OT: Worth every penny?

On 11/17/2013 07:03 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> I don't know how accurate this is, but here's an interesting read...
>
>
> The person who calculated this bit of information is now, and has been a
> professor at the University of West Virginia in Morgantown for the last
> forty some years. He says that:
>
> A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas
> a year.
> A new vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons of
> gas a year.
> So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction reduced gasoline consumption
> by 320 gallons per year.
> The government claims 700,000 clunkers were replaced so that is 224 million
> gallons saved per year.
> That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
> 5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
>
> *** Note - according to what I've found on the net, US consumption of fuel
> per day for gasoline is about 1/2 of the daily consumption. The total daily
> consumption is around 18 million barrels. 9 million barrels saved by
> upgrading cars equates to around 375000 barrels per hour based on 24 hours.
> This calculates out to about 13.3 hours, rather than the 5 hours stated
> above - almost triple.
> ***
> More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $90 per barrel costs about
> $450 million dollars.
> So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $450 million.
> They spent $6.67 for every $1.00 they saved.

Would you expect anything else? This is from the bunch that says you
pass laws first and then figure out what's in those laws.


And that's only the directly visible costs. Car dealerships make most
of their money on service and used cars. CFC just KILLED the used car
market and thereby the economic fortunes of those that rely on a steady
supply of used inventory.

I have family that made some of their living buying used inventory at auctions,
fixing the cars up, and selling them. No more. The cost of used inventory
is so high due to this artificially low supply, that it's just not worth it.
And who gets hurt most? People at the bottom of the economic pile for
whom an affordable used car is the only choice unless they live in a
place with decent public transportation. These people, of course,
are the ones the progressive-left cares very, very, very deeply about.

>
> We've been assured, though, that they will do a much better job with our
> health care.


You mean the people that spent $300 million-ish and can't make a website work?

You mean the people that spent as much time to build a failed website as it took
the nation to win World War II in multiple theaters of battle?

You mean that people that lied about the content and consequences of government
meddling in private matters?

You mean the people whose answer to the economics of healthcare is to
increase IRS power and then tell us it is not a tax?

You mean the people whose only skill running things is their own mouths?

Yeah, that should end well ...


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

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:26:50 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>With out a doubt, ALL governments are corrupt. Government is full of
>>people that cant make it on their own.
>
>...and feel the need to control other's lives.

So, what is it?

1) People go into the job looking to do good, but are corrupted by the
size of the pig trough that they're handed?

2) They're corrupted to start and go into the job looking to increase
the amount of money they can fleece out of the public purse?

3) They have megalomaniac personalities and go into the job looking to
satisfy their delusions of grandeur and entitlement?

4) ???

On 11/19/2013 09:44 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> I agree one and out... but think about voting outside the party system, since its the party system that is causing the problems.
>
> So vote for an independent, lets start a revolution of independent thinkers, and no ties to the parties.

Nope, that's not the problem. The problem is the voters themselves.
Politicians will do what it takes to get reelected. The people are
the ones that keep voting for Santa to give them "free" things. You
cannot fix politics until you fix the electorate and this is unlikely
given that the "education" system is controlled by people who have
a vested interest in perpetuating a large, overweening, central
government.

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

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:53:52 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 11/17/2013 07:03 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> I don't know how accurate this is, but here's an interesting read...
>>
>>
>> The person who calculated this bit of information is now, and has been a
>> professor at the University of West Virginia in Morgantown for the last
>> forty some years. He says that:
>>
>> A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas
>> a year.
>> A new vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons of
>> gas a year.
>> So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction reduced gasoline consumption
>> by 320 gallons per year.
>> The government claims 700,000 clunkers were replaced so that is 224 million
>> gallons saved per year.
>> That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
>> 5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
>>
>> *** Note - according to what I've found on the net, US consumption of fuel
>> per day for gasoline is about 1/2 of the daily consumption. The total daily
>> consumption is around 18 million barrels. 9 million barrels saved by
>> upgrading cars equates to around 375000 barrels per hour based on 24 hours.
>> This calculates out to about 13.3 hours, rather than the 5 hours stated
>> above - almost triple.
>> ***
>> More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $90 per barrel costs about
>> $450 million dollars.
>> So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $450 million.
>> They spent $6.67 for every $1.00 they saved.
>
>Would you expect anything else? This is from the bunch that says you
>pass laws first and then figure out what's in those laws.
>
>
>And that's only the directly visible costs. Car dealerships make most
>of their money on service and used cars. CFC just KILLED the used car
>market and thereby the economic fortunes of those that rely on a steady
>supply of used inventory.

Also those who can't afford better. Lefties live in a static world
and simply can't get their head around dynamics and the unintended
consequences of their actions.

>I have family that made some of their living buying used inventory at auctions,
>fixing the cars up, and selling them. No more. The cost of used inventory
>is so high due to this artificially low supply, that it's just not worth it.
>And who gets hurt most? People at the bottom of the economic pile for
>whom an affordable used car is the only choice unless they live in a
>place with decent public transportation. These people, of course,
>are the ones the progressive-left cares very, very, very deeply about.

Yep. Unintended consequences. They never look at the results of
their actions. Intentions matter - results don't.

>> We've been assured, though, that they will do a much better job with our
>> health care.
>
>
>You mean the people that spent $300 million-ish and can't make a website work?
>
>You mean the people that spent as much time to build a failed website as it took
>the nation to win World War II in multiple theaters of battle?
>
>You mean that people that lied about the content and consequences of government
>meddling in private matters?
>
>You mean the people whose answer to the economics of healthcare is to
>increase IRS power and then tell us it is not a tax?
>
>You mean the people whose only skill running things is their own mouths?

Yeah. Those people.

>Yeah, that should end well ...

Wait until all small businesses dump their health care next year and
then the large businesses the year after. It's inevitable.

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:14:44 -0500, [email protected] wrote:



>So, what is it?
>
>1) People go into the job looking to do good, but are corrupted by the
>size of the pig trough that they're handed?
>
>2) They're corrupted to start and go into the job looking to increase
>the amount of money they can fleece out of the public purse?
>
>3) They have megalomaniac personalities and go into the job looking to
>satisfy their delusions of grandeur and entitlement?
>
>4) ???

1 2%

2 2%

3 96%

4 See #3

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:56:06 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>Oh well, leave it to the goverment to F up everything.

