull, which is pit-iful. We have another guy who
> wants "change" which we sorely need, but isn't exactly explicit about
> the change he wants to implement.
>
> We need a change in the financing of compaigns, for sure: donations
> allowed ONLY from registered voters, in amounts of $1,000 or under.
> Double donating gets the second check/MO/cash confiscated.
A rational electorate would have done it already. But since we dont have
a rational electorate, I dunno that doing it would help. Irrational
people tend to select irrational leaders.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

> Seems like there were quite a few of those boxes at the
> convention and stadium where the guy who was only going to take money from
> the common people was speaking. (Maybe his definition of common people is
> a bit different than yours and mine).

I think I'd want to be a little more definitive than "seems like" before
I extended that into conclusions about anyone's internal definitions...

> BTW, I saw quite a few women and minorities in the audience shots taken
> during the Palin speech. Also haven't heard any news about how the
> organizers for the RNC were looking for certain "demographics" to sit in
> the high-profile audience areas; did hear that about the other guys. But
> I'm sure that was just smear by the highly Republican biased main stream
> media.

I doubt that you saw much on camera at either convention that hadn't
been carefully planned/scripted for us to see.

My interpretation was that the Republicans felt a much greater need to
present images of minority involvement than did the Democrats - but
since I don't have access to either party's scripts, I have no way of
knowing for sure.

I'm impressed that you're able to be so certain with so little
first-hand knowledge.

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

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>>> Seems like there were quite a few of those boxes at the
>>> convention and stadium where the guy who was only going to take money
>>> from
>>> the common people was speaking. (Maybe his definition of common people
>>> is a bit different than yours and mine).
>> I think I'd want to be a little more definitive than "seems like" before
>> I extended that into conclusions about anyone's internal definitions...
>>
> Morris, that comment was intended to be understated sarcasm. Fact of the
> matter is that the sky boxes at Invesco field were reserved for million
> dollar donors and the kind of high-rollers that the candidate had initially
> stated he was not going to seek out.

Ok - you would seem to have info that I do not (I wasn't offered the use
of one of the sky boxes for any price, and didn't see a general offer).
If it had been my shindig and I'd paid for the use of the premises, I
wouldn't have felt a need to refuse a million for the use of one of the
boxes - and neither would I have felt that accepting that million would
obligate me to deliver future favors (consider that a warning if you
were thinking of sending me a million for a week's use of a prime spot
in my shop <g>)

Perhaps you're aware of Obama seeking out box-renting customers. If so,
you might make a stronger case by providing some specifics...

>>> BTW, I saw quite a few women and minorities in the audience shots taken
>>> during the Palin speech. Also haven't heard any news about how the
>>> organizers for the RNC were looking for certain "demographics" to sit in
>>> the high-profile audience areas; did hear that about the other guys. But
>>> I'm sure that was just smear by the highly Republican biased main stream
>>> media.
>> I doubt that you saw much on camera at either convention that hadn't
>> been carefully planned/scripted for us to see.
>
> Do you believe that the media's cameras would only pan the audience where
> they were directed by the Republican campaign committee?

I believe the pros who organize political events are able to seed the
areas where they think cameras are most likely to be pointed however
they choose. I would be astonished if that were not the case at both
conventions.

>> My interpretation was that the Republicans felt a much greater need to
>> present images of minority involvement than did the Democrats - but
>> since I don't have access to either party's scripts, I have no way of
>> knowing for sure.
>
> My comment was in response to the statement by the OP who claimed all he
> saw was rich old white guys. My comment was directed to indicate that
> there were a number of young and old women as well as minorities in the
> crowd -- i.e., it wasn't the "white bread" moment that the OP indicated.

Ok - that wasn't what I was interested in and so didn't take note. In
fact, a couple of folks I knew reasonably well were on camera (a
political consultant from Iowa and my sister's ex-husband, who was on
stage with a handful of other retired generals) and I managed not to
recognize either. Oops.

>> I'm impressed that you're able to be so certain with so little
>> first-hand knowledge.
>
> Morris, the comments regarding scripting various Obama campaign
> appearances have been well-documented. There were comments by staffers
> during one appearance where they turned away black people from certain
> seating areas because they needed more white people there. There was an
> event with some people of arabic appearance who were invited to appear on
> stage until the staffers found out that the women who were with them were
> wearing muslim head garb at which point they were immediately dis-invited.

My apologies for my own sarcasm. Sigh - one of the things I've learned
about this kind of gathering is that staffers become almost totally
focused on appearances and image - to the exclusion of just about
everything else, and that candidates are stuck with the consequences.

The old saying: "When you're up to your ass in Alligators, it's hard to
remember that the original objective was to drain the swamp" would seem
to apply in spades to campaign staffers at convention time.

My big interest was in what the candidates themselves had to say and how
they said it. I didn't watch to be dazzled by spectacle or to judge the
performance of the non-candidates who put the show together.

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

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you're aware of Obama seeking out box-renting customers. If so,
>> you might make a stronger case by providing some specifics...
>
> <http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-demfunds16-2008aug16,0,3706902.story>

Interesting read. It sounds as if the Denver convention host organizers
were a bit (if $11.6M is a 'bit') over-optimistic about what they could
provide.

I does raise an interesting question: Would you have been equally
offended if the hosting committee (which appears to be a DNC rather than
campaign-specific operation) had used the sky boxes to raise the money
without consulting either Obama or his staff?

It looked to me as if the Obama campaign involved itself to ensure that
all the bills were properly paid, an action with which I have difficulty
finding fault.

Thanks for posting the link - I'd missed the story.

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

On Sep 2, 12:59=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yep, and pretty basic recipe at that.
>
> More tasty with Italian sausage than basic ground pork.

My grandmother used to make this recipe with extra sharp cheddar and
sage flavored sausage. She juiced it up with a little cayenne and a
little more rubbed sage.

Wow.

Never thought about using the Italian sausage, though.

Robert

Sean Monaghan wrote:

> Palin got where she is today due to her own accomplishments - not
> because of some arbitrary quota. In a state where the male-to-female
> ratio is as disproportionately high as it is in Alaska, having a woman
> secure the top office in the land is especially impressive. On top of
> all that, she seems genuine to me. She was forthcoming in telling
> McCain about her daughter's pregnancy prior the announcement of her
> candidacy - that's very telling, IMO.

In some respects I find Palin quite impressive, but I'm still appalled at
the thought of her being VP and potentially President if McCain kicks the
bucket in office. She is exceptionally inexperienced, and some of her views
like wanting creationism taught in public schools are unacceptable to me.
With all the more impressive potential candidates available the choice of
Palin appears to be intended to mollify the religious right which had been
lukewarm to McCain. I think of myself as a conservative, and frankly I'm a
little tired of the political process looking over its shoulder worrying
about people who believe fossils are God's little jokes. Such people are
entitled to believe whatever they please, they are not entitled to demand we
teach religious dogma on an equal footing with science in the public
schools.

> At what point did Obama finally speak up and insist that *all* of
> Florida's & Michigan's delegates be seated with full voting
> privileges? Not until after having been selected (by the
> superdelegates) to be the Democratic nominee. If he had any
> integrity, he would have been on board with Hillary's position of
> equally seating them all from day one. And I don't even wanna get
> started on the Rev. Wright bullshit. <sigh>

First, if Palin had as much integrity as you demand of Obama she wouldn't
have used her office to try to get her former brother-in-law fired (jerk
though he apparently is). Second, since Obama didn't campaign in those
states which the party had warned not to move up their primaries, why should
he have allowed the skewed outcome of those votes to count? What is fair
about an election in which one of the two principle candidates doesn't even
appear on the ballot? Third, however idiotic Rev. Wright is, consider the
wingnut preachers who have been closely associated with the Republican
Party. McCain had to disavow the endorsement of John Hagee due to that
preacher's bizarre and outrageous statements, the Federal Election
Commission sued Pat Robertson's organization for coordinating its activities
with Repub candidates, and so on. If Obama's whacko former preacher is a
disqualifying burden on him then the Repubs would appear to be in even worse
shape.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:19:47 -0700, §ñühwØ£f <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:22:07 +0000, Sean Monaghan aided th' terraists with
>the following claims :
>
>> §ñühwØ£f <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/01-3
>>
>> Not exactly credible source of information, but anyways...
>>
>> So, she supports drilling in her home state of Alaska and elsewhere.
>> Speaker Pelosi needs to get on that bandwagon too - instead of turning
>> lights on the floor of the House Of Representatives in the middle of a
>> discussion on the subject. I'm getting tired of paying $4 USD per gallon
>> of gasoline.
>
>America cant drill its way out of a situation where alternative forms dont
>supplant/surpass the current mode.
>The oil, what small amount we could possibly get, will be sold on the
>WORLD MARKET. Not sequestered in some private "americans only" reserve for
>our use only.
>Conservation would save more in the long run. But people are stupid lazy
>and greedy so as a species we're fucked, mate.

