In our fondest dreams ...

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:301220091652408819%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A country not in decline? You've seen Detroit lately, Bubba?
>
> Try looking at Detroit through Google Earth.
>
> It's incredible. Entire blocks with only one house left. Lots of entire
> blocks...

I saw an article recently where farmers are reclaiming industrial land in
Detroit to grow crops. They say it is cheaper to lease the land there than
in farm country.

Somebody wrote:

> Don't borrow money and don't buy what you cannot afford.
--------------------------------------------------

Sound like words straight out of my mother's mouth long after I became
an adult.

Patience is a virtue.

Just because you want something doesn't mean you need it.

Having said that, there is a place for credit, just need to recognize
it also has a cost.

IMHO, credit cards are for less than 30 day expenditures.

Debit cards are for banks to screw the public.

Lew

----------------------------------------------
Swingman wrote:

> Watched the recent PBS FrontLine thing on credit cards last night
> (tivoed from Tuesday) ... sickening, that.
>
> Despite the predictable and thinly veiled jabs at Repugnantlicans,
> it was painful to see to what extent both parties can be bought by
> lobbyist.
>
> Then again, stupid is as stupid does ... keep 'em ignorant, to the
> point
>> that they can't balance their check books, so the bankers and their
>> paid for politicians can steal 'em blind.
------------------------------------------------

"Perry Aynum" wrote:

> Don't mean to scare you, Swingman, but we're of one mind on this
> subject. Frontline tends to do a pretty good job.

----------------------------------------------
IMHO, the biggest con job on the planet has been the bank "Debit
Card".

The banks have blatantly transferred much of their "credit card" risk
to the customer via the "debit card".

As the saying goes, "There is a sucker born every minute."


Lew

Swingman wrote:

> Nahhh... only a foolish few will remember the media blathering at a
> poor, defenseless, convenient target of opportunity. :)
>
> More to my point ... FEMA will be the same, inept, bureaucracy
> regardless of which party is in power.
>
> Having personally lost a home in a Gulf Coast storm, and being
> forced to deal with FEMA in the aftermath, I can assure you that
> neither "political persuasion", nor "parties" at any level, had any
> bearing on the typical inept bureaucratic "response thereto".

What time frame are you talking about?

Lew

"Larry Blanchard" wrote:

> I plonked Tim a long time ago. If you guys would quit responding to
> his
> diatribes I'd never know he was still around. Why do you persist?
> You're never going to make a dent in that self-centered ego.
------------------------------------------
I'm with you, having done the same; however, they have played with
chicken shit for so long, they are oblivious to the smell.

Lew


> --
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 1/1/2010 12:29 PM, Perry Aynum wrote:
> > You seen New Orleans, Bubba?
>
> Yeah, my home state ... do notice that the part of NOLA settled when the
> population looked after themselves and exercised common sense in still
> intact and thriving.
>
> But, let's see, we have an irrrational need to blame a natural disaster
> on a political persuasion, eh?
>
> What fucking bloody idiocy you guys can foster ... you really should be
> ashamed.

I really want to get back to Nawlins. I've been a couple of times,
before Katrina hit. Love the city, and the people. Well, some of the
people...

But never again in the summer.

"Dave Balderstone" wrote:

> Try looking at Detroit through Google Earth.
>
> It's incredible. Entire blocks with only one house left. Lots of
> entire
> blocks...

That's VERY old news.

Came as a direct result of the Detroit race riots of the 60s.

Whitey fled to the burbs in mass leaving a dust trail behind after the
riots.

Ask somebody, "Where you from?", and they would answer "burb name of
choice", never "Detroit".

East side of Cleveland was abandoned in the same way after the 60s
riots there.

Still abandoned when I left 20 years ago.

Lew

DGDevin wrote:

>> Again, bull. People have been bemoaning the supposed decline of
>> the country
>> as long as the country has existed, some folks just seem to enjoy
>> forecasting doom.
====================================
"Swingman" wrote:

> A country not in decline? You've seen Detroit lately, Bubba?
=====================================

Unfortunately, much of Detroit is not prepared to fill today's jobs.

Computer related activities seem to be going begging for lack of
available talent.

Computer game programmers, Google, etc, all have openings for
qualified people.

There are lots of economic opportunities, just need to be prepared to
handle them.

Doom and gloom has always been around.

It still remains what it is, total crap.

Lew

====================================
"Nonny" wrote:

>I feel that ALL elected officials should have just TWO terms: One as
>>elected and one in prison for what the did in the former.
====================================
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Nonny - I know you're just stirring a bucket of shit with that
comment, but
I have to say - it's probably the best comment to have appeared in
this
thread.
======================================

I once advocated that a person could run for any office, win their
election and serve the term.

They could also run for a 2nd term, and again win their election.

As a part of the swearing in ceremony for the 2nd term, the would be
shot dead.

For some reason, could never develop any support for the idea.

Lew

On Dec 30, 5:28=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:35:17 -0600, Swingman wrote:
> > Congressional Reform Act of 2010
>
> <snip of some excellent ideas>
>
> I have an even simpler idea which, of course, also doesn't have a
> snowballs chance in hell.
>
> One of the big problems is congress/senate members sending pork to their
> home state to buy their re-election. =A0So:
>
> All representatives and senators, after their initial election, will have
> no choice of venue when running for re-election. =A0They will be randomly
> assigned a state/district and must convince the voters of that state to
> re-elect them.

Then they'll just send the pork home to THAT district, and campaign
for District Y based on their track record of bringing home ample
bacon. Re-election rates for incumbents would likely remain static.

Nah. If anybody wanted serious change, two things need to happen:

1) Some sort of serious lobbying reform, and

2) Public financing of all federal campaigns, only.

There is no single factor that corrupts our political process/system
as much as the infiltration of money into its core.

The other corrupting elements, in aggregate, don't come anywhere CLOSE
to measuring up.

On Dec 30, 8:20=A0pm, "Nonny" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:cd67188e-713b-4fcf-ba7e-a701d0406a94@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Scrap all of that.
>
> > How about a minimum IQ standard???
>
> Scrap that: =A0where would it leave the democrats?

In office, obviously, but I'm not sure that solves anything....

On 1/3/2010 8:12 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 3, 8:12 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 1/3/2010 5:59 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 3, 6:38 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 1/3/2010 5:26 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:09:50 -0800, Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>>>>> It is only a foolish comment because it doesn't fit your idea of that
>>>>>> dream world you live in, Tim.
>>
>>>>> I plonked Tim a long time ago. If you guys would quit responding to his
>>>>> diatribes I'd never know he was still around. Why do you persist?
>>>>> You're never going to make a dent in that self-centered ego.
>>
>>>> Translation: I can't combat Tim's ideas so I'll attack him personally.
>>
>>> Translation: Please buy my bullshit as I am invincible!!!
>>
>>> Put down your arms, fellow wRECers!! Tim cannot be defeated!!! All
>>> hail TIM!!!
>>> We should all be grateful that Tim descends down to our level once in
>>> a while and takes the time to even talk to us. Nay..._blesses_ us with
>>> his wisdom.
>>
>> You don't need to be grateful for any such thing. You do need to
>> develop some manners, however.
>>
> Speak to me, oh Wise One, so I may communicate with You on Your
> fucking terms.
>

I will settle for you communicating with everyone in simply decent terms.