Well, you can take some solace in the fact that your government(s)
aren't the only ones to waste huge amounts of public money.

Ontario gas plants boon doggle. $585 million and up.
Ehealth for Ontario $800 million and up.
And, those are just the tip of the iceberg.

On 11/19/2013 6:31 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:26:50 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> With out a doubt, ALL governments are corrupt.
>>>> Government is full of people that cant make it on
>>>> their own.
>>>
>>> ...and feel the need to control other's lives.
>>
>> So, what is it?
>>
>> 1) People go into the job looking to do good, but are
>> corrupted by the size of the pig trough that they're
>> handed?
>
> In the case of elected officials, I think it is the realization that they
> "need another term to finalize my vision" and that next term means they need
> money and money means favors; special interests.
>
> The answer is, one term and gone. No pension, no perks, no professional
> politicians. It isn't going to happen. It also wouldn't fix general
> incompetence but at least that incompetence wouldn't be perpetuated; not by
> the same individual at least.
>
> In regards to the ridiculous cost of the health web site, it seems to me
> that people simply have no concept of what things are worth...what they
> SHOULD cost. That isn't confined to government either, I see it all the
> time in daily life.
>

I agree one and out... but think about voting outside the party system,
since its the party system that is causing the problems.

So vote for an independent, lets start a revolution of independent
thinkers, and no ties to the parties.

--
Jeff

On 11/17/2013 11:30 AM, [email protected] wrote:
<SNIP>


>
> Wait until all small businesses dump their health care next year and
> then the large businesses the year after. It's inevitable.

It's the intended endgame. The progressive-left axis-of-weasels in
power is purposefully making healthcare so complex, so expensive,
and so lousy that the sheeple will clamor for national healthcare.

It is not inevitable, however. The Valerie Jarrett marketing
machine really messed up here. She evidently never considered that there
might be serious pushback from the grownups in the country - grownups
*inside* the Democrat party. Obama's approval rating is in the tank
and falling. There is a good chance that some level of competence in
government could be restored in the midterms and quash this stupidity. We'll
see.

In any case, watching this administration choke on its own
arrogance and bile is a delight to behold. It's the best
feelgood TV on the air right now. It's like watching LBJ
squirm to a long and protracted political death all over
again. Recall that LBJ and McNamara lied to the American
public and sent thousands of American kids to their deaths
for purely political purposes. Yet compared to the current
administration LBJ is a Hero and Patriot 1st Class...


>


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

On 11/17/2013 02:49 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> On 11/17/2013 8:03 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> I don't know how accurate this is, but here's an interesting read...
>>
>>
>> The person who calculated this bit of information is now, and has been a
>> professor at the University of West Virginia in Morgantown for the last
>> forty some years. He says that:
>>
>> A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas
>> a year.
>> A new vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons of
>> gas a year.
>> So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction reduced gasoline consumption
>> by 320 gallons per year.
>> The government claims 700,000 clunkers were replaced so that is 224 million
>> gallons saved per year.
>> That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
>> 5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
>>
>> *** Note - according to what I've found on the net, US consumption of fuel
>> per day for gasoline is about 1/2 of the daily consumption. The total daily
>> consumption is around 18 million barrels. 9 million barrels saved by
>> upgrading cars equates to around 375000 barrels per hour based on 24 hours.
>> This calculates out to about 13.3 hours, rather than the 5 hours stated
>> above - almost triple.
>> ***
>> More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $90 per barrel costs about
>> $450 million dollars.
>> So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $450 million.
>> They spent $6.67 for every $1.00 they saved.
>>
>> We've been assured, though, that they will do a much better job with our
>> health care.
>>
>
> And just remember how much energy was used to build the new vehicles (forging, welding, chemicals for plastics)...
> So its more like they didn't save anything in fuel costs.
>
> Plus many of those were shipped to China for metal.
>

I wish I could find the analysis, but someone actually did a calculation
of carbon footprint (if you are of that religion) and concluded that the
most carbon-neutral thing you can do is drive your used car as long as
you can. Even though older cars are less fuel efficient, the newer ones -
even the hybrids - are not incrementally more efficient enough to overcome
the considerable energy costs of manufacturing, painting, shipping, and so on.\

This, of course, does not apply to the elites like the I-gotta-go-on-vacation-in-
a-747 politicians, Al Gore, and the insufferable jetset Hollyweirdos who are
veeeeeeeerrrrrry important and therefore forgiven their extravagant lifestyles.

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

On 11/19/2013 05:31 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:26:50 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> With out a doubt, ALL governments are corrupt.
>>>> Government is full of people that cant make it on
>>>> their own.
>>>
>>> ...and feel the need to control other's lives.
>>
>> So, what is it?
>>
>> 1) People go into the job looking to do good, but are
>> corrupted by the size of the pig trough that they're
>> handed?
>
> In the case of elected officials, I think it is the realization that they
> "need another term to finalize my vision" and that next term means they need
> money and money means favors; special interests.
>
> The answer is, one term and gone. No pension, no perks, no professional
> politicians. It isn't going to happen. It also wouldn't fix general
> incompetence but at least that incompetence wouldn't be perpetuated; not by
> the same individual at least.
>
> In regards to the ridiculous cost of the health web site, it seems to me
> that people simply have no concept of what things are worth...what they
> SHOULD cost. That isn't confined to government either, I see it all the
> time in daily life.
>


It might be simpler than this. Excepting criminal laws (that should affect
everyone equally all at once), make every law passed be binding upon all
government employees first for a period of not less than it takes to fully implement
the law plus one year. I promise you that if the civil service, White House
hangers on, various Congressional employees and ALL elected officials
and the courts had to live with, say, the ACA for 2 or 3 years, SCOTUS
would magically find it unconstitutional about an hour after it passed.
I for one would be delighted to watch, say, Valerie Jarrett lose her
health insurance and have to spend a dozen nights trying to sign up.
She does speak Farsi, so perhaps she could use the sister site in Tehran
that we're probably paying for ...


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

On 11/20/2013 06:42 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 11/19/2013 9:44 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>
>> So vote for an independent ...
>
> Plays straight into the progressives hand, and insures the party who has pandered to an entitlement raised population will gain office.
>
> Those voting "Libertarian" these days are arguably the biggest boon to those they detest the most, Democrats.
>

If you think voting for the Republicans is substantially better, you're
kidding yourself.