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps if we *HAD* been drilling all
along this situation might not exist today? This is what pisses me off
most about you arrogant enviro-dweebes! You piss and moan till you get
your way then you don't want to take a friggin bit of responsability
for the situation your own pissing and moaning created!

> > Palin got where she is today due to her own accomplishments - not

We don't know that, jeeze, its been five (5) days - we don't know shit
about Palin.

What we don't know, other than her proximity to Russia, is what makes
her qualified to preside over and lead the Untied States of America?

<[email protected]> wrote:

>My grandmother used to make this recipe with extra sharp cheddar and
sage flavored sausage. She juiced it up with a little cayenne and a
little more rubbed sage.

Never thought about sage, will have to try it.

Sharp cheddar works for me

>Never thought about using the Italian sausage, though.

Add some fennel seeds.

Lew

Morris Dovey wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps you're aware of Obama seeking out box-renting customers. If so,
>>> you might make a stronger case by providing some specifics...
>>
>>
<http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-demfunds16-2008aug16,0,3706902.story>
>
> Interesting read. It sounds as if the Denver convention host organizers
> were a bit (if $11.6M is a 'bit') over-optimistic about what they could
> provide.
>
> I does raise an interesting question: Would you have been equally
> offended if the hosting committee (which appears to be a DNC rather than
> campaign-specific operation) had used the sky boxes to raise the money
> without consulting either Obama or his staff?
>

I don't know, I guess I'm not so much offended as simply pointing out that
the hype is not matching the reality. This was a campaign that claimed it
was not going to court the big money special interests and made a big show
of that when it turned down federal funds. What is funny to me is that for
some reason the press wasn't all over this, there are ample examples of the
press pushing this kind of thing to the n'th degree when the other side has
changed direction on something.

> It looked to me as if the Obama campaign involved itself to ensure that
> all the bills were properly paid, an action with which I have difficulty
> finding fault.

While that is laudable, the change of venue was a huge cost that could
have been avoided, reducing that 11.6M.

>
> Thanks for posting the link - I'd missed the story.
>

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

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:41:30 +0000, Sean Monaghan wrote:
>
>>
>> I was very disappointed at Barack Hussein Obama's clinch on the
>> Democratic nomination earlier this year. I'd like to go on record as
>> such at this time.
>>
>> McCain's highly appropriate choice of a running mate was the deciding
>> factor in my support for their candidacy for the White House in November.
>>
>
>
Newsgroups:soc.culture.usa,rec.woodworking,alt.usenet.kooks,news.groups,alt.feminism
>
> Says it all :-).

rec.ww has been getting spill-over from some of the kook groups during the
past week or so, wonder what's inspired that?

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

On Sep 2, 1:27=A0am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sean Monaghan wrote:
> > [all jokes aside]
>
> > I've never really shared my political views with the greater Usenet
> > community, but there's a first for everything.
>
> All jokes aside - better late than never.
>
>
>
> > I was very disappointed at Barack Hussein Obama's clinch on the
> > Democratic nomination earlier this year. =A0I'd like to go on record as
> > such at this time.
>
> Hmm - you might want to work on your timing (and perhaps your level of
> effort).
>
> After being steadfastly independent for years, I evaluated things
> differently and acted accordingly:
>
> =A0 =A0http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/Action.jpg
>
> The point is that, if you have a preference for who's on the ticket,
> it's necessary to pay attention and act on that preference. Your
> primary/caucus vote and your convention vote(s) have a lot more effect
> than your after-the-fact regrets.
>
> > McCain's highly appropriate choice of a running mate was the deciding
> > factor in my support for their candidacy for the White House in Novembe=
r.
>
> That's fine - just don't forget to vote!
>
> > Now, back to the beer-fridge.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Good on ya Morris. Those that cast a thoughtful vote are citizens,
the rest are residents. There are few things I enjoy more than
shredding a resident when they dare to complain about political
decisions. Actually dragging one's lazy carcass to the polls (primary
and election) buys you a right to complain; the rest may shut up.
There's an interesting reform, all political donations must be made by
actual voters who actually vote; kills two birds with one stone: no
coprorate contributions AND makes it harder to smuggle foreign money
in.

hex
-30-

Charlie Self wrote:
>
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Charlie Self" wrote:
>>
>>> We are looking at the first billion buck baby no matter who gets
>>> elected. A billion buys the best--like hell. We got an old fart in
>>> decent health--for an old fart, which means he can drop dead any
>>> minute, to be replaced by a woman who smiles when she thinks of being
>>> equated to a pit bull, which is pit-iful.
>> Old Fart?
>>
>> Come on now.
>>
>> Graduating from high school in 1954 makes him an Old Fart?
>>
>> Yes, I guess it does.
>>
>> Any way you look at it, the demands of the presidency take their toll
>> and time is not on his side.
>>
>>> We have another guy who
>>> wants "change" which we sorely need, but isn't exactly explicit about
>>> the change he wants to implement.
>> I'm not sure about that one.
>>
>> Certainly hasn't suggested plans complete with a detailed budget, but
>> has provided an overall game plan and how they will be funded on
>> several fronts, including health care, alternate energy development,
>> tuition credit in exchange for gov't service after graduation. Job
>> retraining for the deceloping high tech labor market that will be
>> needed for the alternate energy businesses.
>>
>> Certainly not a complete laundry list, but more that the other has
>> presented to date.
>>
>>> We need a change in the financing of compaigns, for sure: donations
>>> allowed ONLY from registered voters, in amounts of $1,000 or under.
>>> Double donating gets the second check/MO/cash confiscated.
>> I'm certainly not in a position to know where all the funding is
>> coming from, on either side, but it appears that Obama has used the
>> internet to develop a grass roots level of funding,
>>
>> Lew
>
> Someone told me that changing to such low level financing means only
> rich people can get elected. I had to wonder if he had checked lately.
> Obama ain't exactly a pauper, and McCain & wife rate, in my world, as
> filthy rich. Clinton evidently squeaked in, and had some fiscal
> problems before getting out, but is far from poor today.
>
> I have to wonder who the last non-rich (in sane terms) President
> really was. Truman? Ike? Tricky Dicky? Maybe Ford, but then he didn't
> get elected, did he. Carter? How's yer peanut farm?

That would be Mr. Truman: retired as a reserve Army Colonel.

"I was very disappointed at Barack Hussein Obama's clinch on the
Democratic nomination earlier this year. I'd like to go on record as
such at this time."

America was a hope and a dream that free men with an education could
better rule themselves than one anointed by God himself. Flawed as its
inception was by the mistreatment of the savages, the three fifth's
ruling, and -as time went on - nearly every immigrant group to arrive
on its "welcoming shores" and its workers and their children
notwithstanding its declarations to the effect that all men were equal
in the eyes of their God's and under its laws, America has done
surprisingly well as nation states go in this world.

When I hear a wood worker compelled to go OT and declare his choice
for our next leader months before he is offered the constitutionally-
protected opportunity to make that choice whence it counts in advance
of the public vetting requisite to an informed choice, his motives are
suspect. When he refers to Senator Barack Obama II as "Barack Hussein
Obama," his choice reminds me of all that America was to overcome in
its aspirations to become that shining city on the hill.

That such a decision should be made upon such mean-spirited, ill-
informed considerations is disturbing and one can only hope that, as a
whole, the nation will choose more rationally.

And, regardless of affiliation, those who have access to Comedy
Central should watch the Daily Show - great political coverage.

GT

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:11:49 -0500, Phil Again
<notwantspam_@_1-2-3-4-5.nospam> wrote:

>Even hockey
>Moms can have a past that demonstrates an error in judgment.
>

Let's see a show of hands from everyone who has NEVER made an error in
judgment. If we tried to populate D.C. with denizens having unfailing
good judgment, it would be a ghost town.


>I think we should wait and see what the rabid dogs of the media tear out
>of her hide. And I do believe they will find something to bite and latch
>on to; I believe that with all my heart and soul.

Absolutely no question about it!

What gets me about the news dogs is that nobody is allowed to learn
from experience. If I said something 20 years ago and, from
experiences gained and knowledge accumulated over the ensuing time,
revise that statement, attitude, opinion, conviction, etc., then per
the network news readers, I "flip-flop" on the issues. There is no
one, not a single, solitary human being on the face of the earth that
is the same person they were 20 years ago.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On Sep 2, 12:42=A0am, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > OK, if you guys are really interested in this kind of stuff, you
> > should check this out. =A0I think it says it all.
>
> > =A0http://tinyurl.com/yzhp5e
>
> > Robert
>
> I dunno about others,but your link takes me tohttp://allrecipes.com/Recip=
e/Sausage-Balls-II/Detail.aspx

Naw..... say it ain't so.

I thought it was every bit as on related to woodworking as the OP's
troll.