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

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Congressional Reform Act of 2010

>7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American
>people.

a) They must all do their income taxes, personally, by hand, and are audited
every other year.

b) They must run their offices by the same laws as any other business of
equivalent size and are required to personally file all required paperwork.

c) They will draw no government salary when running for office or otherwise
tending to business other than the taxpayers'.

d) They are subject to the same limitations on gifts, meals, and trips as any
other government employee.


-- Doug

On Dec 30, 5:14=A0pm, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> Scrap all of that.
>
> >How about a minimum IQ standard???
>
> OK. What would be your standard? I vote for 150.

At the risk of being immodest, I'm going to be sucking up all the
coffee and eating the last of the donuts after everybody else has
pushed the bar up as high as they might like.

But ... that's just me ... :-)

I also think it IS a silly way to choose who votes and who doesn't,
and was hoping to indicate how unlikely it was that anybody (certainly
here, but ... generally) was ever going to draw a line that stood ANY
chance of leaving THEM outside of the polling place.

See you at the polls!

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:38:55 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:9cde0aa9-f57f-4fc0-80a9-187a11696145@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>On Dec 30, 10:53 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in
>>>> any free state. Often they're too uninformed to have an educated
>>>> opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote.
>>
>
>> What a presumptuous fool you are! I said nothing about what people
>> should believe or how they should vote, or even whether they should be
>> allowed to vote. I do believe that perhaps they shouldn't vote if
>> they haven't made some effort in understanding the issues. Most
>> don't, so we end up with a mess like we have currently.
>
>Reference your very words above, which I had quoted in my reply. You very
>clearly state the reason people don't vote.

Yes, I did. I also stated that that is their right, in a free state.

>You further state that they are often too uninformed therefore should not vote.

Correct. Note the word "should". I did *not* say "should not be able
to", or "should not be allowed to", or any other words you want to put
in my mouth.

>That is what I called you on. People vote on what is important to them.
> That is a very real part of
>the voting process. You don't have to like it, but that's life. It's not
>yours to decide if that qualifies them to vote,

I didn't say anything of the sort, asshole. I said nothing about them
not being allowed to vote, just that those ignorant of the issues,
simply shouldn't. I also didn't, as you imply, say anything about
their being able to vote based on what they, or I, think about any
particular issue. IOW, you're a damned liar.

>or to state that those who do not vote are simply too lazy.

The fact is that that's why most don't vote. Their being lazy or not
voting isn't dependent on my saying so, or not. The facts are the
facts.

>> >> Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
>> >> purpose, don't you think?
>> > No, voting for the "lesser of evils" certainly doesn't defeat any
>> > purpose. You're never going to be 100% happy with another controlling
>> > your life. Less is better than more.
>>
>>> It most certainly can defeat the purpose. This has been demonstrated time
>>> and time again, as Washington critters prove to be one and the same,
>>> regardles of their party affiliation or their promises.
>
>> Nonsense. You propose that things can never be worse.
>
>I propose no such thing. You need to stop trying to assign thoughts and
>motives to other people. You only serve to embarass yourself when you are
>wrong.

You certainly don't think any better than you read.

>> What an ass.
>
>You are too transparent. Those who disagree with you must all be asses.

No, those who can't read or think, yet tell others what they write and
think are the asses, asshole.

On 12/30/2009 2:18 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Dec 30, 12:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Uh huh, just like ACORN did to get people like Dear Leader and
>> Al "The Clown" Franken elected.
>
> It always elevates the rhetoric to begin casting aspersions like that.

Go review the MN election. Without the ACORN distortions, Franken
loses.

>
>> Election fraud at some slight
>> level has been with us for decades. It's smaller here than in
>> other places, but it will never be zero. cf The JFK election.
>
> I didn't mean that the Right had a monopoly on it, but ... what do you
> recall about Database Technologies vis-a-vis the Bush/Gore election.
> There clearly WERE some paid-by-the-piece ACORN folk who ripped off
> the company, and -- in so doing -- harmed the process.
>
> But I've seen no evidence it was condoned, sanctioned, sponsored, or
> directed by the organization. If you recall the Database Technologies
> story, then you'll know the same can't be said of that whole
> situation.
>
>> What is interesting is that in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore,
>> even the Bush-Haters like the New York Times came to the conclusion
>> that Bush did, indeed, win FL in 2000.
>
> That doesn't address the issue of how.
>
>> This is unlike the case
>> of ACORN for where there is overwhelming evidence that they
>> are lying, cheating, and stealing on a massive repetitive scale.
>
> I'd be interested in a citation for that. That doesn't comport with
> the info that I've seen.

I'd be interested in it too. The problem is that what rises to
the necessary level of proof legally is different than what we
can figure out ourselves as common sense. Watching the ACORN
leaders twist and turn as they are assaulted by their right wing
critics makes it clear that ACORN is hiding a lot. They are tap
dancing like crazy not just on the "'Hogate 2009" but on their
voter signup practices. When it smells like poo, it probably is.


>
>>> Out of curiosity, does the proponent of this not-good-not-new idea
>>> also miss the Good Old Days of ... slavery?
>>
>> You are deeply confused my friend.
>
> Well, thank the Good Lord for what I clearly feel is the imminent
> opportunity for YOU to set me straight!!!

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as condescending. I was actually
trying to be sort of friendly ...


>
>> The "slaves" today, are the half
>> the country that are paying taxes so the other half doesn't pay any.
>> The "slaves" are the business owners that have to go through all kinds
>> of government regulatory hoops, put their own capital at risk, hire
>> and fire according to today's PC culture, and then - after 30 years -
>> be told that they are "rich" and need to pay their "fair share". The
>> "slaves" today are the people who are being told what to do with their
>> personal property and their lives to satisfy the tender sensibilities
>> of whichever group happens to currently occupy power.
>
> Meh. Easily countered bumper-sticker arguments. I'll pass on the
> bait, though.

Go ahead, counter them if they are trivial arguments. Explain to me
why it's OK to enslave me for 5 months a year.

>
> As for the rest of your post ... it's tantamount to a "Bush-Cheney" or
> "McCain-Palin" sticker on a Suburban or Yukon: redundant and
> superfluous :-)

I liked neither. However, the current Messiah's performance is guarnteeing
that I am going to do something I have not done in literally decades -
vote a straight, blind R ticket for the next several elections. I'd even
take Gingrich-Palin over what we have now. (And I almost NEVER vote for a
Republican.)




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

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:11:19 -0500, the infamous "Larry C"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>(snip)
>>
>>
>
>
>The bigger issue, I believe, is that only a small percentage of the
>electorate vote during an election.
>
>The elected know that if they cater to a certain group than they have a good
>chance of being reelected because that group will go out and vote. If more
>people voted, then the "base" that we always hear about would not be as
>defined.
>
>It boggles my mind that people do not vote.

Can you blame them? I've only voted for one of the last 5 presidents,
and that covers 7 terms, or 28 _years_! The rest (Clintoon, Dubya,
Osama Bin Biden) got in despite my best voting each and every time.
I've become extremely discouraged, but I still vote in every election
I'm entitled. I'm saddened, but I can't blame them for thinking that
their vote doesn't mean squat. In some ways, if everyone who was
wishy-washy voted, more bad guys would win by promising more crap and,
as usual, failing to deliver any of it. (See "Obama's gonna pay my
rent/car payment/utilities" video.)