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

On 11/20/2013 07:49 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 11/20/2013 7:00 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 11/20/2013 06:42 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2013 9:44 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>
>>>> So vote for an independent ...
>>>
>>> Plays straight into the progressives hand, and insures the party who
>>> has pandered to an entitlement raised population will gain office.
>>>
>>> Those voting "Libertarian" these days are arguably the biggest boon to
>>> those they detest the most, Democrats.
>>>
>>
>> If you think voting for the Republicans is substantially better, you're
>> kidding yourself.
>
> Now where the fuck did I say that??
>
> You have an oft demonstrated propensity to erroneously impose your imagination onto others words, thereby ultimately arguing with yourself.
>

The point was rhetorical. Voting for libertarians may benefit Dems
in some cases but it benefits Republicans in others. Either way
an unfit candidate actually gets elected in most cases.

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

On 11/20/2013 08:13 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 11/20/2013 12:09 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 11/19/2013 09:44 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>> I agree one and out... but think about voting outside the party
>>> system, since its the party system that is causing the problems.
>>>
>>> So vote for an independent, lets start a revolution of independent
>>> thinkers, and no ties to the parties.
>>
>> Nope, that's not the problem. The problem is the voters themselves.
>> Politicians will do what it takes to get reelected. The people are
>> the ones that keep voting for Santa to give them "free" things. You
>> cannot fix politics until you fix the electorate and this is unlikely
>> given that the "education" system is controlled by people who have
>> a vested interest in perpetuating a large, overweening, central
>> government.
>>
>
>
> Suppose nobody showed up on election day because no one wanted to vote
> for any of those running for office. That might signal the disgust we have with our elected leaders and the political system that we have created. No one is reelected, terms expire, scoundrels are booted, and the government goes on autopilot. That might be better.
>
>
> It seems obvious that regardless of who you vote for you are going to be disappointed whether he or she wins the election or not.
>
> I think voting when there is not a candidate that one wants in office is only encouraging bad behavior. We don't get to choose who runs for office, perhaps that is the problem, as now it is "pick your poison".
>
> Voting against vs. voting for is not working either.


My point is that people are NOT "disappointed". Oh, they say they are, and they respond
negatively in polls. But the truth is that about half the country is paying no
net Federal taxes. They're taking out more than they paid in and they
very much like the arrangement. That half is what keeps the looters in
office. It's the rest of us that are paying net taxes that are "disappointed",
but there's not enough of us left to kick the bums out. That's why letting
things run their natural course is the only option we largely have left.
It's been a delight to hear the pigs squealing at the trough as they've
discovered exactly how malignant the ACA is, for example. When someone is
intent on hanging themselves ... issue rope.

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

On 11/20/2013 07:31 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 11/20/2013 8:13 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>> Voting against vs. voting for is not working either.
>
> Want to keep Texas Red this next election ... better damned well vote
> Red _and nothing else_, or you will absolutely insure it goes Blue:
>
> http://www.kltv.com/story/23894104/the-blue-movement-battleground-texas-striving-to-turn-texas-elections-competitive
>
>
> The fucking transplants move here because they can't make a living where
> their progressive ideals have polluted the public trough, then come here
> wanting to do the same thing all over again. WTF?

Same in Arizona. It's known as being Californicated.

>
> Be wary, and vote RED only, or lose it!
>



--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 11/20/2013 9:43 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> "Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>> I think voting when there is not a candidate that one
>> wants in office is only encouraging bad behavior. We
>> don't get to choose who runs for office, perhaps that is
>> the problem, as now it is "pick your poison".
>
> And what of the primaries? True, some places have closed primaries and to
> vote in those one has to be a registered part member but a primary is, after
> all, a party function.
>
>> Voting against vs. voting for is not working either.
>
> Which is why I started a number (25? 30?) years ago advocating to simply do
> away with elections. Pick'em out of a hat just as they do for juries. Yes,
> we'd get an occasional crook; yes, we'd get some that were totally
> incompetent. We get that now but these wouldn't be running for re-election
> and currying favor from all that could help in that effort.
>
>
You can't do it. That's called involuntary servitude, and like slavery
it's unconstitutional.

I want a choice on every ballot, "NONE OF THE ABOVE." If that choice
wins, you have a new election with new candidates, and the previous
candidates can't run.

On 11/20/2013 11:45 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> "Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On 11/20/2013 9:43 AM, dadiOH wrote:
>>> "Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>>> I think voting when there is not a candidate that one
>>>> wants in office is only encouraging bad behavior. We
>>>> don't get to choose who runs for office, perhaps that
>>>> is the problem, as now it is "pick your poison".
>>>
>>> And what of the primaries? True, some places have
>>> closed primaries and to vote in those one has to be a
>>> registered part member but a primary is, after all, a
>>> party function.
>>>> Voting against vs. voting for is not working either.
>>>
>>> Which is why I started a number (25? 30?) years ago
>>> advocating to simply do away with elections. Pick'em
>>> out of a hat just as they do for juries. Yes, we'd get
>>> an occasional crook; yes, we'd get some that were
>>> totally incompetent. We get that now but these
>>> wouldn't be running for re-election and currying favor
>>> from all that could help in that effort.
>> You can't do it. That's called involuntary servitude,
>> and like slavery it's unconstitutional.
>
> Dang! There goes the trial system.
>
1. The Constitution expressly provides for trial by jury.
2. Jury duty is not a job where you are forced to work for years.

On 11/17/2013 11:53 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> You mean the people that spent $300 million-ish and can't make a website
> work?
Try more like 600 million.. (doesn't make sense) That money should have
had an amazing set of servers and a decent web turnout.

There's really not much that should have gone this badly.

The servers doing the public interface (app servers) should have just
taken the info.
Backend servers should have taken that data and processed the orders to
completion.


The load on the app servers is therefore minimized...And there should
have been a shitload of front end app servers...

Oh well, leave it to the goverment to F up everything.