Robert

On Sep 7, 6:41=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
> > Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
> >>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> >>>> Seems like there were quite a few of those boxes at the
> >>>> convention and stadium where the guy who was only going to take mone=
y
> >>>> from
> >>>> the common people was speaking. =A0(Maybe his definition of common p=
eople
> >>>> is a bit different than yours and mine).
> >>> I think I'd want to be a little more definitive than "seems like" bef=
ore
> >>> I extended that into conclusions about anyone's internal definitions.=
..
>
> >> =A0 =A0Morris, that comment was intended to be understated sarcasm. Fa=
ct of
> >> =A0 =A0the
> >> matter is that the sky boxes at Invesco field were reserved for millio=
n
> >> dollar donors and the kind of high-rollers that the candidate had
> >> initially stated he was not going to seek out.
>
> > Ok - you would seem to have info that I do not (I wasn't offered the us=
e
> > of one of the sky boxes for any price, and didn't see a general offer).
> > If it had been my shindig and I'd paid for the use of the premises, I
> > wouldn't have felt a need to refuse a million for the use of one of the
> > boxes - and neither would I have felt that accepting that million would
> > obligate me to deliver future favors (consider that a warning if you
> > were thinking of sending me a million for a week's use of a prime spot
> > in my shop <g>)
>
> > Perhaps you're aware of Obama seeking out box-renting customers. If so,
> > you might make a stronger case by providing some specifics...
>
> <http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-demfunds16-2008aug16,0,370...=
>
>
> =A0 There were others, but that's the one that I could find in a few minu=
tes
> of looking on ask.com
>
ASK.COM??? Now there's an unbiased search engine..LOL
Owned by Barry Diller, it is heavily slanted towards right-wing nut-
jobs.

>>>Barry Diller (born 2 February 1942) is the Chairman and Chief Executive =
Officer of IAC/InterActiveCorp and the media executive responsible for the =
creation of Fox Broadcasting Company and USA Broadcasting.

Gimme a frickin' break!

=3Do)

Aratzio wrote:

> Really, we would be 100% dependant upon foreign oil if we had been
> drilling all along.
>
> Since the oil would have run out YEARS ago the way we use up 25% of
> the worlds production.

Search on "Huppert Peak" (sometimes spelled Hubbard and Hubbert). In
short, half the possible supply available was drilled by 1978. After
that, it's more and more expensive to obtain less and less.

B/

>> Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly firing
>> the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day suspension?
>> Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?
>>
> The trooper wasn't fired...

He doesn't care what the facts of the case are, he's made up his mind and
isn't about to be distracted by knowing what actually happened.

Morris Dovey wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Seems like there were quite a few of those boxes at the
>> convention and stadium where the guy who was only going to take money
>> from
>> the common people was speaking. (Maybe his definition of common people
>> is a bit different than yours and mine).
>
> I think I'd want to be a little more definitive than "seems like" before
> I extended that into conclusions about anyone's internal definitions...
>
Morris, that comment was intended to be understated sarcasm. Fact of the
matter is that the sky boxes at Invesco field were reserved for million
dollar donors and the kind of high-rollers that the candidate had initially
stated he was not going to seek out.


>> BTW, I saw quite a few women and minorities in the audience shots taken
>> during the Palin speech. Also haven't heard any news about how the
>> organizers for the RNC were looking for certain "demographics" to sit in
>> the high-profile audience areas; did hear that about the other guys. But
>> I'm sure that was just smear by the highly Republican biased main stream
>> media.
>
> I doubt that you saw much on camera at either convention that hadn't
> been carefully planned/scripted for us to see.
>

Do you believe that the media's cameras would only pan the audience where
they were directed by the Republican campaign committee?

> My interpretation was that the Republicans felt a much greater need to
> present images of minority involvement than did the Democrats - but
> since I don't have access to either party's scripts, I have no way of
> knowing for sure.
>

My comment was in response to the statement by the OP who claimed all he
saw was rich old white guys. My comment was directed to indicate that
there were a number of young and old women as well as minorities in the
crowd -- i.e., it wasn't the "white bread" moment that the OP indicated.

> I'm impressed that you're able to be so certain with so little
> first-hand knowledge.
>

Morris, the comments regarding scripting various Obama campaign
appearances have been well-documented. There were comments by staffers
during one appearance where they turned away black people from certain
seating areas because they needed more white people there. There was an
event with some people of arabic appearance who were invited to appear on
stage until the staffers found out that the women who were with them were
wearing muslim head garb at which point they were immediately dis-invited.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

David G. Nagel wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly firing
>> the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day suspension?
>> Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?
>>
> The trooper wasn't fired...

"She (Palin) allegedly pressured public safety commissioner Walter
Monegan to fire Trooper Mike Wooten, then fired Monegan in July when he
did not come through."

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/palins-trooper-emails-ridiculed-investigators-report/1263158.aspx

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

DGDevin wrote:

> Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is still in
> force?
>

Unions have been known to:

a.) Protest Strike
b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> The average delegate to the Republican convention was a male white guy
> with and average net worth of $500K.
>
> Don't remember if they gave the age group, but by looking at the
> delegates, "mature" comes to mind.
>
> Lew
>
>
>

That's not much at all, especially for a mature person that has accumulated
a house, 401k or pension fund, a few stocks and the like.

I remember when I was younger, if you had a million dollars you could easily
invest it and live off of the interest. Hard to do today. Even winning a
million in the lottery is not going to allow most of us to quit work. I may
not last the 20 year payout, but I certainly don't want to live on it now
either.

J. Clarke wrote:

> Look, I don't give a damn what she did. I assumed from all the
> pissing and moaning that you are doing that she got the guy
> fired--you're pissing and moaning over a ten day suspension? Get a
> fucking life.
>
> <plonk>

Some people are happier basing their opinions on ignorance, you appear to be
one of them.

"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is still
> in force?
>

Uh, they walk off the job. Happens often. Auto workers were famous for it
in the 60's & 70's.

[email protected] wrote:

> So, as a citizen Sarah Palin and her family could not receive a fair
> inquiry into the actions of Trooper Wooten, no real investigation and
> with their usual "secret" investigation, makes further complaints up
> the chain of command, more time goes by.

Please explain how having people with no direct knowledge of this trooper's
behavior make phone calls asking why he's still on the job qualifies as a
legitimate complaint.

> Complaints substantiated by
> individuals not even related to the Palin's is completely ignored as
> unsubstantiated, in the meantime, witness say they are never
> interviewed.

So how did the trooper get a suspension, did the dept. draw his name out of
a hat?

> With the political system prior to Palin the truth about
> this alcoholic, child abusing, family violence kind of guy gets a free
> pass.
> Might be the system police and state troopers like - but not we
> Alaskan's. The cops in Alaska have been out of control for years
> now. Get the facts before you comment please.

I listened to a recording of one of Palin's associates (I don't recall
offhand if he was a staffer or another politician) on the phone expressing
the view that the Governor and her husband were "scratching their heads"
trying to figure out how this cop was still not fired. That might be a lot
of things, but it sure doesn't sound like a carefully documented formal
complaint, does it.

My reading is this trooper is a jerk, but even jerks are entitled to due
process. If nothing else this case is shining a light on the situation, if
the state police in Alaska need to clean house then maybe this will help
bring that about.

Hoosierpopi wrote:
>>> Palin got where she is today due to her own accomplishments - not
>
> We don't know that, jeeze, its been five (5) days - we don't know shit
> about Palin.
>
> What we don't know, other than her proximity to Russia, is what makes
> her qualified to preside over and lead the Untied States of America?

She was in PTA...?

Nova wrote:

>> First, if Palin had as much integrity as you demand of Obama she
>> wouldn't have used her office to try to get her former
>> brother-in-law fired (jerk though he apparently is).
>
> Her brother in law, the trooper, threatened to kill her father. Palin
> reported the incident. Should she have ignored the whole matter?

There's a lot more to it than that, for one thing the moron zapped his
10-year-old stepson with a Taser, and he's been reprimanded many times for
various violations. However Palin's family and members of her staff and
associates pestered the public safety commissioner time and time again about
getting the trooper fired, even Palin has admitted there were numerous
contacts over the issue although she claims she wasn't behind them. The
family appears to have good reason to dislike the guy, but it also appears
those around the Governor tried to use their positions in government to get
him fired. The question of abuse of power seems to be a legitimate one.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

> That's not much at all, especially for a mature person that has
> accumulated a house, 401k or pension fund, a few stocks and the
> like.

No it isn't that much of a nest egg for someone who has been prudent
over a number of years; however, it does reflect the membership of the
Republican party more than the Democratic party.

My guess is that the old 90/10 rule comes pretty close in this
situation.

90% of the population probably has less than $500K net worth.

A rhetorical question:

How many under 30 people do you know with $500K net assets?

Lew

"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> I thought it was every bit as on related to woodworking as the OP's
>> troll.
>>
>> Robert
>
> Mebbe the sausage maker uses sawdust for filler?
>

I do use sawdust for curing sausage.