--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:24:17 -0600, Leon wrote:
>
>> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>
>>> It has come down to voting for the lesser of several evils lately.
>>> <sigh>
>>
>>
>> And to restate what I stated previously, why participate in such an
>> atrocity.
>
> Because it helps keep the *greater* evil out of office :-).
>

These days, I'm not so sure there really is a greater evil and a lesser
evil - just a different evil.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Dec 31, 5:06=A0am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]=
.com>, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 30, 8:20=3DA0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Neil Brooks wrote:
> >> > How about a minimum IQ standard???
>
> >> Looks good on paper but has a _bad_ history in the US, where a black C=
altech
> >> PhD couldn't pass the government's IQ test but an inbred white hick co=
uld in
> >> some states.
>
> >They do usually point to Stanford-Binet as being *terrifyingly*
> >culturally biased, so ... yeah ... I agree.
>
> It's not just the Stanford-Binet -- they *all* are. Not as badly now as t=
hey
> used to be, however.
>
> As I suggested yesterday, read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gou=
ld.
> It will open your eyes.

Ordered, and ... thanks.

On 12/30/2009 2:08 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Dec 30, 12:45 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/30/2009 1:05 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 30, 12:01 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 12/30/2009 12:27 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Swingman"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>>> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
>>>>>> only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that piss off
>>>>>> the politicians and lobbyist.
>>
>>>>>> This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
>>>>>> factor in the eventual downfall of this country.
>>
>>>>>> Sad, but true.
>>
>>>>> Bull, giving political power only to those with wealth is repugnant, you
>>>>> couldn't come up with something that would make politicians and lobbyists
>>>>> happier. The ability of the people to throw morons and crooks out of office
>>>>> is one of the few things that keep the bastards in line.
>>
>>>>> Are you going to tell a youth who volunteers to risk his life serving his
>>>>> country in uniform that he doesn't get to vote because he doesn't have any
>>>>> property? If the mill closes and people lose their jobs and their homes
>>>>> should that result in them losing the vote? Do you seriously propose that
>>>>> citizens who rent apartments are inherently entitled to fewer rights than
>>>>> people who own houses?
>>
>>>>> No offense, but that is one lameass idea.
>>
>>>> Tell that to your founding fathers, who first instituted the practice.
>>
>>> You mean ... of course ... the slave-owning founding fathers?
>>
>>> Do you have a calendar handy? Do you realize this is ...
>>> effectively ... 2010??
>>
>>> If you yearn for those times, I can list for you a HOST of emerging
>>> nations whose systems much more closely resemble that of our earliest
>>> days as a nation.
>>
>>> [nothing of relevance snipped]
>>
>> Since you insist on harping on slavery, let me acquaint you with some
>> realities of slavery you're conveniently ignoring:
>>
>> - Slavery in some form has existed in all of recorded human history.
>>
>> - The slavery that brought Africans to the US was instituted BY Africans
>> AGAINST Africans long before the Europeans ever showed up.
>>
>> - African Muslim pirates (the Barbary Corsairs) attacked and enslaved
>> white Europeans well before the Europeans ever engaged in slavery themselves.
>> These pirates operated from the 11th century through the 19th by
>> some accounts.
>>
>> - Of all major cultures ONLY the Judeo-Christian influenced Westerners
>> *gave up slavery voluntarily*, whether by internal civil war or
>> legislative decree.
>>
>> - One of the two places in the world you can still buy slaves in large
>> numbers is ... wait for it ... AFRICA. (Somalia and Mauretania to be
>> exact. The other is the white slavery going on in the Eastern Bloc
>> and Islamic worlds.)
>>
>> So, before you get too haughty about the eeeeeeeeeevil Founding
>> Fathers, you might want to ponder their context and realize that in
>> less than 100 years after the US was formed as a nation (1776-1865)
>> slavery was abolished. We got rid of something in a hundred years that
>> had been going on for 10 *thousand* before. It was EXACTLY because of
>> the ideals of these people and their fundamental principles of
>> government that slavery could not and did not survive. Dismissing them
>> as mere slavers with a corrupt morality utterly misses the point.
>>
>> So, just why do you and your fellow politically correct travelers leap
>> at the opportunity to criticize the founders of the US - founders
>> that led us on a path of freedom for more people, more rapidly than
>> at any point in history - BUT you're entirely silent about the
>> millennia of slavery and human rights abuses in Africa and the rest of
>> the world?
>> world?
>
> Eloquent, but ... sadly ... in the end ... pointless.
>
> They also owned slaves. You may say that was "right for their times"
> or ... something equivalent, but ... many "knew better," and the
> practice was relatively speedily abolished.
>
> The notion that others did it before them, or that it still goes on
> elsewhere, likewise, does nothing to the argument.
>
> It's a fools effort to declare that things that were right in 1776 are
> therefore automatically right, now.
>

And I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying that denying the essential
correctness of the Founders' ideas because they happened to live at
a time slavery was "normal", really misses the genius of their contribution.
The fact is that ALL Americans today are victims of slavery in some sense.
We are all paying the bitter harvest of this most evil of practices. But
if we not place this in context by also admiring the 99% that was right
about our founders we end up beating ourselves up needlessly and
thereby miss the essence of American exceptionalism. i.e. We start
to take the modern political left seriously rather than heaping the
scorn upon it, so richly deserved...

Again, I ask: Where is the similar level of outrage against the Islamists
that are this very day buying African slaves? Why is there no hue and cry
directed against the Somalis and Mauretanians for their slaving? If
Jefferson, Madison, et al were wrong for not immediately stopping slavery
after less than 300 years of Western presence in the New World, why are
you not also up in arms about the Barbary Barbarians that predated them
by several hundred years and continued the practice another hundred thereafter?
Methinks there is political agenda here ...


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

On 1/1/2010 3:52 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

> The banks have blatantly transferred much of their "credit card" risk
> to the customer via the "debit card".

> As the saying goes, "There is a sucker born every minute."

Yep, most any tool is a danger to a fool ... and that's what they count on.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Jan 2, 4:04=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>It is one thing for folks to be so ill educated that they can't keep
>track of their own finances, but it is another for the banking industry
>to foster that ignorance,

THIS!