--
Jeff

On 11/17/2013 8:03 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> I don't know how accurate this is, but here's an interesting read...
>
>
> The person who calculated this bit of information is now, and has been a
> professor at the University of West Virginia in Morgantown for the last
> forty some years. He says that:
>
> A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas
> a year.
> A new vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons of
> gas a year.
> So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction reduced gasoline consumption
> by 320 gallons per year.
> The government claims 700,000 clunkers were replaced so that is 224 million
> gallons saved per year.
> That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
> 5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
>
> *** Note - according to what I've found on the net, US consumption of fuel
> per day for gasoline is about 1/2 of the daily consumption. The total daily
> consumption is around 18 million barrels. 9 million barrels saved by
> upgrading cars equates to around 375000 barrels per hour based on 24 hours.
> This calculates out to about 13.3 hours, rather than the 5 hours stated
> above - almost triple.
> ***
> More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $90 per barrel costs about
> $450 million dollars.
> So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $450 million.
> They spent $6.67 for every $1.00 they saved.
>
> We've been assured, though, that they will do a much better job with our
> health care.
>

And just remember how much energy was used to build the new vehicles
(forging, welding, chemicals for plastics)...
So its more like they didn't save anything in fuel costs.

Plus many of those were shipped to China for metal.

--
Jeff

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:34:30 -0500, Keith Nuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 11/17/2013 12:51 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> ll that LBJ and McNamara lied to the American
>> public and sent thousands of American kids to their deaths
>
>The current administration also makes Jimmy Carter look good

I thought I'd never see it. Jimmy has been seen around town mumbling
"I am not the worst. I am not the worst.".

On 11/20/2013 10:53 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 11/20/2013 08:13 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 11/20/2013 12:09 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2013 09:44 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>> I agree one and out... but think about voting outside the party
>>>> system, since its the party system that is causing the problems.
>>>>
>>>> So vote for an independent, lets start a revolution of independent
>>>> thinkers, and no ties to the parties.
>>>
>>> Nope, that's not the problem. The problem is the voters themselves.
>>> Politicians will do what it takes to get reelected. The people are
>>> the ones that keep voting for Santa to give them "free" things. You
>>> cannot fix politics until you fix the electorate and this is unlikely
>>> given that the "education" system is controlled by people who have
>>> a vested interest in perpetuating a large, overweening, central
>>> government.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Suppose nobody showed up on election day because no one wanted to vote
>> for any of those running for office. That might signal the disgust we
>> have with our elected leaders and the political system that we have
>> created. No one is reelected, terms expire, scoundrels are booted,
>> and the government goes on autopilot. That might be better.
>>
>>
>> It seems obvious that regardless of who you vote for you are going to
>> be disappointed whether he or she wins the election or not.
>>
>> I think voting when there is not a candidate that one wants in office
>> is only encouraging bad behavior. We don't get to choose who runs for
>> office, perhaps that is the problem, as now it is "pick your poison".
>>
>> Voting against vs. voting for is not working either.
>
>
> My point is that people are NOT "disappointed". Oh, they say they are,
> and they respond
> negatively in polls. But the truth is that about half the country is
> paying no
> net Federal taxes. They're taking out more than they paid in and they
> very much like the arrangement. That half is what keeps the looters in
> office. It's the rest of us that are paying net taxes that are
> "disappointed",
> but there's not enough of us left to kick the bums out. That's why
> letting
> things run their natural course is the only option we largely have left.
> It's been a delight to hear the pigs squealing at the trough as they've
> discovered exactly how malignant the ACA is, for example. When someone is
> intent on hanging themselves ... issue rope.
>


Oh I think the people are disappointed, those not paying taxes and
getting more from the government are disappointed that they are not
getting more, that is why they elected obama.

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:26:24 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 11/17/2013 4:55 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:56:06 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>>> Oh well, leave it to the goverment to F up everything.
>>
>> Well, you can take some solace in the fact that your government(s)
>> aren't the only ones to waste huge amounts of public money.
>>
>> Ontario gas plants boon doggle. $585 million and up.
>> Ehealth for Ontario $800 million and up.
>> And, those are just the tip of the iceberg.
>>
>
>
>With out a doubt, ALL governments are corrupt. Government is full of
>people that cant make it on their own.

...and feel the need to control other's lives.

On 11/20/2013 7:00 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 11/20/2013 06:42 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 11/19/2013 9:44 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>
>>> So vote for an independent ...
>>
>> Plays straight into the progressives hand, and insures the party who
>> has pandered to an entitlement raised population will gain office.
>>
>> Those voting "Libertarian" these days are arguably the biggest boon to
>> those they detest the most, Democrats.
>>
>
> If you think voting for the Republicans is substantially better, you're
> kidding yourself.

Now where the fuck did I say that??

You have an oft demonstrated propensity to erroneously impose your
imagination onto others words, thereby ultimately arguing with yourself.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/17/2013 11:30 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>
>>
>> Wait until all small businesses dump their health care
>> next year and
>> then the large businesses the year after. It's
>> inevitable.
>
> It's the intended endgame. The progressive-left
> axis-of-weasels in
> power is purposefully making healthcare so complex, so
> expensive,
> and so lousy that the sheeple will clamor for national
> healthcare.
>
> It is not inevitable, however. The Valerie Jarrett
> marketing
> machine really messed up here. She evidently never
> considered that
> there might be serious pushback from the grownups in the
> country -
> grownups *inside* the Democrat party. Obama's approval
> rating is
> in the tank and falling. There is a good chance that some
> level of competence in
> government could be restored in the midterms and quash
> this
> stupidity. We'll see.
>
> In any case, watching this administration choke on its own
> arrogance and bile is a delight to behold. It's the best
> feelgood TV on the air right now. It's like watching LBJ
> squirm to a long and protracted political death all over
> again. Recall that LBJ and McNamara lied to the American
> public and sent thousands of American kids to their deaths
> for purely political purposes. Yet compared to the
> current
> administration LBJ is a Hero and Patriot 1st Class...

I believe they are purposely fucking it up to make single
payer the save all.
And the sheeple will follow

On 11/19/2013 9:44 PM, woodchucker wrote:

> So vote for an independent ...

Plays straight into the progressives hand, and insures the party who has
pandered to an entitlement raised population will gain office.

Those voting "Libertarian" these days are arguably the biggest boon to
those they detest the most, Democrats.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 11/17/2013 2:56 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> On 11/17/2013 11:53 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>> You mean the people that spent $300 million-ish and can't make a website
>> work?
> Try more like 600 million.. (doesn't make sense) That money should have
> had an amazing set of servers and a decent web turnout.
>
> There's really not much that should have gone this badly.
>
> The servers doing the public interface (app servers) should have just
> taken the info.
> Backend servers should have taken that data and processed the orders to
> completion.
>
>
> The load on the app servers is therefore minimized...And there should
> have been a shitload of front end app servers...
>
> Oh well, leave it to the goverment to F up everything.
>


yeahbut? $300,000,000?