J. Clarke wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>>>> Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is
>>>> still in force?
>>>>
>>> Unions have been known to:
>>>
>>> a.) Protest Strike
>>> b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated
>> Yeah, but as they're risking a court order to force them back to
>> work
>> it's not something they do casually, and certainly not because one
>> guy who is probably known as a jerk got a five-day suspension.
>
> Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly firing
> the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day suspension?
> Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?
>
The trooper wasn't fired...

>> Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is
>> still in force?
>>
>
> Unions have been known to:
>
> a.) Protest Strike
> b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated

Yeah, but as they're risking a court order to force them back to work it's
not something they do casually, and certainly not because one guy who is
probably known as a jerk got a five-day suspension.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > So, as a citizen Sarah Palin and her family could not receive a fair
> > inquiry into the actions of Trooper Wooten, no real investigation and
> > with their usual "secret" investigation, makes further complaints up
> > the chain of command, more time goes by.
>
> Please explain how having people with no direct knowledge of this trooper's
> behavior make phone calls asking why he's still on the job qualifies as a
> legitimate complaint.
>
> > Complaints substantiated by
> > individuals not even related to the Palin's is completely ignored as
> > unsubstantiated, in the meantime, witness say they are never
> > interviewed.
>
> So how did the trooper get a suspension, did the dept. draw his name out of
> a hat?
>
> > With the political system prior to Palin the truth about
> > this alcoholic, child abusing, family violence kind of guy gets a free
> > pass.
> > Might be the system police and state troopers like - but not we
> > Alaskan's. The cops in Alaska have been out of control for years
> > now. Get the facts before you comment please.
>
> I listened to a recording of one of Palin's associates (I don't recall
> offhand if he was a staffer or another politician) on the phone expressing
> the view that the Governor and her husband were "scratching their heads"
> trying to figure out how this cop was still not fired. That might be a lot
> of things, but it sure doesn't sound like a carefully documented formal
> complaint, does it.

Tell me you're NOT serious.

> My reading is this trooper is a jerk, but even jerks are entitled to due
> process. If nothing else this case is shining a light on the situation, if
> the state police in Alaska need to clean house then maybe this will help
> bring that about.

Tazering a kid is not "being a jerk". Threatening *anyone* with
death is not "being a jerk". It is called "assault". The cop
shoudn't be fired, rather bubba meat.

--
Keith

In article <u%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> > That's not much at all, especially for a mature person that has accumulated
> > a house, 401k or pension fund, a few stocks and the like.
> >
>
> Right!
>
> If you take a typical homeowner living in one of the more expensive
> housing areas of the country, like California, the Northeast,
> Chicagoland, etc... it's not hard at all.

Not hard even outside the hot spots. It does usually involve
graduating from high school though.

> An average home that hasn't had the equity raided and has been owned for
> 10-15 years might easily have 250k in equity, maybe 500k in certain
> areas of California. If the same homeowner saved just a few bucks when
> they started working in their early 20's, they could have a similar
> amount in a 401(k) or 403(b) in their 40's. Add the two together, and
> 500k as a net worth is not uncommon.

Not (hard) at all. It sort of sneaks up on you, like the kids
getting married and having their own family. As you point out, it
does take a small bit of self control though. Raiding the equity in
a home is about the dumbest thing one can do (next to raiding the
401K, though I have done that a couple of times too).

> The 500k number might be much more difficult in an area with much lower
> real estate values, but those folks can take comfort in their much lower
> home payment and associated taxes.

..and income. $500K still isn't all that high of a hurdle anymore.

> Contrary to TV news reports, everyone isn't living beyond their means,
> nor have they used the ol' hacienda as an ATM.

No! NBC News lies? Say it isn't so!

> It's known as "Get Rich Slowly", and some folks still subscribe.
> Unfortunately, there's no infomercial for it, so it doesn't get much
> press! <G>

It's called making money the old fashioned way, *earn* it.

--
Keith

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

> OK, the conclusion is obvious. Young people start out as poor
> Democrats, then get smart and become rich Republicans.

That certainly is one conclusion you can make.

Another might be the Republicans are not attracting many new members
from other than the ranks of white guys.

Lew

Nova wrote:

> If you heard someone threaten to kill one of you family members would
> you report that individual and do whatever you could to stop it from
> happening?

Of course I'd report it. But her complaint was heard and acted on by the
appropriate authorities and they chose not to fire the guy. The Palin
family didn't leave it there, they used every avenue they could to get at
the guy, including trying to prove he'd really been active while collecting
worker's compensation, nothing was too petty to try. Palin herself has
admitted her staff and associates had numerous contacts with various people
including the public safety commissioner trying to get this cop fired
although she claims she wasn't behind those attempts.

The second part of your question, "do whatever you could," well what that
boils down to is going outside the law. I actually took the time to look up
the Alaska statute, it makes it clear than someone who misuses their
official office to gain an advantage for themselves or deny someone else an
advantage is breaking the law. My gut feeling is this trooper maybe
deserves to be fired, his behavior sounds kind of whacked out to me, but
there are ways that is supposed to be done and ways it isn't supposed to be
done.

Think of how you'd react if this happened in your town, some cops gets fired
not because a disciplinary board found he had violated dept. policy
seriously enough to be dismissed, but because the mayor's staff made a few
phone call on account of the mayor has a beef with the guy. Does that sound
like how the system is supposed to work?

[email protected] wrote:
> OK, if you guys are really interested in this kind of stuff, you
> should check this out. I think it says it all.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yzhp5e
>
> Robert

I dunno about others,but your link takes me to
http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/Sausage-Balls-II/Detail.aspx

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

> You gave figures for the Republican delegates and while you give no
> figures for the Democrat party you say it reflected the Republican
> party more than the Democrats. Back that up, please.

What I posted was that the average Republican delegate had net assests
of $500K and was a male white person.

A review of the audience showed a lot of shall we say "mature" white
people in attendance.

As many have stated, acquiring wealth legally usually requires among
other things, some time.

The Democratic convention delegates were on average, much younger than
the Republican delegates as well as containing more members from the
black, brown and yellow races, many of whom have not yet had time to
amass net assets of $500K.

You can draw your own conclusions, but my comment was pretty obvious
to me.

Lew

henry wrote:
> Someone please set me straight. Sara Paulin bragged that she didnt
> take Fed money to build a bridge. She said that if we build a bridge
> that we will use our (state) money. If I'am a taxpayer in Alaska dont
> I want the federal $ instead of State $ to pay for it.
Take a look at this one:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-earmarks1-2008sep01,0,6108885.story

Do it today since the Times cycles its stories.
j4

J. Clarke wrote:

> We're talking about firing an employee, not bringing criminal charges.
> There has been no "due process" in any company where I have worked--if
> the boss wants to fire you, you're fired. So why should cops be any
> different?

The police union that negotiates contracts with the State of Alaska could
probably explain it better than I could.

>> Do you really want politicians going around the
>> usual disciplinary process and getting people fired not on the basis
>> of evidence and a fair hearing, but because someone powerful wants
>> the guy gone?
>
> If they work for the government, yes.

Lovely, not the rule of law, the rule of whoever has the most pull.

>> This is about more than one cop who happens to be a
>> jerk, it's about whether politicians have to follow the same rules
>> as
>> the rest of us.
>
> The rest of us who are employers can in general fire anybody for any
> reason, so it seems to me that she is following the same rules as the
> rest of us.

I've hired and fired a few people in my time, I seem to recall various govt.
agencies having a say in the matter from time to time, and those employees
weren't unionized public servants. You're trying to force this situation
into a box where it just doesn't fit, there being a union involved being
just one of the factors you're overlooking.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050307070401060800060004
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

saw a neat Alaskan bumper sticker .. .. .. "Our weather is COLD .. but
our Governor is HOT !!"

morgan mair fheal wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Sean Monaghan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> [all jokes aside]
>>
>> I've never really shared my political views with the greater Usenet
>> community, but there's a first for everything.
>>
>> I was very disappointed at Barack Hussein Obama's clinch on the
>> Democratic nomination earlier this year. I'd like to go on record as
>> such at this time.
>>
>> McCain's highly appropriate choice of a running mate was the deciding
>> factor in my support for their candidacy for the White House in November.
>>
>> Now, back to the beer-fridge.
>>
>
> keeping comedians employed since january 2009
>
> arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
> limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
> then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
> call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven
>

--------------050307070401060800060004
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#cccccc" text="#000000">
saw a neat Alaskan bumper sticker .. .. ..&nbsp;&nbsp; "Our weather is COLD ..
but our Governor is HOT !!"<br>
<br>
morgan mair fheal wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:[email protected]"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In article <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]">&lt;[email protected]&gt;</a>,
Sean Monaghan <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]">&lt;[email protected]&gt;</a> wrote:

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">[all jokes aside]

I've never really shared my political views with the greater Usenet
community, but there's a first for everything.

I was very disappointed at Barack Hussein Obama's clinch on the
Democratic nomination earlier this year. I'd like to go on record as
such at this time.

McCain's highly appropriate choice of a running mate was the deciding
factor in my support for their candidacy for the White House in November.