On 1/3/2010 11:24 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jan 3, 10:02 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 5:00 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/2/2010 2:18 PM, Robatoy wrote:> On Jan 2, 2:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>>> We all know why you hate "The Bankers" ... why don't you just come out
>>>>> and say so (again)...
>>
>>>> I hate them because they are bloodsucking leeches. Lending money to
>>>> those who spend it on stupid stuff.
>>
>>> And just who gets to decide what is "stupid stuff"? Me? You? We
>>> all vote? A central idea of being free is that you are free to be
>>> an idiot - witness pop culture and almost all of TV for trenchant
>>> examples.
>>
>> Those would be trenchant examples of stuff that _you_ don't like. So
>> all is cool.....if Tim likes it, wot?
>> That pop culture, based on idiots creating it, was rampant centuries
>> ago. The same stuff you listen to now, and find intellectually
>> stimulating, was pop culture in its day. The chamber maids used to
>> sell the contents of Franz Liszt's chamber pot to the screeching
>> groupies, many of which would get all wet when Nikkie "The Pag"
>> Paganini did his Ygwe Malmsteen, imitations. Everybody knows that
>> Rossini wrote The Barber of Seville for Mel Blanc. Bernstein used to
>> dream of blowing bears.
>> You got a real problem with that over-sized wagging finger of yours
>> Tim and coupled with that OCD you suffer from you must not have very
>> many happy moments in your life. So I understand that you're anxious
>> to want to participate in this group, but you want it on your terms
>> only. Ain't gonna fucking happen, Tim. Not as long as you keep
>> dragging those straw men in here and not as long as you keep opening
>> these big barrels of red herrings.
>> Also, those paranoid delusions that the whole world is out to steal
>> from you require a different set of medications than the OCD. Take a
>> pill, take a powder...lighten-the-fuck up, Tim.
>
> Poetry.

Amusing and puerile.

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

"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>
>>
>> It most certainly can defeat the purpose. This has been demonstrated
>> time and time again, as Washington critters prove to be one and the same,
>> regardles of their party affiliation or their promises.
>>
> I assume that you don't vote. If they are all the same, as you say, what
> would be the point of voting?

You should not make that assumption. I was responding to a very specific
statement. I do vote and I do so with no idealistic expectations of things
being different - just different.

The idea of a noble idealist running for political office who will genuinely
change the world is nearly absurd. If that person ever existed, he/she
would surely be either overwhelmed or corrupted by the system. The net is
that regardless of the left or right lean of the person, the tactics and
process would be the same.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 12/30/2009 2:15 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Miller's right: If you don't pay taxes you should have no right to vote
>> and influence how that money gets spent. The only exception I'd make
>> is for people who've volunteered to serve the nation in the military.
>>
> I'd make a few more exceptions:
>
> - the severely disabled: as a society, I believe we have a moral obligation to
> provide for those who through no fault of their own are unable -- as
> distinguished from unwilling -- to provide for themselves, yet that inability
> should not disqualify them from voting
>
> - the short-term unemployed: being laid off after years of working shouldn't
> cost a person the right to vote
>
> - those who volunteer to serve society in other ways besides the military,
> e.g. in hospitals, soup kitchens, shelters for battered women or the homeless,
> and so on
>
> - the retired: while those collecting social security may be a net drain
> *now*, most of them are certainly a net positive when considered over the
> entire span of their working lives

'seems fair enough.

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

On 1/2/2010 5:49 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 1/2/2010 4:36 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>> You can put no "trust" in the bastards who represent us because to them,
>>> as long as it "legal", it's OK, and morality does not even enter into
>>> the equation.
>>>
>>> Ultimately, capitalism will NOT survive without a moral component ...
>>> end of story.
>>>
>>
>> Capitalism is already nearly dead when you can be an irresponsible
>> lender, borrower, risk taker, union worker, corporate exec, etc.
>> and the government just whisks the downside of risk away from you.
>
> Tim, old buddy ... do you simply just like to hear yourself spout off,

No more so than you and a half-dozen other folks here.

> or did you not understand that is effectively the very same thing I put
> forth?

It's not. You injected the notion of morality.

>
> LOL ... never mind. Save yourself some time and don't bother responding.
>

It's OK, I was bored.

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

Swingman wrote:

> On 1/1/2010 1:28 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>> I really want to get back to Nawlins. I've been a couple of times,
>> before Katrina hit. Love the city, and the people. Well, some of the
>> people...
>
> Still plenty of good folks ... most of the bad ones are now living in
> Houston! :)
>
>> But never again in the summer.
>
> Does take some getting used to ...
>

So that Tobasco commercial isn't too far off the mark? [Exploding
mosquito in the swamp]


> Happy New Year, Dave.
>

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:26:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:
>
>> But, let's see, we have an irrrational need to blame a natural disaster
>> on a political persuasion, eh?
>
> No, just the response thereto - and before you foam at the mouth I'll
> stipulate there was enough to go around for both parties. But few will
> ever forget "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie." :-).
>

Oh, I think, "The system worked" has far eclipsed that.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:

> A country not in decline? You've seen Detroit lately, Bubba?

Try looking at Detroit through Google Earth.

It's incredible. Entire blocks with only one house left. Lots of entire
blocks...

On Jan 3, 2:08=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/2/2010 7:02 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> <SNIP>

And with it ... went the context of my post. Sigh.

> > You have such a thoroughly cultivated and deeply entrenched narrow
> > view of this world. =A0It's not amazing, actually, because it's not
> > rare, but ... still ....
>
> So it is now a "narrow view of the world" that people signing
> contracts ought to understand the content of their agreements? I'd say
> this is more just simple common sense. Where does this end? If I enter
> into a contract with my plumber (who has superior knowledge of
> plumbing) can I then refuse to pay him in full because he "charged me
> too much because I didn't understand the nature of plumbing*? It's
> absurd, but that's effectively what you're arguing.

Ah, the slipper slope argument.

> My "view of the world" incidentally is far less invasive of others
> than yours appears to be. I don't want to engage in fraud, refuse to
> abide by my commitments, blame others when things don't go my way, or
> make others pay for what I want. This is hardly narrow, judgmental,
> unkind, or mean. It's called being an adult.

With certain capacities and abilities that others may not have.

> I understand that there are situations where agreements entered into
> with good faith intentions cannot be met.

But seem NOT to understand how often good faith isn't a part of these
transactions.

> But that's what bankruptcy
> and asset recovery are for. It's hardly ethical to just wipe the slate
> clean in favor of the borrower as if they are the injured party and
> the lender is some monstrous beast.

Your labels, not mine.

> BTW, I'd just love to see what these maxed out credit card accounts
> were used for. Anecdotal evidence is always suspect, but among the
> folks I've observed abusing their credit it's simply not for a heart
> valve replacement for Junior. It's for flat screen TVs, expensive
> vacations, and luxury goods. It's hard for me to work up a lot of
> sympathy for people that need to get their consumer fix to buy the
> latest trinket who then go on to howl about the unfair and evil
> lending practices of their banks.

What's the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in America?

> > In a transaction such as lending (former mortgage bank employee,
> > here ... way back when), you have two parties -- the borrower and the
> > lender.
>
> > While you can judge (I specifically chose that word. =A0It fits you
> > beautifully) that the borrower SHOULD "know better" or have a certain
> > level of basic financial sophistication ... the lender ABSOLUTELY DOES
> > know better AND have a much higher level of financial acumen.
>
> So what? =A0There's a gun to the head of the borrower? =A0They have no
> other choice?

Luckily, our system of laws looks at situations like these QUITE
differently than you do.

> > Most of the de-regulation of the lending industry was as a result of
> > huge, expensive, compelling lobbying efforts on behalf of the LENDERS,
> > who -- as a group -- felt like they were being short-changed by not
> > being able to make higher profit, higher risk loans to people to whom
> > they should never have MADE said loans.
>
> Again, so what? =A0Absent government intervention that distorts the
> market, these lenders would be being punished at this very moment
> for their stupidity.