Isn't that a bit steep even for congress?

On 11/19/2013 5:31 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:26:50 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> With out a doubt, ALL governments are corrupt.
>>>> Government is full of people that cant make it on
>>>> their own.
>>>
>>> ...and feel the need to control other's lives.
>>
>> So, what is it?
>>
>> 1) People go into the job looking to do good, but are
>> corrupted by the size of the pig trough that they're
>> handed?
>
> In the case of elected officials, I think it is the realization that they
> "need another term to finalize my vision" and that next term means they need
> money and money means favors; special interests.
>
> The answer is, one term and gone. No pension, no perks, no professional
> politicians. It isn't going to happen. It also wouldn't fix general
> incompetence but at least that incompetence wouldn't be perpetuated; not by
> the same individual at least.
>
> In regards to the ridiculous cost of the health web site, it seems to me
> that people simply have no concept of what things are worth...what they
> SHOULD cost. That isn't confined to government either, I see it all the
> time in daily life.
>


they know the price of everything,
and the value of nothing...

On 11/17/2013 2:34 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 11/17/2013 12:51 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> ll that LBJ and McNamara lied to the American
>> public and sent thousands of American kids to their deaths
>
> The current administration also makes Jimmy Carter look good


I'll give Carter one check mark for being a businessman before a
politician.

On 11/17/2013 4:55 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:56:06 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>> Oh well, leave it to the goverment to F up everything.
>
> Well, you can take some solace in the fact that your government(s)
> aren't the only ones to waste huge amounts of public money.
>
> Ontario gas plants boon doggle. $585 million and up.
> Ehealth for Ontario $800 million and up.
> And, those are just the tip of the iceberg.
>


With out a doubt, ALL governments are corrupt. Government is full of
people that cant make it on their own.

x-no-archive: yes

It all started when our overrated adventurer, Michael Lalonde, woke up in =
a swamp in Sudbury. It was the tenth time it had happened. Feeling really e=
xasperated, Michael Lalonde grabbed a live hand grenade, thinking it would =
make him feel better (but as usual, it did not). As if it really mattered h=
e realized that his beloved Sudbury was missing! Immediately he called hi=
s so-called buddy, Leroy Jenkins. Michael Lalonde had known Leroy Jenkins f=
or (plus or minus) 1.2 billion years, the majority of which were sassy ones=
. Leroy Jenkins was unique. He was charismatic though sometimes a little..=
. oafish. Michael Lalonde called him anyway, for the situation was urgent.

Leroy Jenkins picked up to a very sad Michael Lalonde. Leroy Jenkins cal=
mly assured him that most man-eating capybaras shudder before mating, yet s=
potted wolf hamsters usually earnestly panic *after* mating. He had no idea=
what that meant; he was only concerned with distracting Michael Lalonde. =
Why was Leroy Jenkins trying to distract Michael Lalonde? Because he had s=
nuck out from Michael Lalonde's with the Sudbury only seven days prior. I=
t was a eccentric little Sudbury ... how could he resist?

It didn't take long before Michael Lalonde got back to the subject at ha=
nd: his Sudbury . Leroy Jenkins panicked. Relunctantly, Leroy Jenkins invit=
ed him over, assuring him they'd find the Sudbury . Michael Lalonde grabbed=
his giraffe and disembarked immediately. After hanging up the phone, Leroy=
Jenkins realized that he was in trouble. He had to find a place to hide th=
e Sudbury and he had to do it aimlessly. He figured that if Michael Lalond=
e took the best-in-its-so-called-'class' sedan, he had take at least nine m=
inutes before Michael Lalonde would get there. But if he took the Howard M=
cKoy? Then Leroy Jenkins would be excessively screwed.

Before he could come up with any reasonable ideas, Leroy Jenkins was int=
errupted by three abrasive Ontarios that were lured by his Sudbury . Leroy =
Jenkins yawned; 'Not again', he thought. Feeling frustrated, he aimlessly r=
eached for his ripened avocado and aggressively hit every last one of them.=
Apparently this was an adequate deterrent--the discouraged critters began =
to scurry back toward the lemur-infested moor, squealing with discontent. H=
e exhaled with relief. That's when he heard the Howard McKoy rolling up. =
It was Michael Lalonde.

----o0o----=20

As he pulled up, he felt a sense of urgency. He had had to make an unsch=
eduled stop at Seven-Eleven to pick up a 12-pack of potatos, so he knew he =
was running late. With a mighty leap, Michael Lalonde was out of the Howar=
d McKoy and went explosively jaunting toward Leroy Jenkins's front door. M=
eanwhile inside, Leroy Jenkins was panicking. Not thinking, he tossed the=
Sudbury into a box of gerbils and then slid the box behind his canoe. Ler=
oy Jenkins was worried but at least the Sudbury was concealed. The doorbe=
ll rang.

'Come in,' Leroy Jenkins surreptitiously purred. With a hasty push, Mic=
hael Lalonde opened the door. 'Sorry for being late, but I was being chase=
d by some dimwitted coke fiend in a hippie-pleasing hybrid vehicle,' he lie=
d. 'It's fine,' Leroy Jenkins assured him. Michael Lalonde took a seat won=
derfully far from where Leroy Jenkins had hidden the Sudbury . Leroy Jenkin=
s cringed trying unsuccessfully to hide his nervousness. 'Uhh, can I get y=
ou anything?' he blurted. But Michael Lalonde was distracted. Unaware of t=
he bleakness of existence, Leroy Jenkins noticed a oafish look on Michael L=
alonde's face. Michael Lalonde slowly opened his mouth to speak.

'...What's that smell?'

Leroy Jenkins felt a stabbing pain in his prostate when Michael Lalonde =
asked this. In a moment of disbelief, he realized that he had hidden the S=
udbury right by his oscillating fan. 'Wh-what? I don't smell anything..!'=
A lie. A pestering look started to form on Michael Lalonde's face. He tu=
rned to notice a box that seemed clearly out of place. 'Th-th-those are jus=
t my grandma's bananas from when she used to have pet venomous koalas. She=
, uh...dropped 'em by here earlier'. Michael Lalonde nodded with fake ackno=
wledgement...then, before Leroy Jenkins could react, Michael Lalonde random=
ly lunged toward the box and opened it. The Sudbury was plainly in view.