Now, back to the beer-fridge.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
keeping comedians employed since january 2009

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

--------------050307070401060800060004--

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

> What is funny to me is that for
> some reason the press wasn't all over this, there are ample examples
> of the
> press pushing this kind of thing to the n'th degree when the other
> side has
> changed direction on something.

It was reported on KABC, ABC's local outlet that ABC's Investigative
Reporter, Brian Ross, was all over this like stink on crap.

Even had video of a an ABC cameraman being hassled and arrested by
Denver PD when he attempted to gain entry.

Even acknowledged that Disney, owner of ABC was one of the major
entertainment lobbyists was involved.

Maybe you missed it in your area.

Lew

K. A. Cannon <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 02 Sep 2008 01:41:30 GMT, Sean Monaghan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[all jokes aside]
>>
>>I've never really shared my political views with the greater Usenet
>>community, but there's a first for everything.
>>
>>I was very disappointed at Barack Hussein Obama's clinch on the
>>Democratic nomination earlier this year. I'd like to go on record
>>as such at this time.
>>
>>McCain's highly appropriate choice of a running mate was the
>>deciding factor in my support for their candidacy for the White
>>House in November.
>>
>>Now, back to the beer-fridge.
>
> You used to troll so well. What happened?

Actually, those Usenetizens who have previously discussed politics
with me outside of Usenet shouldn't be surprised that I'm not
supporting Obama. After all, I'm a fiscal conservative, pro-life
except in cases of rape/incest, and strongly against quotas &
affirmative action based on race or gender.

Palin got where she is today due to her own accomplishments - not
because of some arbitrary quota. In a state where the male-to-female
ratio is as disproportionately high as it is in Alaska, having a woman
secure the top office in the land is especially impressive. On top of
all that, she seems genuine to me. She was forthcoming in telling
McCain about her daughter's pregnancy prior the announcement of her
candidacy - that's very telling, IMO.

At what point did Obama finally speak up and insist that *all* of
Florida's & Michigan's delegates be seated with full voting
privileges? Not until after having been selected (by the
superdelegates) to be the Democratic nominee. If he had any
integrity, he would have been on board with Hillary's position of
equally seating them all from day one. And I don't even wanna get
started on the Rev. Wright bullshit. <sigh>

§ñühwØ£f <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/01-3

Not exactly credible source of information, but anyways...

So, she supports drilling in her home state of Alaska and elsewhere.
Speaker Pelosi needs to get on that bandwagon too - instead of turning
lights on the floor of the House Of Representatives in the middle of a
discussion on the subject. I'm getting tired of paying $4 USD per gallon
of gasoline.

Aratzio wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:09:28 -0500, in alt.usenet.kooks, "David G.
> Nagel" <[email protected]> bloviated:
>
>>Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>> On Sep 3, 11:19 am, §ñühwØ£f <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> America cant drill its way out of a situation where alternative forms
>>>> dont supplant/surpass the current mode.
>>>
>>> American companies are not using all of the leases they currently
>>> hold.
>>> Having them sit on more leases where they don't drill won't help
>>> either.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> FF
>>
>>And as soon as the envirterrorists quit taking them to court on specious
>>arguments they will explore them.
>
> You really believe that is why the oil companies don't drill in places
> like the outer shelf?

and why do you think they aren't drilling there or other places? Why do
you think it would benefit them to have leases that they don't develop?


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

"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:11:49 -0500, Phil Again
> <notwantspam_@_1-2-3-4-5.nospam> wrote:
>
> Despite the position of 57 Nobel Laureates in Science,
> four hurricanes (or getting ready to be) lined up in a nice row aimed
> at the US, and
> the separation of the polar ice cap from the adjacent land for the 1st
> time in human history,
> still considers global climate change to be a hoax.

Well the first, "Global Warming" was pretty much a hoax. Global Climate
Change happens several times with each revolution that the Earth makes
around the Sun.
If the "NEWS" was not a source and or focused so much on being entertaining
most the named squalls would never get the time of day for attention.

J. Clarke wrote:

>> You're trying
>> to force this situation into a box where it just doesn't fit, there
>> being a union involved being just one of the factors you're
>> overlooking.
>
> So if he upset the union so much why aren't the Alaska cops on strike?

Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is still in
force?

J. Clarke wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>> Nova wrote:
>>
>>>> First, if Palin had as much integrity as you demand of Obama she
>>>> wouldn't have used her office to try to get her former
>>>> brother-in-law fired (jerk though he apparently is).
>>> Her brother in law, the trooper, threatened to kill her father.
>>> Palin reported the incident. Should she have ignored the whole
>>> matter?
>> There's a lot more to it than that, for one thing the moron zapped
>> his
>> 10-year-old stepson with a Taser, and he's been reprimanded many
>> times for various violations. However Palin's family and members of
>> her staff and associates pestered the public safety commissioner
>> time
>> and time again about getting the trooper fired, even Palin has
>> admitted there were numerous contacts over the issue although she
>> claims she wasn't behind them. The family appears to have good
>> reason to dislike the guy, but it also appears those around the
>> Governor tried to use their positions in government to get him
>> fired.
>> The question of abuse of power seems to be a legitimate one.
>
> If there's an "abuse of power" it seems to me that it's by the cop who
> zaps the little kid with a Taser. Sounds to me like if there's a real
> scandal here it's why it took her so long to act against the SOB.
>

Especially since the kid in question is the man's step-son.....

On Sep 3, 11:19=A0am, =A7=F1=FChw=D8=A3f <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> America cant drill its way out of a situation where alternative forms don=
t
> supplant/surpass the current mode.

American companies are not using all of the leases they currently
hold.
Having them sit on more leases where they don't drill won't help
either.

--

FF

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:36:52 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
[email protected] got double secret probation for writing:

>On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:19:47 -0700, §ñühwØ£f <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:22:07 +0000, Sean Monaghan aided th' terraists with
>>the following claims :
>>
>>> §ñühwØ£f <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/01-3
>>>
>>> Not exactly credible source of information, but anyways...
>>>
>>> So, she supports drilling in her home state of Alaska and elsewhere.
>>> Speaker Pelosi needs to get on that bandwagon too - instead of turning
>>> lights on the floor of the House Of Representatives in the middle of a
>>> discussion on the subject. I'm getting tired of paying $4 USD per gallon
>>> of gasoline.
>>
>>America cant drill its way out of a situation where alternative forms dont
>>supplant/surpass the current mode.
>>The oil, what small amount we could possibly get, will be sold on the
>>WORLD MARKET. Not sequestered in some private "americans only" reserve for
>>our use only.
>>Conservation would save more in the long run. But people are stupid lazy
>>and greedy so as a species we're fucked, mate.
>
>Did you ever stop to think that perhaps if we *HAD* been drilling all
>along this situation might not exist today? This is what pisses me off
>most about you arrogant enviro-dweebes! You piss and moan till you get
>your way then you don't want to take a friggin bit of responsability
>for the situation your own pissing and moaning created!

Really, we would be 100% dependant upon foreign oil if we had been
drilling all along.

Since the oil would have run out YEARS ago the way we use up 25% of
the worlds production.

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> "charlieb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Charlie Self wrote:
> >
> > How about something simple.
> >
> > 1. If you can't vote for the person you're giving money to
> > for his/her campaign - you can't give him/her ANY money.
>
> You don't believe in freedom much do you?
>
> > That eliminates Corporate Donations, PAC donations, Lobbyist
> > donations, Special Interest Groups donations, etc.
>
> So groups of people with a important view or interest (at least to them)
> should not be allowed to communicate or be heard?
>
>
> > 2. You cannot donate more than - oh lets say - $5K total to
> > any single candidate - that you can vote for.
>
> So you wish to raise the current campaign contribution limit of $2300?
>
> > Now if we can somehow change the latest Supreme Court Ruling
> > that says Money = Speech and limiting political contributions
> > is limiting "free speech" . . . The iron of "free" in "free speech"
> > being the same as Mo' Money! still astounds me. But that's just
> > one example of some pretty convoluted legal "reasoning" we've
> > encountered over the last 8 years.
>
> Since we have very stringent and very specific campaign finance limits with
> serious reporting requirements. What issue begs such concern? All we really
> need is specific knowledge of where the money comes from, where the money
> goes and how our politicians vote.
>
> Since Obama has significantly "changed" his public position of election
> funding for his campaign(no limits) and McCain did not and since McCain did
> pass significant bipartisan campaign finance reform I assume McCain is
> ideologically your kind of guy.
>
> The free speech issue with campaign finance limits is that voices will not
> or cannot be heard. National and even local media will have and can have a
> huge propaganda advantage to their will. The past weekends unfounded and
> largely false attacks on Palin are a ready case in point of possibilities,
> as the airwaves were flooded with much vile. How does one respond to such
> type of attacks if like minded people are not allowed to pool resources and
> communicate? Rod

Don't put my name on one line that I wrote and tack on a lot of lines
from elsewhere. I probably disagree with you anyway, but this is
something on the order of a sneak attack, attributing shit to me that
I didn't write. Check Snopes for info on Palin, by the way. Just
another cheap-assed half-truth loving politico liar.