Free markets: It's like letting your children raise themselves.

> > And ... again ... while you may say that the borrowers SHOULD have
> > been somewhat sophisticated ... it's a certainty that the lenders
> > WERE.
>
> I'm not all that sophisticated, but I do know one thing: I cannot
> consistently spend more than I earn. =A0This is not complicated, it
> is not sophisticated, it is not arcane, it is 6th grade math.

And marginally relevant -- if it's relevant at all.

> > They were simply greedy sons of bitches, is all.
>
> That is correct. =A0They were, and I harbor no sympathy for
> most of them. =A0If you have to borrow to keep a family member
> alive, that's one thing. =A0But if you're borrowing so you can
> have the latest Nintendo or a Rolex, you're an idiot
> and deserve to be treated like one.

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Fits your preconceived
notions of the world, I'll grant you, but ... please provide the data,
and ... ALL the data. I don't deny that some luxury purchases may
exist on the credit accounts of some who defaulted, but ... let's
review ALL the charges, shall we?

> > And now we're all paying for their avarice.
>
> > Remove those regulations (as was done, by both parties), and ... more
> > Social Darwinism.
>
> OK, so one party was more informed than the other. I stipulate you are
> entirely right. I still struggle to understand how this makes it OK
> for the borrower to so so irresponsibly. =A0It isn't like they *couldn't*
> have known better. =A0They just didn't bother to. Unlike the right winger=
s,

I don't see where I call it okay. What I see is Darwin in action. If
you don't stop the wolves from eating the rabbits, then they'll eat
the rabbits. It would be nice if parents, schools, families,
churches, and our society TAUGHT the rabbits to stay away from the
mouths of wolves, but ... not only don't they, but ... they teach the
rabbits how COOL it is to stare at the incisors of the wolf.

> I
> am NOT justifying absolutely anything the banks did. Where they
> behaved badly, they ought to be held accountable. The problem here is
> that *no one* is going to be held accountable. This administration has
> already moved the downside from the banker to the taxpayer. Now it
> proposes to pass laws like "credit card relief" that further relieves
> bad behavior from individuals.

As opposed to the last administration, for example? It seems that
EVERY statement you make, and every statement you FAIL to make ...
points to ideology over objectvity. Again ... with all respect ...
you seem very bright, but you start with a premise, and then select
your points.

> Understand that I'm not choosing sides here. Both borrower and lender
> behaved like chimps. But that doesn't mean that they should be
> insulated from the consequences of their actions. If anything, they
> should face the music. This, sir, is not a defense of "Social
> Darwinism". It is merely the expectation that people should be held to
> their promises.

Half this country won't educate people. Half this country blames
poverty on addiction, stupidity, and sloth. Half this country won't
allow birth control to be taught in the schools. Half this country
won't allow abortions for unplanned pregnancies. Half this country
benefits from taking away all the jobs that the OTHER half USED to do,
and moving them overseas. Half this country wants to criminalize
frowning and extend prison terms. Half this country wants more than
300,000,000 guns in this country, etc., etc., etc.,

Half this country would MUCH rather abandon the other half to the
wolves. MUCH (not all) of what you say is a patent endorsement for
this philosophy.

In other nations, HALF this country would revolt -- armed, if
necessary.

On Dec 30, 10:05=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

> The formulation in question worked very nicely well into the 20th
> Century. =A0Its dismemberment began with FDR and has been on a
> downhill slide since. =A0Collectivism is hardly an example of of
> modern "progress". =A0You defend a system that is demonstrably a
> failure. =A0I defend a system that was demonstrably successful.

Eloquent sophistry.

You do nothing but pigeon hole and label.

Your labels are empty, and your arguments are no better, for ...
affixing labels IS your basic premise.

You genuinely seem bright and erudite -- TOO bright, methinks to have
to resort to such churlish and childish tactics.

I don't know what a "collectivist" is, and I don't care.

I haven't defended any "system."

'Tis a genuine shame that you can't address an actual issue on the
merits.

It may well be that I'm the only one that sees you doing this, and
recognizes it as what it is: bad form.

But ... that's okay.

>
> Wake up ....
>


Thanks Swingman. What could I have been thinking all these years.

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:24:17 -0600, Leon wrote:

> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message

>> It has come down to voting for the lesser of several evils lately.
>> <sigh>
>
>
> And to restate what I stated previously, why participate in such an
> atrocity.

Because it helps keep the *greater* evil out of office :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:35:17 -0600, Swingman wrote:

> Congressional Reform Act of 2010
>

<snip of some excellent ideas>

I have an even simpler idea which, of course, also doesn't have a
snowballs chance in hell.

One of the big problems is congress/senate members sending pork to their
home state to buy their re-election. So:

All representatives and senators, after their initial election, will have
no choice of venue when running for re-election. They will be randomly
assigned a state/district and must convince the voters of that state to
re-elect them.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:22:34 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:9cde0aa9-f57f-4fc0-80a9-187a11696145@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>What a presumptuous fool you are! I said nothing about what people
>should believe or how they should vote, or even whether they should be
>allowed to vote. I do believe that perhaps they shouldn't vote if
>they haven't made some effort in understanding the issues. Most
>don't, so we end up with a mess like we have currently.
>
>With that comment, would you please not vote any more?
>
Another moron heard from.

On 12/30/2009 9:15 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Dec 30, 6:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> [snip[
>
> Ohhhhh, Gee.
>
> THIS just HAS to be your work:
>
> "If ever there was any doubt about the elitist mentality of today’s
> Left, one needs only to witness their condescension and smarm in
> response to those who oppose their communist-lite healthcare agenda."
>
> Am I right??
>
> Wow. On the (slightly risky, I know) presumption that it is ...
> well ... take care, then. Bye-bye.

Right, because in the absence of defensible ideas ... there is
silence.

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

"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> What public interest? If one is not willing to vote, they probably haven't
> the knowledge to make an informed vote.

Pure and unadulterated Bull. While it certainly is true that some people
are uninformed, to state as you do, that non-voters simply do not have the
knowledge to vote is pure bull. There are plenty of people who have been on
this earth a very long time who have simply gotten frustrated with the
voting process and the entire charade that we call politics. These people
are very informed. Maybe more so than others.

> Lots of people choosing candidates by coin toss does no one any good.

And how often do you really believe this happens?


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Dec 30, 11:34=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/30/2009 10:14 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:
>
> > On 12/30/2009 8:11 AM, Swingman wrote:
>
> >> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept =
of
> >> only property owners being able to vote ...
>
> > Hmm. And how would you go about determining which partner should be
> > disenfranchised in a divorce? By their political views?
>
> Women should not be ... errr, never mind. :)
>
> BTW, women automatically get the house in a divorce! Problem solved. <g>
>

BTDT

It's the latest pick-up line in a bar: "Hello gorgeous, can I buy you
a house?"

On Dec 30, 1:48=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as condescending. =A0I was actually
> trying to be sort of friendly ...

Then my apologies -- sincerely.