Michael Lalonde stared at Leroy Jenkins for what what must've been five =
seconds. A few unsatisfying minutes later, Leroy Jenkins groped indiscrimin=
ately in Michael Lalonde's direction, clearly desperate. Michael Lalonde gr=
abbed the Sudbury and bolted for the door. It was locked. Leroy Jenkins l=
et out a enchanting chuckle. 'If only you hadn't been so protective of that=
thing, none of this would have happened, Michael Lalonde,' he rebuked. Ler=
oy Jenkins always had been a little oafish, so Michael Lalonde knew that re=
conciliation was not an option; he needed to escape before Leroy Jenkins di=
d something crazy, like... start chucking carrots at him or something. Befo=
re the all-seeing eyes of a perpetually displeased diety, he gripped his Su=
dbury tightly and made a dash toward the window, diving headlong through t=
he glass panels.

Leroy Jenkins looked on, blankly. 'What the hell? That seemed excessive=
. The other door was open, you know.' Silence from Michael Lalonde. 'And t=
o think, I varnished that window frame ten days ago...it never ends!' Sudde=
nly he felt a tinge of concern for Michael Lalonde. 'Oh. You ..okay?' Stil=
l silence. Leroy Jenkins walked over to the window and looked down. Michael=
Lalonde was gone.

----o0o----=20

Just yonder, Michael Lalonde was struggling to make his way through the =
foxy forest behind Leroy Jenkins's place. Michael Lalonde had severely hurt=
his double chin during the window incident, and was starting to lose stren=
gth. Another pack of feral Ontarios suddenly appeared, having caught wind =
of the Sudbury . One by one they latched on to Michael Lalonde. Already w=
eakened from his injury, Michael Lalonde yielded to the furry onslaught and=
collapsed. The last thing he saw before losing consciousness was a buzzin=
g horde of Ontarios running off with his Sudbury .

lived blissfully happy, forever after.

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:25:09 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:26:50 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> With out a doubt, ALL governments are corrupt. Government is full
>>>> of people that cant make it on their own.
>>>
>>> ...and feel the need to control other's lives.
>>
>> So, what is it?
>>
>> 1) People go into the job looking to do good, but are corrupted by the
>> size of the pig trough that they're handed?
>>
>> 2) They're corrupted to start and go into the job looking to increase
>> the amount of money they can fleece out of the public purse?
>>
>> 3) They have megalomaniac personalities and go into the job looking to
>> satisfy their delusions of grandeur and entitlement?
>>
>> 4) ???
>
>Who cares? It all comes out the same in the end.

Now you sound like Hillary.

On 11/17/2013 9:14 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:26:50 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>> With out a doubt, ALL governments are corrupt. Government is full of
>>> people that cant make it on their own.
>>
>> ...and feel the need to control other's lives.
>
> So, what is it?
>
> 1) People go into the job looking to do good, but are corrupted by the
> size of the pig trough that they're handed?
>
> 2) They're corrupted to start and go into the job looking to increase
> the amount of money they can fleece out of the public purse?
>
> 3) They have megalomaniac personalities and go into the job looking to
> satisfy their delusions of grandeur and entitlement?
>
> 4) ???


Just 3.

On 11/17/2013 02:56 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> On 11/17/2013 11:53 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>> You mean the people that spent $300 million-ish and can't make a website
>> work?
> Try more like 600 million.. (doesn't make sense) That money should have had an amazing set of servers and a decent web turnout.
>
> There's really not much that should have gone this badly.
>
> The servers doing the public interface (app servers) should have just taken the info.
> Backend servers should have taken that data and processed the orders to completion.
>
>
> The load on the app servers is therefore minimized...And there should have been a shitload of front end app servers...
>
> Oh well, leave it to the goverment to F up everything.
>


The $600M number is the total for that vendor last year, as I understand
it, not all of which was spent on the ACA website.

But really, even if the number was $50M, it would be outrageous.

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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

>
> I have family that made some of their living buying used inventory at
> auctions, fixing the cars up, and selling them. No more. The cost of
> used inventory is so high due to this artificially low supply, that it's
> just not
> worth it. And who gets hurt most? People at the bottom of the
> economic pile for whom an affordable used car is the only choice unless
> they live in a
> place with decent public transportation. These people, of course,
> are the ones the progressive-left cares very, very, very deeply about.
>

That's the real problem with feel good laws that idiots vote for and stand
behind without even a moment of thought. The unintended consequences always
hurt those that can least afford the hurt.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 11/17/2013 12:51 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ll that LBJ and McNamara lied to the American
> public and sent thousands of American kids to their deaths

The current administration also makes Jimmy Carter look good

The objective of the ARRA and its "Cash for Clunkers" provision was not to
save oil or save taxpayer's money; its purpose was to transfer wealth from the
middle class to corportions and the wealthy, similar to much of the legislation
passed in the last few decades that was written by lobbyists and major
campaigh contributors.


--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry W. - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:26:50 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>> With out a doubt, ALL governments are corrupt. Government is full
>>> of people that cant make it on their own.
>>
>> ...and feel the need to control other's lives.
>
> So, what is it?
>
> 1) People go into the job looking to do good, but are corrupted by the
> size of the pig trough that they're handed?
>
> 2) They're corrupted to start and go into the job looking to increase
> the amount of money they can fleece out of the public purse?
>
> 3) They have megalomaniac personalities and go into the job looking to
> satisfy their delusions of grandeur and entitlement?
>
> 4) ???

Who cares? It all comes out the same in the end.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:26:50 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> > > With out a doubt, ALL governments are corrupt.
> > > Government is full of people that cant make it on
> > > their own.
> >
> > ...and feel the need to control other's lives.
>
> So, what is it?
>
> 1) People go into the job looking to do good, but are
> corrupted by the size of the pig trough that they're
> handed?

In the case of elected officials, I think it is the realization that they
"need another term to finalize my vision" and that next term means they need
money and money means favors; special interests.