If I were making the rules, I'd top registered voters' donations out
at a grand or so. Basically, that fucks the groups who have been
overspending and over-influencing for decades. I think that's just
fine, because those groups have been screwing John Q. long enough.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> "J. Clarke" wrote:
> > And if your local paper is the Canberra Times then what's it to you,
> > anyway?
>
> Ah yes, confirmation you were the class idiot.
> Looks like you have been able to maintain your status.

Well, at least he's not plagiarizing anyone's work thus depriving them of a
living. Whereas, you really are the shit disturber you admitted to being.

Must be pretty boring running around all day like you do looking to cause an
argument.

OK, if you guys are really interested in this kind of stuff, you
should check this out. I think it says it all.

http://tinyurl.com/yzhp5e

Robert

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:11:49 -0500, Phil Again
<notwantspam_@_1-2-3-4-5.nospam> wrote:

>> [all jokes aside]
>>
>> {Snip}
>> McCain's highly appropriate choice of a running mate was the deciding
>> factor in my support for their candidacy for the White House in
>> November.
>>
>
-snip-
>I think we should wait and see what the rabid dogs of the media tear out
>of her hide. And I do believe they will find something to bite and latch
>on to; I believe that with all my heart and soul.

Well, here're some of her "views":

Staunchly anti abortion - *no* exceptions.

Suing the current administration (who put them there I believe) to
remove the polar bear from the endangered species list.

End all - be all answer to the energy "crisis" is drill in Alaska.

All for teaching creationism in public schools.

Despite the position of 57 Nobel Laureates in Science,
four hurricanes (or getting ready to be) lined up in a nice row aimed
at the US, and
the separation of the polar ice cap from the adjacent land for the 1st
time in human history,
still considers global climate change to be a hoax.


These views do appeal to some folks, and it should be pretty clear why
she was selected.
Or, is it that she's lived closer to Russia than the other candidates?


Renata

DGDevin wrote:
>>> Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly firing
>>> the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day suspension?
>>> Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?
>>>
>> The trooper wasn't fired...
>
> He doesn't care what the facts of the case are, he's made up his mind and
> isn't about to be distracted by knowing what actually happened.
>
>
Point noted...

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Ifnwk.614$1a2.185@trnddc04...
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
>
>> That's not much at all, especially for a mature person that has
>> accumulated a house, 401k or pension fund, a few stocks and the like.
>
> No it isn't that much of a nest egg for someone who has been prudent over
> a number of years; however, it does reflect the membership of the
> Republican party more than the Democratic party.
>
> My guess is that the old 90/10 rule comes pretty close in this situation.
>
> 90% of the population probably has less than $500K net worth.
>
> A rhetorical question:
>
> How many under 30 people do you know with $500K net assets?
>
> Lew


You gave figures for the Republican delegates and while you give no figures
for the Democrat party you say it reflected the Republican party more than
the Democrats. Back that up, please.

<[email protected]> wrote:

>Wow, Lew. This turned out to be a pretty good thread after all.
Fennel, huh?

I made some homemade pork sausage out of butt and shoulder and I used
fennel in it. I buy Italian sausages and they have it in it, but I
never thought about adding a few seeds in the sausage balls.


My Basic Italian Sausage

Pork Butt
Kosher salt
Fresh ground/cracked black pepper
Fennel seeds
Hot seeds as needed.

Basic Kielbasa

Same as above except substitute garlic for fennel seeds.

Lew

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:11:46 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> got double secret probation for
writing:

>Aratzio wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:09:28 -0500, in alt.usenet.kooks, "David G.
>> Nagel" <[email protected]> bloviated:
>>
>>>Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>>> On Sep 3, 11:19 am, §ñühwØ£f <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> America cant drill its way out of a situation where alternative forms
>>>>> dont supplant/surpass the current mode.
>>>>
>>>> American companies are not using all of the leases they currently
>>>> hold.
>>>> Having them sit on more leases where they don't drill won't help
>>>> either.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> FF
>>>
>>>And as soon as the envirterrorists quit taking them to court on specious
>>>arguments they will explore them.
>>
>> You really believe that is why the oil companies don't drill in places
>> like the outer shelf?
>
> and why do you think they aren't drilling there or other places? Why do
>you think it would benefit them to have leases that they don't develop?

There are leases the oil companies have that are estimated to hold up
to 30,000,000,000 barrels of oil in the gulf. In places they have
leases with appoved drilling plans. There in nothing that prevents
them from drilling in those leases.

These *enviroterrorists* must be some scary mothers if they can stop
oil companies from exploiting the approved areas of drilling.

That or they just want to keep something in the bank rather than
pumping everything out now.

I know silly things like logic and good business practice shooting
holes in such lovely and quite bizarre conspiracies.

Oh and then there are the *foregone royalties* that the US Government
pays the oil companies not to drill.

Oh and a deep water drill rig: $700,000,000

Oh and manpower: None, they are currently employed drilling in the
shallower gulf waters.

Yeah, it is all abput the *ecoterrorists*.

<childish follow-ups trick, defeated, fuckwit>

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Charlie Self" wrote:
>
> >We are looking at the first billion buck baby no matter who gets
> >elected. A billion buys the best--like hell. We got an old fart in
> >decent health--for an old fart, which means he can drop dead any
> >minute, to be replaced by a woman who smiles when she thinks of being
> >equated to a pit bull, which is pit-iful.
>
> Old Fart?
>
> Come on now.
>
> Graduating from high school in 1954 makes him an Old Fart?
>
> Yes, I guess it does.
>
> Any way you look at it, the demands of the presidency take their toll
> and time is not on his side.
>
> >We have another guy who
> >wants "change" which we sorely need, but isn't exactly explicit about
> >the change he wants to implement.
>
> I'm not sure about that one.
>
> Certainly hasn't suggested plans complete with a detailed budget, but
> has provided an overall game plan and how they will be funded on
> several fronts, including health care, alternate energy development,
> tuition credit in exchange for gov't service after graduation. Job
> retraining for the deceloping high tech labor market that will be
> needed for the alternate energy businesses.
>
> Certainly not a complete laundry list, but more that the other has
> presented to date.
>
> >We need a change in the financing of compaigns, for sure: donations
> >allowed ONLY from registered voters, in amounts of $1,000 or under.
> >Double donating gets the second check/MO/cash confiscated.
>
> I'm certainly not in a position to know where all the funding is
> coming from, on either side, but it appears that Obama has used the
> internet to develop a grass roots level of funding,
>
> Lew

Someone told me that changing to such low level financing means only
rich people can get elected. I had to wonder if he had checked lately.
Obama ain't exactly a pauper, and McCain & wife rate, in my world, as
filthy rich. Clinton evidently squeaked in, and had some fiscal
problems before getting out, but is far from poor today.

I have to wonder who the last non-rich (in sane terms) President
really was. Truman? Ike? Tricky Dicky? Maybe Ford, but then he didn't
get elected, did he. Carter? How's yer peanut farm?

J. Clarke wrote:

> If there's an "abuse of power" it seems to me that it's by the cop who
> zaps the little kid with a Taser. Sounds to me like if there's a real
> scandal here it's why it took her so long to act against the SOB.

The way it's supposed to work is via due process, not by politicians pulling
strings. Do you really want politicians going around the usual disciplinary
process and getting people fired not on the basis of evidence and a fair
hearing, but because someone powerful wants the guy gone? This is about
more than one cop who happens to be a jerk, it's about whether politicians
have to follow the same rules as the rest of us.

On Sep 3, 12:33 pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nova wrote:
> > If you heard someone threaten to kill one of you family members would
> > you report that individual and do whatever you could to stop it from
> > happening?
>
> Of course I'd report it. But her complaint was heard and acted on by the
> appropriate authorities and they chose not to fire the guy. The Palin
> family didn't leave it there, they used every avenue they could to get at
> the guy, including trying to prove he'd really been active while collecting
> worker's compensation, nothing was too petty to try. Palin herself has
> admitted her staff and associates had numerous contacts with various people
> including the public safety commissioner trying to get this cop fired
> although she claims she wasn't behind those attempts.
>
> The second part of your question, "do whatever you could," well what that
> boils down to is going outside the law. I actually took the time to look up
> theAlaskastatute, it makes it clear than someone who misuses their
> official office to gain an advantage for themselves or deny someone else an
> advantage is breaking the law. My gut feeling is this trooper maybe
> deserves to be fired, his behavior sounds kind of whacked out to me, but
> there are ways that is supposed to be done and ways it isn't supposed to be
> done.
>
> Think of how you'd react if this happened in your town, somecopsgets fired
> not because a disciplinary board found he had violated dept. policy
> seriously enough to be dismissed, but because the mayor's staff made a few
> phone call on account of the mayor has a beef with the guy. Does that sound
> like how the system is supposed to work?