> >> The "slaves" today, are the half
> >> the country that are paying taxes so the other half doesn't pay any.
> >> The "slaves" are the business owners that have to go through all kinds
> >> of government regulatory hoops, put their own capital at risk, hire
> >> and fire according to today's PC culture, and then - after 30 years -
> >> be told that they are "rich" and need to pay their "fair share". The
> >> "slaves" today are the people who are being told what to do with their
> >> personal property and their lives to satisfy the tender sensibilities
> >> of whichever group happens to currently occupy power.
>
> > Meh. =A0Easily countered bumper-sticker arguments. =A0I'll pass on the
> > bait, though.
>
> Go ahead, counter them if they are trivial arguments. =A0Explain to me
> why it's OK to enslave me for 5 months a year.

Don't point that question at me, Man! It's loaded :-)

[and very much akin to me asking whether or not you've stopped beating
your wife yet.....]

> > As for the rest of your post ... it's tantamount to a "Bush-Cheney" or
> > "McCain-Palin" sticker on a Suburban or Yukon: redundant and
> > superfluous :-)
>
> I liked neither. =A0However, the current Messiah's performance is guarnte=
eing
> that I am going to do something I have not done in literally decades -
> vote a straight, blind R ticket for the next several elections. =A0I'd ev=
en
> take Gingrich-Palin over what we have now. (And I almost NEVER vote for a
> Republican.)

I wonder how I made it through eight years of GWB without ever calling
him some horrid media-propagated nickname, despite having been
repulsed by virtually everything he ever did as the Leader of the Free
world.

And why those who -- generally -- claim to love this country "more
than all others," and have respect for its institutions feel so
compelled to act like kids when it comes to politicians they dislike?

Chosen One? Messiah? Socialism? Communism? Black president shining
Palin's shoes??

Nobody who ever invokes terms like that ... should ever wonder why
others pay NO attention to politics.

It's because that sort of behavior -- regardless of which side is
using it -- repulses sensible folk.

Now ... to help re-frame your question ....

Why should you pay taxes?

Because the collective good is served -- in some cases, better, and in
some cases, worse -- by the collective dollars spent for the 'general
welfare --' be it roads, safe cars, safe drinking water, an education
system that -- while in need of serious pimping -- is still ranked
highly in the world -- police protection, fire protection, libraries,
(inadequate) regulation that helps to extinguish Social Darwinism
where the strong may pray on the weak, a mighty military, satellite
navigation, etc., etc., etc., etc.

[And ... health care. A sick uneducated work force (worse than it is
now, I mean) is a one way ticket down on the latter of economic world
hegemony for the good old You Ess Of Ayyyy. We WILL be serving
cocktails, in flight, however.]

These things cost money.

In aggregate, these things also play a BIG role in the average
person's perceptions about why this is The Greatest Place In The World
In Which To Live (I like it, but ... would never go that far).

Take away the economic support for those things, and Social Darwinism
really takes hold. A quick peek: the item that taxes pay for, and
what happens when the wealthy are free from subsidizing it:

-Roads? Hell, I'll buy a Hummer

-Schools? I'll send my kids to private

-Water? I buy bottled

-Pesticides? I buy organic. Let THEM eat DDT

-Banking regulation? Hell, _I_ have an MBA and a high-priced lawyer.
F the rest of them

-Police/fire/public safety? I'm RICH and am covered by Sovereign Deed

and on and on and on.

Sounds okay?

Well ... if you're on this ng ... you're likely in the group that's
going to be screwed. Enjoy :-) I'll be your cabin-mate, Neil.

I'm actually a hobbyist woodworker, but ... because of a nagging sinus
infection ... have had to take a slight break from my two shaker-style
mahogany night stands.

I spend little time on this forum because -- like the craft,
generally, I'm guessing -- the demographic is painfully narrow.

Again: confirmation bias.

A bunch of people preening around each other, telling each other what
they already know, and are desperate to hear again (and again and
again).

Challenging our closely-held assumptions ... is a good thing :-)

So is wearing an N95 mask when cutting M&Ts in mahog or dado'ing my
baltic birch plywood ;-)

Cough, cough.... sniff, sniff....

>
> Yeah, my home state ... do notice that the part of NOLA settled when the
> population looked after themselves and exercised common sense in still
> intact and thriving.
>
> But, let's see, we have an irrrational need to blame a natural disaster on
> a political persuasion, eh?
>
> What fucking bloody idiocy you guys can foster ... you really should be
> ashamed.
>

Burning ants on a sidwalk with a magnifying glass is almost as fun as
watching rednecks take the bait.....

:)

On Dec 30, 3:26=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/30/2009 4:08 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:> On Dec 30, 1:48 pm, Tim Daneli=
uk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >>> As for the rest of your post ... it's tantamount to a "Bush-Cheney" o=
r
> >>> "McCain-Palin" sticker on a Suburban or Yukon: redundant and
> >>> superfluous :-)
>
> >> I liked neither. =A0However, the current Messiah's performance is guar=
nteeing
> >> that I am going to do something I have not done in literally decades -
> >> vote a straight, blind R ticket for the next several elections. =A0I'd=
even
> >> take Gingrich-Palin over what we have now. (And I almost NEVER vote fo=
r a
> >> Republican.)
>
> > I wonder how I made it through eight years of GWB without ever calling
> > him some horrid media-propagated nickname, despite having been
> > repulsed by virtually everything he ever did as the Leader of the Free
> > world.
>
> I have no personal animus towards the current Prez. =A0

Your language says otherwise.

> I have a loathing
> for almost every policy decision AND contempt for those who worship him
> as some salvific figure. =A0Hence the term "Messiah".

Your language says otherwise. If you don't like his supporters, then
demonize them, but -- for a lark -- try doing it like an adult might.

Meanwhile, your schoolyard name-calling (ie, "Messiah") is naught but
silly and puerile.

> ><SNIP>
>
> > Now ... to help re-frame your question ....
>
> > Why should you pay taxes?
>
> > Because the collective good is served -- in some cases, better, and in
>
> You lost me already at "collective good". =A0

That's America. The words "General welfare" mean anything to you??

> More evil has been done
> in the name of the "collective" than any other word in human history.

Then lower yourself to THEIR level by twisting the benevolent meaning
of that phrase ... and/or outlaw religion on the same premise.

Nah. Your argument went "thud" when it fell down.

> It has been used to justify all manner of mischief, oppression, brutality=
,
> and horror. =A0So, frankly, I am uninterested in the "collective good."
>
> I'm interested in preserving freedom for as many people and in as large
> amount as possible. =A0 So, by that definition, the only legitimate
> use of taxation is to fund the defense of liberty from threats both withi=
n-
> and without. =A0

Hm. That certainly just sounds like your own vision of the collective
good.

And nobody could EVER get hurt by that worldview, huh? And no
illegitimate wars could EVER be started if that's the deal, right?

Your former argument now has company on the floor.

> Everything else is some form of imbalance of liberty where some
> pay and some benefit, but the net amount of freedom does not increase (an=
d in
> fact is decreased from some people).

Proof by assertion, huh?

And yet ... the elements of "general welfare" that absorb a lot of tax
dollars ARE some of the primary things that Americans crow about when
marketing their nation to ... nobody in particular.

> The answer is: I should happily pay taxes to defend my freedom. (And I do=
.)
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I should resist - by all legal and ethical=
means - to see
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0tax money used for any other purpose becau=
se that is stealing.

Cut a few words, and it'll fit nicely on a bumper sticker.