The answer is, one term and gone. No pension, no perks, no professional
politicians. It isn't going to happen. It also wouldn't fix general
incompetence but at least that incompetence wouldn't be perpetuated; not by
the same individual at least.

In regards to the ridiculous cost of the health web site, it seems to me
that people simply have no concept of what things are worth...what they
SHOULD cost. That isn't confined to government either, I see it all the
time in daily life.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

"Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> I think voting when there is not a candidate that one
> wants in office is only encouraging bad behavior. We
> don't get to choose who runs for office, perhaps that is
> the problem, as now it is "pick your poison".

And what of the primaries? True, some places have closed primaries and to
vote in those one has to be a registered part member but a primary is, after
all, a party function.

> Voting against vs. voting for is not working either.

Which is why I started a number (25? 30?) years ago advocating to simply do
away with elections. Pick'em out of a hat just as they do for juries. Yes,
we'd get an occasional crook; yes, we'd get some that were totally
incompetent. We get that now but these wouldn't be running for re-election
and currying favor from all that could help in that effort.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On 11/20/2013 9:43 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> > "Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >
> > > I think voting when there is not a candidate that one
> > > wants in office is only encouraging bad behavior. We
> > > don't get to choose who runs for office, perhaps that
> > > is the problem, as now it is "pick your poison".
> >
> > And what of the primaries? True, some places have
> > closed primaries and to vote in those one has to be a
> > registered part member but a primary is, after all, a
> > party function.
> > > Voting against vs. voting for is not working either.
> >
> > Which is why I started a number (25? 30?) years ago
> > advocating to simply do away with elections. Pick'em
> > out of a hat just as they do for juries. Yes, we'd get
> > an occasional crook; yes, we'd get some that were
> > totally incompetent. We get that now but these
> > wouldn't be running for re-election and currying favor
> > from all that could help in that effort.
> You can't do it. That's called involuntary servitude,
> and like slavery it's unconstitutional.

Dang! There goes the trial system.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

[email protected] wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>

<snip>

what in the world was that all about?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

About ten years ago, I did some web frontend and database work for the US Military (branch of the Joint Chiefs). It was required to provide 24/7 access for a worldwide client base of several thousand (total number greater than my security clearance ;-) Testing was done on a single server at the contractor site and (when some stupid things not in the spec were removed - all results of "Let's add this feature" mania) it worked well during testing. One of my military contacts later told me that the secure working system (behind a serious firewall and on a slightly more powerful server) worked well when all users were online. And it was done on or close to budget.

It was nice while it lasted - the best hourly rate I'd ever gotten and I was working from home 95% of the time.

Unfortunately, one of the managers at the contracting company got stupid after Phase 1 was successfully completed and dumped the productive programmers in favor of being a nanny -"Susie needs her job because she has a child" even though Susie couldn't program her way out of an open Big Mac container. The project fell apart, they lost the contract, the nanny manager and Susie both were fired.

I doubt that we'll ever hear details like that about brokenhealthcare.gov

woodchucker<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/17/2013 11:53 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> > You mean the people that spent $300 million-ish and can't make a website
> > work?
> Try more like 600 million.. (doesn't make sense) That money should have
> had an amazing set of servers and a decent web turnout.
> There's really not much that should have gone this badly.
> The servers doing the public interface (app servers) should have just
> taken the info.
> Backend servers should have taken that data and processed the orders to
> completion.
> The load on the app servers is therefore minimized...And there should
> have been a shitload of front end app servers...
> Oh well, leave it to the goverment to F up everything.
> --
> Jeff


--
Android Usenet Reader
http://android.newsgroupstats.hk

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 16:02:54 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 11/17/2013 12:51 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> It's like watching LBJ
>> squirm to a long and protracted political death all over
>> again. Recall that LBJ and McNamara lied to the American
>> public and sent thousands of American kids to their deaths
>> for purely political purposes. Yet compared to the current
>> administration LBJ is a Hero and Patriot 1st Class...
>
>I have long believed that LBJ was part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
>
>He was such a power monger, and control freak.. his desk and chair were
>raised and people sitting across were so low..
>
>It happened in his state.
>Jack Ruby helped with the cover up then died of a heart attack (like
>that could not be part of the conspiracy right)?

There is a difference between a conspiracy theory and real life. What
makes this, and most other, conspiracy theories hard to believe is
that too many people would have to be involved to keep it secret for a
half a century. Note that the NSA couldn't even keep a secret.

>The government can not be trusted..
>Remember military men being used as guinea pigs for LSD tests.
>Or many black men were subjected to another test (can't remember) w/out
>their knowledge.

Syphilis.

>McCarthy..
>
>Our government has proved itself repeatedly to be an untrustworthy entity.

Governments *always* are untrustworthy. That's the whole reason the
founding fathers designed the government to be as small as possible,
with as few powers as possible. They even foresaw what would happen.

>But I still love my country.. just not the idiots in power.

+1

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:14:44 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:26:50 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>With out a doubt, ALL governments are corrupt. Government is full of
>>>people that cant make it on their own.
>>
>>...and feel the need to control other's lives.
>
>So, what is it?
>
>1) People go into the job looking to do good, but are corrupted by the
>size of the pig trough that they're handed?

Often, yes.

>2) They're corrupted to start and go into the job looking to increase
>the amount of money they can fleece out of the public purse?

Very often. They're called "Democrats".

>3) They have megalomaniac personalities and go into the job looking to
>satisfy their delusions of grandeur and entitlement?

In the vast majority of cases. You really have to be unusually
extroverted to even go into that business. Megalomania isn't but a
stone's throw from there.

>4) ???

4) All of the above.
-----------------

On 11/20/2013 8:13 AM, Leon wrote:

> Voting against vs. voting for is not working either.

Want to keep Texas Red this next election ... better damned well vote
Red _and nothing else_, or you will absolutely insure it goes Blue:

http://www.kltv.com/story/23894104/the-blue-movement-battleground-texas-striving-to-turn-texas-elections-competitive

The fucking transplants move here because they can't make a living where
their progressive ideals have polluted the public trough, then come here
wanting to do the same thing all over again. WTF?

Be wary, and vote RED only, or lose it!

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 11/17/2013 12:51 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> It's like watching LBJ
> squirm to a long and protracted political death all over
> again. Recall that LBJ and McNamara lied to the American
> public and sent thousands of American kids to their deaths
> for purely political purposes. Yet compared to the current
> administration LBJ is a Hero and Patriot 1st Class...