So, as a citizen Sarah Palin and her family could not receive a fair
inquiry into the actions of Trooper Wooten, no real investigation and
with their usual "secret" investigation, makes further complaints up
the chain of command, more time goes by. Complaints substantiated by
individuals not even related to the Palin's is completely ignored as
unsubstantiated, in the meantime, witness say they are never
interviewed. With the political system prior to Palin the truth about
this alcoholic, child abusing, family violence kind of guy gets a free
pass.
Might be the system police and state troopers like - but not we
Alaskan's. The cops in Alaska have been out of control for years
now. Get the facts before you comment please.

Renata wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:11:49 -0500, Phil Again
> <notwantspam_@_1-2-3-4-5.nospam> wrote:
>
>>> [all jokes aside]
>>>
>>> {Snip}
>>> McCain's highly appropriate choice of a running mate was the deciding
>>> factor in my support for their candidacy for the White House in
>>> November.
>>>
> -snip-
>> I think we should wait and see what the rabid dogs of the media tear out
>> of her hide. And I do believe they will find something to bite and latch
>> on to; I believe that with all my heart and soul.
>
> Well, here're some of her "views":
>
> Staunchly anti abortion - *no* exceptions.
>
> Suing the current administration (who put them there I believe) to
> remove the polar bear from the endangered species list.
>
> End all - be all answer to the energy "crisis" is drill in Alaska.
>
> All for teaching creationism in public schools.
>
> Despite the position of 57 Nobel Laureates in Science,
> four hurricanes (or getting ready to be) lined up in a nice row aimed
> at the US, and
> the separation of the polar ice cap from the adjacent land for the 1st
> time in human history,
> still considers global climate change to be a hoax.
>
>
> These views do appeal to some folks, and it should be pretty clear why
> she was selected.
> Or, is it that she's lived closer to Russia than the other candidates?
>
>
> Renata
Not to mention "troopergate" See
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/08/29/palin_troopergate_scandal.html

This all started in July.

criminy,
j4

On 02 Sep 2008 01:41:30 GMT, Sean Monaghan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[all jokes aside]
>
>I've never really shared my political views with the greater Usenet
>community, but there's a first for everything.
>
>I was very disappointed at Barack Hussein Obama's clinch on the
>Democratic nomination earlier this year. I'd like to go on record as
>such at this time.
>
>McCain's highly appropriate choice of a running mate was the deciding
>factor in my support for their candidacy for the White House in November.
>
>Now, back to the beer-fridge.

You used to troll so well. What happened?


--
K. A. Cannon
kevin.a.cannon at gmail.com.

COOSN-266-06-02374
Hammer of Thor, April 2005
PIERRE SALINGER MEMORIAL HOOK, LINE & SINKER June 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle X 2
#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine

DGDevin wrote:
> Nova wrote:
>
>>> First, if Palin had as much integrity as you demand of Obama she
>>> wouldn't have used her office to try to get her former
>>> brother-in-law fired (jerk though he apparently is).
>>
>> Her brother in law, the trooper, threatened to kill her father.
>> Palin reported the incident. Should she have ignored the whole
>> matter?
>
> There's a lot more to it than that, for one thing the moron zapped
> his
> 10-year-old stepson with a Taser, and he's been reprimanded many
> times for various violations. However Palin's family and members of
> her staff and associates pestered the public safety commissioner
> time
> and time again about getting the trooper fired, even Palin has
> admitted there were numerous contacts over the issue although she
> claims she wasn't behind them. The family appears to have good
> reason to dislike the guy, but it also appears those around the
> Governor tried to use their positions in government to get him
> fired.
> The question of abuse of power seems to be a legitimate one.

If there's an "abuse of power" it seems to me that it's by the cop who
zaps the little kid with a Taser. Sounds to me like if there's a real
scandal here it's why it took her so long to act against the SOB.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

henry wrote:
> Someone please set me straight. Sara Paulin bragged that she didnt
> take Fed money to build a bridge. She said that if we build a bridge
> that we will use our (state) money. If I'am a taxpayer in Alaska
> dont
> I want the federal $ instead of State $ to pay for it.

Federal money comes with strings.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

DGDevin wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> If there's an "abuse of power" it seems to me that it's by the cop
>> who zaps the little kid with a Taser. Sounds to me like if there's
>> a real scandal here it's why it took her so long to act against the
>> SOB.
>
> The way it's supposed to work is via due process, not by politicians
> pulling strings.

We're talking about firing an employee, not bringing criminal charges.
There has been no "due process" in any company where I have worked--if
the boss wants to fire you, you're fired. So why should cops be any
different?

> Do you really want politicians going around the
> usual disciplinary process and getting people fired not on the basis
> of evidence and a fair hearing, but because someone powerful wants
> the guy gone?

If they work for the government, yes.

> This is about more than one cop who happens to be a
> jerk, it's about whether politicians have to follow the same rules
> as
> the rest of us.

The rest of us who are employers can in general fire anybody for any
reason, so it seems to me that she is following the same rules as the
rest of us.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

DGDevin wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> We're talking about firing an employee, not bringing criminal
>> charges. There has been no "due process" in any company where I
>> have
>> worked--if the boss wants to fire you, you're fired. So why should
>> cops be any different?
>
> The police union that negotiates contracts with the State of Alaska
> could probably explain it better than I could.
>
>>> Do you really want politicians going around the
>>> usual disciplinary process and getting people fired not on the
>>> basis
>>> of evidence and a fair hearing, but because someone powerful wants
>>> the guy gone?
>>
>> If they work for the government, yes.
>
> Lovely, not the rule of law, the rule of whoever has the most pull.
>
>>> This is about more than one cop who happens to be a
>>> jerk, it's about whether politicians have to follow the same rules
>>> as
>>> the rest of us.
>>
>> The rest of us who are employers can in general fire anybody for
>> any
>> reason, so it seems to me that she is following the same rules as
>> the
>> rest of us.
>
> I've hired and fired a few people in my time, I seem to recall
> various govt. agencies having a say in the matter from time to time,
> and those employees weren't unionized public servants. You're
> trying
> to force this situation into a box where it just doesn't fit, there
> being a union involved being just one of the factors you're
> overlooking.

So if he upset the union so much why aren't the Alaska cops on strike?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

DGDevin wrote:
> Nova wrote:
>
>> If you heard someone threaten to kill one of you family members
>> would
>> you report that individual and do whatever you could to stop it
>> from
>> happening?
>
> Of course I'd report it. But her complaint was heard and acted on
> by
> the appropriate authorities and they chose not to fire the guy. The
> Palin family didn't leave it there, they used every avenue they
> could
> to get at the guy, including trying to prove he'd really been active
> while collecting worker's compensation, nothing was too petty to
> try.
> Palin herself has admitted her staff and associates had numerous
> contacts with various people including the public safety
> commissioner
> trying to get this cop fired although she claims she wasn't behind
> those attempts.
>
> The second part of your question, "do whatever you could," well what
> that boils down to is going outside the law. I actually took the
> time to look up the Alaska statute, it makes it clear than someone
> who misuses their official office to gain an advantage for
> themselves
> or deny someone else an advantage is breaking the law. My gut
> feeling is this trooper maybe deserves to be fired, his behavior
> sounds kind of whacked out to me, but there are ways that is
> supposed
> to be done and ways it isn't supposed to be done.
>
> Think of how you'd react if this happened in your town, some cops
> gets fired not because a disciplinary board found he had violated
> dept. policy seriously enough to be dismissed, but because the
> mayor's staff made a few phone call on account of the mayor has a
> beef with the guy. Does that sound like how the system is supposed
> to work?



Ask yourself this question. If the cop was not an in-law of the
governor's and she had done the same thing and she wasn't running for
vice president would you have even _noticed_ that this had gone on,
let alone _cared_? How about if she was a Democrat?

Firing a state employee is not "denying someone an advantage".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

DGDevin wrote:
>>> Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is
>>> still in force?
>>>
>>
>> Unions have been known to:
>>
>> a.) Protest Strike
>> b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated
>
> Yeah, but as they're risking a court order to force them back to
> work
> it's not something they do casually, and certainly not because one
> guy who is probably known as a jerk got a five-day suspension.

Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly firing
the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day suspension?
Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

DGDevin wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>>> Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is
>>> still in force?
>>>
>>
>> Uh, they walk off the job. Happens often. Auto workers were
>> famous
>> for it in the 60's & 70's.
>
> In which case the company goes to court and the union is ordered to
> send its people back to work or face fines and jail time for
> contempt.

And the union, depending on how pissed off it is, either goes back to
work or says "screw you, jail the lot of us and see how much work you
get done".

> Remember what Reagan did with the striking air traffic
> controllers who thought he was bluffing?

Which is generally a costly option. However cop strikes tend to be
slowdowns rather than stoppages--they'll still go after the thieves
and murderers but they won't write speeding tickets or the like, they
all call in sick on the same day, etc. Google "blue flu".