On 12/30/2009 1:05 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Dec 30, 12:01 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/30/2009 12:27 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Swingman"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
>>>> only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that piss off
>>>> the politicians and lobbyist.
>>
>>>> This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
>>>> factor in the eventual downfall of this country.
>>
>>>> Sad, but true.
>>
>>> Bull, giving political power only to those with wealth is repugnant, you
>>> couldn't come up with something that would make politicians and lobbyists
>>> happier. The ability of the people to throw morons and crooks out of office
>>> is one of the few things that keep the bastards in line.
>>
>>> Are you going to tell a youth who volunteers to risk his life serving his
>>> country in uniform that he doesn't get to vote because he doesn't have any
>>> property? If the mill closes and people lose their jobs and their homes
>>> should that result in them losing the vote? Do you seriously propose that
>>> citizens who rent apartments are inherently entitled to fewer rights than
>>> people who own houses?
>>
>>> No offense, but that is one lameass idea.
>>
>> Tell that to your founding fathers, who first instituted the practice.
>
> You mean ... of course ... the slave-owning founding fathers?
>
> Do you have a calendar handy? Do you realize this is ...
> effectively ... 2010??
>
> If you yearn for those times, I can list for you a HOST of emerging
> nations whose systems much more closely resemble that of our earliest
> days as a nation.
>
> [nothing of relevance snipped]

Since you insist on harping on slavery, let me acquaint you with some
realities of slavery you're conveniently ignoring:

- Slavery in some form has existed in all of recorded human history.

- The slavery that brought Africans to the US was instituted BY Africans
AGAINST Africans long before the Europeans ever showed up.

- African Muslim pirates (the Barbary Corsairs) attacked and enslaved
white Europeans well before the Europeans ever engaged in slavery themselves.
These pirates operated from the 11th century through the 19th by
some accounts.

- Of all major cultures ONLY the Judeo-Christian influenced Westerners
*gave up slavery voluntarily*, whether by internal civil war or
legislative decree.

- One of the two places in the world you can still buy slaves in large
numbers is ... wait for it ... AFRICA. (Somalia and Mauretania to be
exact. The other is the white slavery going on in the Eastern Bloc
and Islamic worlds.)

So, before you get too haughty about the eeeeeeeeeevil Founding
Fathers, you might want to ponder their context and realize that in
less than 100 years after the US was formed as a nation (1776-1865)
slavery was abolished. We got rid of something in a hundred years that
had been going on for 10 *thousand* before. It was EXACTLY because of
the ideals of these people and their fundamental principles of
government that slavery could not and did not survive. Dismissing them
as mere slavers with a corrupt morality utterly misses the point.


So, just why do you and your fellow politically correct travelers leap
at the opportunity to criticize the founders of the US - founders
that led us on a path of freedom for more people, more rapidly than
at any point in history - BUT you're entirely silent about the
millennia of slavery and human rights abuses in Africa and the rest of
the world?
world?


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

"Larry C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> (snip)
>>
>>
>
>
> The bigger issue, I believe, is that only a small percentage of the
> electorate vote during an election.
>
> The elected know that if they cater to a certain group than they have a
> good chance of being reelected because that group will go out and vote.
> If more people voted, then the "base" that we always hear about would not
> be as defined.
>
> It boggles my mind that people do not vote.
>
> Larry C

You know in communist countries and dictatorships the people are required to
vote. Thank goodness we have the right not to vote. Voting for the sake of
voting IMHO sends the wrong message, I think it tells the counters that you
actually want one of the people running for office.

Better yet, require that for one to be elected that they get a majority of
the registered voters vote, not just a majority of the votes. If a majority
of the registered voters don't show up, another election is held with other
candidates. Yes this will take time to elect an official but don't we
deserve someone we actually want?

On Dec 30, 5:35=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nah. =A0If anybody wanted serious change, two things need to happen:
>
> 1) Some sort of serious lobbying reform, and
>
> 2) Public financing of all federal campaigns, only.

That #2 was worded ambiguously. Should have said that ONLY public
financing may be used for those campaigns.

Get the $$$$ out of politics or NOTHING substantial will change.

On 12/30/2009 9:03 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Dec 30, 6:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/30/2009 7:24 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 30, 5:52 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 12/30/2009 6:21 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Dec 30, 3:26 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/30/2009 4:08 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:> On Dec 30, 1:48 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>>>>>>> As for the rest of your post ... it's tantamount to a "Bush-Cheney" or
>>>>>>>>> "McCain-Palin" sticker on a Suburban or Yukon: redundant and
>>>>>>>>> superfluous :-)
>>
>>>>>>>> I liked neither. However, the current Messiah's performance is guarnteeing
>>>>>>>> that I am going to do something I have not done in literally decades -
>>>>>>>> vote a straight, blind R ticket for the next several elections. I'd even
>>>>>>>> take Gingrich-Palin over what we have now. (And I almost NEVER vote for a
>>>>>>>> Republican.)
>>
>>>>>>> I wonder how I made it through eight years of GWB without ever calling
>>>>>>> him some horrid media-propagated nickname, despite having been
>>>>>>> repulsed by virtually everything he ever did as the Leader of the Free
>>>>>>> world.
>>
>>>>>> I have no personal animus towards the current Prez.
>>
>>>>> Your language says otherwise.
>>
>>>>>> I have a loathing
>>>>>> for almost every policy decision AND contempt for those who worship him
>>>>>> as some salvific figure. Hence the term "Messiah".
>>
>>>>> Your language says otherwise. If you don't like his supporters, then
>>>>> demonize them, but -- for a lark -- try doing it like an adult might.
>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, your schoolyard name-calling (ie, "Messiah") is naught but
>>>>> silly and puerile.
>>
>>>>>>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>>>>> Now ... to help re-frame your question ....
>>
>>>>>>> Why should you pay taxes?
>>
>>>>>>> Because the collective good is served -- in some cases, better, and in
>>
>>>>>> You lost me already at "collective good".
>>
>>>>> That's America. The words "General welfare" mean anything to you??
>>
>>>>>> More evil has been done
>>>>>> in the name of the "collective" than any other word in human history.
>>
>>>>> Then lower yourself to THEIR level by twisting the benevolent meaning
>>>>> of that phrase ... and/or outlaw religion on the same premise.
>>
>>>>> Nah. Your argument went "thud" when it fell down.
>>
>>>>>> It has been used to justify all manner of mischief, oppression, brutality,
>>>>>> and horror. So, frankly, I am uninterested in the "collective good."
>>
>>>>>> I'm interested in preserving freedom for as many people and in as large
>>>>>> amount as possible. So, by that definition, the only legitimate
>>>>>> use of taxation is to fund the defense of liberty from threats both within-
>>>>>> and without.
>>
>>>>> Hm. That certainly just sounds like your own vision of the collective
>>>>> good.
>>
>>>>> And nobody could EVER get hurt by that worldview, huh? And no
>>>>> illegitimate wars could EVER be started if that's the deal, right?
>>
>>>>> Your former argument now has company on the floor.
>>
>>>>>> Everything else is some form of imbalance of liberty where some
>>>>>> pay and some benefit, but the net amount of freedom does not increase (and in
>>>>>> fact is decreased from some people).
>>
>>>>> Proof by assertion, huh?
>>
>>>>> And yet ... the elements of "general welfare" that absorb a lot of tax
>>>>> dollars ARE some of the primary things that Americans crow about when
>>>>> marketing their nation to ... nobody in particular.
>>
>>>>>> The answer is: I should happily pay taxes to defend my freedom. (And I do.)
>>>>>> I should resist - by all legal and ethical means - to see
>>>>>> tax money used for any other purpose because that is stealing.
>>
>>>>> Cut a few words, and it'll fit nicely on a bumper sticker.
>>
>>>> cf The Constitution Of The US
>>>> The Federalist Papers
>>>> The Declaration Of Independence
>>>> The letters of Jefferson et al
>>
>>>> Therein you will find the source for my "failed arguments" and bumper stickers.
>>
>>> Please provide demographics, and a rather comprehensive view of the
>>> nature of our society, the % rural vs. % urban, the percent of the GDP
>>> that is represented by Agriculture vs. industry, etc.
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>>> Do you read 225 year old health texts, too, if you get MRSA?
>>
>> I study books that have a demonstrated track record of either great
>> success or great failure - to learn to succeed or to avoid failure
>> respectively. The Lockeian government formed by Jefferson et al
>> was a smashing success. All collectivist systems have been abysmal
>> failures and usually human rights horror shows.
>>
>> The demographic composition then- and now is irrelevant to this discussion
>> except for people trying to find ways to justify their collectivist
>> ideology.
>
> It's one thing to try to model the ideals of "Conservatism," but ...
> to actively ignore -- as you make it sound as though you do -- ALL of
> the myriad and profound changes that have taken place in our world
> since our nation's inception ... seems ... rather closed-minded, no?
>
> To rhetorically reject all advancements of society for the purposes of
> viewing -- as narrowly as humanly possible -- the intentions,
> implications, scope, and ideals of the Founding Fathers ... while ...
> posting on the Internet ... is something I can't quite get my head
> around....
>
> Or ... should I just adopt your approach to a discussion and say
> that ... 'such a narrow view of the construction of these documents is
> nothing but a way for people to justify their Social Darwinism
> ideology?'