I have long believed that LBJ was part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

He was such a power monger, and control freak.. his desk and chair were
raised and people sitting across were so low..

It happened in his state.
Jack Ruby helped with the cover up then died of a heart attack (like
that could not be part of the conspiracy right)?

The government can not be trusted..
Remember military men being used as guinea pigs for LSD tests.
Or many black men were subjected to another test (can't remember) w/out
their knowledge.

McCarthy..

Our government has proved itself repeatedly to be an untrustworthy entity.

But I still love my country.. just not the idiots in power.

--
Jeff

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 08:13:00 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 11/20/2013 12:09 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 11/19/2013 09:44 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>> I agree one and out... but think about voting outside the party
>>> system, since its the party system that is causing the problems.
>>>
>>> So vote for an independent, lets start a revolution of independent
>>> thinkers, and no ties to the parties.
>>
>> Nope, that's not the problem. The problem is the voters themselves.
>> Politicians will do what it takes to get reelected. The people are
>> the ones that keep voting for Santa to give them "free" things. You
>> cannot fix politics until you fix the electorate and this is unlikely
>> given that the "education" system is controlled by people who have
>> a vested interest in perpetuating a large, overweening, central
>> government.
>>
>
>
>Suppose nobody showed up on election day because no one wanted to vote
>for any of those running for office. That might signal the disgust we
>have with our elected leaders and the political system that we have
>created. No one is reelected, terms expire, scoundrels are booted, and
>the government goes on autopilot. That might be better.

Nobody? It only takes one.
>
>It seems obvious that regardless of who you vote for you are going to be
>disappointed whether he or she wins the election or not.

True. I look at voting as choosing the lesser of evils. It really
has to be that way because no one will agree on everything.

>I think voting when there is not a candidate that one wants in office is
>only encouraging bad behavior. We don't get to choose who runs for
>office, perhaps that is the problem, as now it is "pick your poison".

Sure you do. It's called "primaries".

>Voting against vs. voting for is not working either.

So you think a dictatorship would be better?

On 11/20/2013 12:09 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 11/19/2013 09:44 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>> I agree one and out... but think about voting outside the party
>> system, since its the party system that is causing the problems.
>>
>> So vote for an independent, lets start a revolution of independent
>> thinkers, and no ties to the parties.
>
> Nope, that's not the problem. The problem is the voters themselves.
> Politicians will do what it takes to get reelected. The people are
> the ones that keep voting for Santa to give them "free" things. You
> cannot fix politics until you fix the electorate and this is unlikely
> given that the "education" system is controlled by people who have
> a vested interest in perpetuating a large, overweening, central
> government.
>


Suppose nobody showed up on election day because no one wanted to vote
for any of those running for office. That might signal the disgust we
have with our elected leaders and the political system that we have
created. No one is reelected, terms expire, scoundrels are booted, and
the government goes on autopilot. That might be better.


It seems obvious that regardless of who you vote for you are going to be
disappointed whether he or she wins the election or not.

I think voting when there is not a candidate that one wants in office is
only encouraging bad behavior. We don't get to choose who runs for
office, perhaps that is the problem, as now it is "pick your poison".

Voting against vs. voting for is not working either.

On 11/20/2013 02:05 PM, Leon wrote:
> that is why they elected obama.

Yes, that's probably a good part of it. But it's also true for
Bush 43 - Remember the $1T unfunded mandate for drugs for seniors?
In fact, I'd venture to say it's true for every single administration
from FDR forward. Even Reagan - notwithstanding how much I otherwise
admire him - managed to deficit spend like crazy in context of his times.

The truth is that the population at large does not want a smaller government.
That horse left the barn when the New Deal was enacted and Constitution
violated for all time. No, most people want *their king of government*
that emphasized their particular narrow interests. The right wants
an authoritarian daddy state, and the left want a feel-good mommy
state. Both are repulsive to anyone that values liberty.

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

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 16:37:59 -0600, Richard <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 11/17/2013 2:56 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>> On 11/17/2013 11:53 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>
>>> You mean the people that spent $300 million-ish and can't make a website
>>> work?
>> Try more like 600 million.. (doesn't make sense) That money should have
>> had an amazing set of servers and a decent web turnout.
>>
>> There's really not much that should have gone this badly.
>>
>> The servers doing the public interface (app servers) should have just
>> taken the info.
>> Backend servers should have taken that data and processed the orders to
>> completion.
>>
>>
>> The load on the app servers is therefore minimized...And there should
>> have been a shitload of front end app servers...
>>
>> Oh well, leave it to the goverment to F up everything.
>>
>
>
>yeahbut? $300,000,000?

$600,000,000

>Isn't that a bit steep even for congress?

They ain't got the final bill yet. $600,000,00 was only for the
fuckup. You haven't seen the "fix" yet. Obama's friends have the
country's checkbook in hand.

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 11:51:24 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 11/17/2013 11:30 AM, [email protected] wrote:
><SNIP>
>
>
>>
>> Wait until all small businesses dump their health care next year and
>> then the large businesses the year after. It's inevitable.
>
>It's the intended endgame. The progressive-left axis-of-weasels in
>power is purposefully making healthcare so complex, so expensive,
>and so lousy that the sheeple will clamor for national healthcare.

Of course it is. It wasn't even kept secret. No one wanted to listen
to the lies, though.

>It is not inevitable, however. The Valerie Jarrett marketing
>machine really messed up here. She evidently never considered that there
>might be serious pushback from the grownups in the country - grownups
>*inside* the Democrat party. Obama's approval rating is in the tank
>and falling. There is a good chance that some level of competence in
>government could be restored in the midterms and quash this stupidity. We'll
>see.

They don't care. Obama won't be reelected. It's a one-way street to
socialism. There aren't any adults in the Democratic party. They were
purged in the '90s.

>In any case, watching this administration choke on its own
>arrogance and bile is a delight to behold. It's the best
>feelgood TV on the air right now. It's like watching LBJ
>squirm to a long and protracted political death all over
>again. Recall that LBJ and McNamara lied to the American
>public and sent thousands of American kids to their deaths
>for purely political purposes. Yet compared to the current
>administration LBJ is a Hero and Patriot 1st Class...

Whatever he was, he was also an adult. He knew he'd f'd up and left
town.