> In any case this is beside the point. The contract without doubt
> agrees to the steps needed to fire a trooper.

Without doubt? You've read it?

> This union intervened
> and got this one trooper's suspension cut in half, so it's
> reasonable
> to think they would have gone to court if he had been fired
> improperly. Mr. Clarke's question as to why the union isn't on
> strike over this is rather odd since the trooper wasn't fired.

And if he wasn't fired then in what way was undue influence
demonstrated?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

DGDevin wrote:
>>> Yeah, but as they're risking a court order to force them back to
>>> work
>>> it's not something they do casually, and certainly not because one
>>> guy who is probably known as a jerk got a five-day suspension.
>>
>> Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly firing
>> the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day
>> suspension?
>> Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?
>
> Do you have any knowledge of this beyond what you hear on the radio
> while driving to work? He wasn't fired, they *tried* to get him
> fired and failed. They ended up firing the Public Safety
> Commissioner
> who wouldn't fire the trooper. The trooper was suspended over one
> incident, at first for ten days but that was cut to five when his
> union raised a fuss. All this and more information is available
> from
> a wide variety of news sources. Just a friendly suggestion but
> perhaps a little reading is in order, sort of like looking at the
> plans and making a few measurements *before* firing up the table
> saw,
> know what I mean?

Look, I don't give a damn what she did. I assumed from all the
pissing and moaning that you are doing that she got the guy
fired--you're pissing and moaning over a ten day suspension? Get a
fucking life.

<plonk>

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Nova wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>>>> Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract
>>>> is
>>>> still in force?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unions have been known to:
>>>
>>> a.) Protest Strike
>>> b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated
>>
>>
>> Yeah, but as they're risking a court order to force them back to
>> work it's not something they do casually, and certainly not because
>> one guy who is probably known as a jerk got a five-day suspension.
>>
>>
>
> It's a moot point. In all states, almost invariably, public
> employees
> working in the public safety field (police, fire, etc.) by law are
> not
> allowed to strike.

Which has never stopped them in the past.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

David G. Nagel wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> DGDevin wrote:
>>>>> Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract
>>>>> is
>>>>> still in force?
>>>>>
>>>> Unions have been known to:
>>>>
>>>> a.) Protest Strike
>>>> b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated
>>> Yeah, but as they're risking a court order to force them back to
>>> work
>>> it's not something they do casually, and certainly not because one
>>> guy who is probably known as a jerk got a five-day suspension.
>>
>> Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly firing
>> the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day
>> suspension?
>> Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?
>>
> The trooper wasn't fired...

So where was the impropriety on the part of the governor? What
improper thing did she do to him?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Nova wrote:
> David G. Nagel wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly
>>> firing
>>> the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day
>>> suspension?
>>> Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?
>>>
>> The trooper wasn't fired...
>
> "She (Palin) allegedly pressured public safety commissioner Walter
> Monegan to fire Trooper Mike Wooten, then fired Monegan in July when
> he
> did not come through."
>
> http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/palins-trooper-emails-ridiculed-investigators-report/1263158.aspx

Monegan is not "the trooper", so what does he have to do with whether
or not "the trooper" was fired?

You're confusing two events here.

And if your local paper is the Canberra Times then what's it to you,
anyway?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> And if your local paper is the Canberra Times then what's it to
>> you,
>> anyway?
>
> Ah yes, confirmation you were the class idiot.
>
> Looks like you have been able to maintain your status.

Stick to woodworking, if you have visions of filling Don Rickles'
shoes, don't quit your day job.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

David G. Nagel wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>>>> Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly
>>>> firing
>>>> the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day
>>>> suspension? Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?
>>>>
>>> The trooper wasn't fired...
>>
>> He doesn't care what the facts of the case are, he's made up his
>> mind and isn't about to be distracted by knowing what actually
>> happened.
>>
>>
> Point noted...

Fascinating how you find it appropriate to make snide remarks instead
of addressing the statements of those who you believe have "made up
their minds".

Personally my mind is anything but made up, but I just plain don't see
Troopergate as being anything but a sideshow and anybody who is on
about it like it's of real importance is engaging in politics for the
sake of politics.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

charlieb wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> We need a change in the financing of compaigns, for sure: donations
>> allowed ONLY from registered voters, in amounts of $1,000 or under.
>> Double donating gets the second check/MO/cash confiscated.
>
>
> How about something simple.
>
> 1. If you can't vote for the person you're giving money to
> for his/her campaign - you can't give him/her ANY money.
>
> That eliminates Corporate Donations, PAC donations, Lobbyist
> donations, Special Interest Groups donations, etc.

This all sounds nicely democratic. The trouble is that it takes away
several of the most powerful tools available to minorities and "the
little guy" to protect their interests.

> 2. You cannot donate more than - oh lets say - $5K total to
> any single candidate - that you can vote for.
>
> Now if we can somehow change the latest Supreme Court Ruling
> that says Money = Speech and limiting political contributions
> is limiting "free speech" . . . The iron of "free" in "free
> speech" being the same as Mo' Money! still astounds me. But
> that's just one example of some pretty convoluted legal
> "reasoning" we've encountered over the last 8 years.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

<SNIP>

>
>Palin is no friend of the enviroment:
>http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/01-3

What exactly *IS* a friend to the environment?

First you need to let us know what the "environment" actually is.

Morris Dovey wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>
>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seems like there were quite a few of those boxes at the
>>>> convention and stadium where the guy who was only going to take money
>>>> from
>>>> the common people was speaking. (Maybe his definition of common people
>>>> is a bit different than yours and mine).
>>> I think I'd want to be a little more definitive than "seems like" before
>>> I extended that into conclusions about anyone's internal definitions...
>>>
>> Morris, that comment was intended to be understated sarcasm. Fact of
>> the
>> matter is that the sky boxes at Invesco field were reserved for million
>> dollar donors and the kind of high-rollers that the candidate had
>> initially stated he was not going to seek out.
>
> Ok - you would seem to have info that I do not (I wasn't offered the use
> of one of the sky boxes for any price, and didn't see a general offer).
> If it had been my shindig and I'd paid for the use of the premises, I
> wouldn't have felt a need to refuse a million for the use of one of the
> boxes - and neither would I have felt that accepting that million would
> obligate me to deliver future favors (consider that a warning if you
> were thinking of sending me a million for a week's use of a prime spot
> in my shop <g>)
>

> Perhaps you're aware of Obama seeking out box-renting customers. If so,
> you might make a stronger case by providing some specifics...
>



<http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-demfunds16-2008aug16,0,3706902.story>


There were others, but that's the one that I could find in a few minutes
of looking on ask.com


... snip

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

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>> Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is
>> still in force?
>>
>
> Uh, they walk off the job. Happens often. Auto workers were famous
> for it in the 60's & 70's.

In which case the company goes to court and the union is ordered to send its
people back to work or face fines and jail time for contempt. Remember what
Reagan did with the striking air traffic controllers who thought he was
bluffing?

In any case this is beside the point. The contract without doubt agrees to
the steps needed to fire a trooper. This union intervened and got this one
trooper's suspension cut in half, so it's reasonable to think they would
have gone to court if he had been fired improperly. Mr. Clarke's question
as to why the union isn't on strike over this is rather odd since the
trooper wasn't fired.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Sep 3, 11:19 am, §ñühwØ£f <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> America cant drill its way out of a situation where alternative forms dont
>> supplant/surpass the current mode.
>
> American companies are not using all of the leases they currently
> hold.
> Having them sit on more leases where they don't drill won't help
> either.
>
> --
>
> FF

And as soon as the envirterrorists quit taking them to court on specious
arguments they will explore them.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:38:12 -0400, in alt.usenet.kooks, K. A. Cannon
<[email protected]> bloviated:

>On 02 Sep 2008 01:41:30 GMT, Sean Monaghan
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[all jokes aside]
>>
>>I've never really shared my political views with the greater Usenet
>>community, but there's a first for everything.
>>
>>I was very disappointed at Barack Hussein Obama's clinch on the
>>Democratic nomination earlier this year. I'd like to go on record as
>>such at this time.
>>
>>McCain's highly appropriate choice of a running mate was the deciding
>>factor in my support for their candidacy for the White House in November.
>>
>>Now, back to the beer-fridge.
>
>You used to troll so well. What happened?

Got married.

>> Yeah, but as they're risking a court order to force them back to
>> work
>> it's not something they do casually, and certainly not because one
>> guy who is probably known as a jerk got a five-day suspension.
>
> Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly firing
> the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day suspension?
> Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?

Do you have any knowledge of this beyond what you hear on the radio while
driving to work? He wasn't fired, they *tried* to get him fired and failed.
They ended up firing the Public Safety Commissioner who wouldn't fire the
trooper. The trooper was suspended over one incident, at first for ten days
but that was cut to five when his union raised a fuss. All this and more
information is available from a wide variety of news sources. Just a
friendly suggestion but perhaps a little reading is in order, sort of like
looking at the plans and making a few measurements *before* firing up the
table saw, know what I mean?