I do not particularly admire Edmund Burke or the Conservatives -
particularly the later versions that think poking their noses
into the private lives of citizens is OK.

The formulation in question worked very nicely well into the 20th
Century. Its dismemberment began with FDR and has been on a
downhill slide since. Collectivism is hardly an example of of
modern "progress". You defend a system that is demonstrably a
failure. I defend a system that was demonstrably successful.

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

"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:38:55 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:9cde0aa9-f57f-4fc0-80a9-187a11696145@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>On Dec 30, 10:53 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>> No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in
>>>>> any free state. Often they're too uninformed to have an educated
>>>>> opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote.
>>>
>>
>>> What a presumptuous fool you are! I said nothing about what people
>>> should believe or how they should vote, or even whether they should be
>>> allowed to vote. I do believe that perhaps they shouldn't vote if
>>> they haven't made some effort in understanding the issues. Most
>>> don't, so we end up with a mess like we have currently.
>>
>>Reference your very words above, which I had quoted in my reply. You very
>>clearly state the reason people don't vote.
>
> Yes, I did. I also stated that that is their right, in a free state.

You don't get it do you? You presume to dictate the reason that people
don't vote. You are clueless.

>
>>You further state that they are often too uninformed therefore should not
>>vote.
>
> Correct. Note the word "should". I did *not* say "should not be able
> to", or "should not be allowed to", or any other words you want to put
> in my mouth.

Learn to read. Look up above - see what I wrote? Understand it? Let me
type it slowly so you don't get lost... You have no priviledge to presume
who should and who should not vote. It's just not yours to decide. It's
not necessary to put words in your mouth. I simply leave your very words
included in my replies and they speak for themselves. After that you simply
try to spin and dig yourself deeper and deeper in.

>
>>That is what I called you on. People vote on what is important to them.
>> That is a very real part of
>>the voting process. You don't have to like it, but that's life. It's not
>>yours to decide if that qualifies them to vote,
>
> I didn't say anything of the sort, asshole. I

Asshole huh? I guess I pushed you to your intellectual limits.

> said nothing about them
> not being allowed to vote, just that those ignorant of the issues,
> simply shouldn't.

As decreed by you. Yet - you have displayed a complete inability to conduct
a conversation without resorting to vulgarity and mis-representing the words
of another - so tell me - are you qualified to vote?

> I also didn't, as you imply, say anything about
> their being able to vote based on what they, or I, think about any
> particular issue. IOW, you're a damned liar.

You really need to learn to read.

>
>>or to state that those who do not vote are simply too lazy.
>
> The fact is that that's why most don't vote. Their being lazy or not
> voting isn't dependent on my saying so, or not. The facts are the
> facts.

The fact? According to you? Please support your assertion of a "fact".

>
> No, those who can't read or think, yet tell others what they write and
> think are the asses, asshole.

That would be what I suggested of your postings from the beginning. So... I
guess you've proven my original point.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

(snip)
>
>


The bigger issue, I believe, is that only a small percentage of the
electorate vote during an election.

The elected know that if they cater to a certain group than they have a good
chance of being reelected because that group will go out and vote. If more
people voted, then the "base" that we always hear about would not be as
defined.

It boggles my mind that people do not vote.

Larry C

On Dec 30, 1:20=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in
> any free state. =A0Often they're too uninformed to have an educated
> opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote.

And where might you propose they GET this education?

Anything short of source documents is pure partisan spin and
commercial crap.

What do you suggest people do -- what most Americans do -- read
NOTHING BUT things that support their partisan pre-conceived ideas of
the world (aka "Confirmation Bias")?

What good does that do?

On Jan 3, 8:12=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/3/2010 5:59 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 6:38 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 1/3/2010 5:26 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:09:50 -0800, Robatoy wrote:
>
> >>>> It is only a foolish comment because it doesn't fit your idea of tha=
t
> >>>> dream world you live in, Tim.
>
> >>> I plonked Tim a long time ago. =A0If you guys would quit responding t=
o his
> >>> diatribes I'd never know he was still around. =A0Why do you persist? =
=A0
> >>> You're never going to make a dent in that self-centered ego.
>
> >> Translation: =A0I can't combat Tim's ideas so I'll attack him personal=
ly.
>
> > Translation: Please buy my bullshit as I am invincible!!!
>
> > Put down your arms, fellow wRECers!! Tim cannot be defeated!!! All
> > hail TIM!!!
> > We should all be grateful that Tim descends down to our level once in
> > a while and takes the time to even talk to us. Nay..._blesses_ us with
> > his wisdom.
>
> You don't need to be grateful for any such thing. =A0You do need to
> develop some manners, however.
>
Speak to me, oh Wise One, so I may communicate with You on Your
fucking terms.

"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9522d3f1-0e3d-4e43-82db-2474775c6423@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...


Please provide demographics, and a rather comprehensive view of the
nature of our society, the % rural vs. % urban, the percent of the GDP
that is represented by Agriculture vs. industry, etc.


********************************************************************************************

I really do like that sort of retort, but in all honesty, it would be
incumbent upon you to use those specifics to refute the claim.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]