Time to start thinking about Christmas

[nick]

http://store.atlasshruggedmovie.com/

[trotsky]

On 11/8/12 7:36 AM, nick wrote:
> http://store.atlasshruggedmovie.com/


The money clip is a nice touch. An Atlas Shrugged blackjack with which
to beat homeless people might make a good addition.

[Obveeus]

"nick" <leftbehindb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://store.atlasshruggedmovie.com/

Speaking of which, where is calvin since the election results came in? I
know some of the voting lines got really long, but he should be home by now.

[nick]

I'll get the dollar sign lapel pin because it looks gangsta.

[moviePig]

On Nov 8, 8:45 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:

*Official* Atlas Shrugged Rearden Metal Bracelet -- $159.00

No doubt, bootleggers roam city streets, arms wrapped in Taiwanese
knockoffs...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 8:54:55 AM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:

> No doubt, bootleggers roam city streets, arms wrapped in Taiwanese
> knockoffs...
>

Now I can't wait to see the flick . . .

[nick]

On Nov 8, 8:47 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

> "nick" <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://store.atlasshruggedmovie.com/
>
> Speaking of which, where is calvin since the election results came in?

Last I heard, he was down in Florida driving around with Allen West,
helping him impound voting machines.

[Obveeus]

I'm beginning to think that Florida's voting count issues are really just a
bookend to their desire to be the first political primary. Basically,
Florida is a state full of desperate attention seekers, striving to be the
first and last word on every election.

[moviePig]

It's where people go to die ...and then ill-advisedly change their
minds.

[trotsky]

You'd think a guy named "Allen West" would realize he's in the wrong
part of the country.

[calvin]

On Nov 8, 8:47 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

He stood at the window, trying not to think. But he kept
hearing words in his mind: Rearden Ore . . .
Rearden Coal . . . Rearden Steel . . . Rearden Metal . . .
What was the use? Why had he done it? Why should
he ever want to do anything again? . . .

His first day on the ledges of the ore mines . . . The day
when he stood in the wind, looking down at the ruins of
a steel plant . . . The day when he stood here, in this
office, at this window, and thought that a bridge could
be made to carry incredible loads on just a few bars of
metal, if one combined a truss with an arch, if one built
diagonal bracing with the top members curved to—

He stopped and stood still. He had not thought of
combining a truss with an arch, that day. In the next
moment, he was at his desk, bending over it, with one
knee on the seat of the chair, with no time to think of
sitting down, he was drawing lines, curves, triangles,
columns of calculations, indiscriminately on the
blueprints, on the desk blotter, on somebody's letters.

And an hour later, he was calling for a long-distance
line, he was waiting for a phone to ring by a bed in a
railway car on a siding, he was saying, "Dagny! That
bridge of ours—throw in the ash can all the drawings
I sent you, because . . . What? . . . Oh, that? To hell
with that! Never mind the looters and their laws!
Forget it! Dagny, what do we care! Listen, you know
the contraption you called the Rearden Truss, that
you admired so much? It's not worth a damn. I've
figured out a truss that will beat anything ever built!
Your bridge will carry four trains at once, stand three
hundred years and cost you less than your cheapest
culvert. I'll send you the drawings in two days, but I
wanted to tell you about it right now. You see, it's a
matter of combining a truss with an arch. If we take
diagonal bracing and . . .

What? . . . I can't hear you. Have you caught a cold? . . .
What are you thanking me for, as yet? Wait till I
explain it to you."

- Atlas Shrugged

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>On Nov 8, 8:47 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "nick" <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >http://store.atlasshruggedmovie.com/
>>
>> Speaking of which, where is calvin since the election results came in? I
>> know some of the voting lines got really long, but he should be home by
>> now.

>He stood at the window, trying not to think. But he kept
>hearing words in his mind:

Welcome back.

[reilloc]

On 11/8/2012 11:41 AM, calvin wrote:
> On Nov 8, 8:47 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "nick" <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://store.atlasshruggedmovie.com/
>>
>> Speaking of which, where is calvin since the election results came in? I
>> know some of the voting lines got really long, but he should be home by now.
>
> He stood at the window, trying not to think. But he kept
> hearing words in his mind: Rearden Ore . . .
> Rearden Coal . . . Rearden Steel . . . Rearden Metal . . .
> What was the use? Why had he done it? Why should
> he ever want to do anything again? . . .
>
> His first day on the ledges of the ore mines . . . The day
> when he stood in the wind, looking down at the ruins of
> a steel plant . . . The day when he stood here, in this
> office, at this window, and thought that a bridge could
> be made to carry incredible loads on just a few bars of
> metal, if one combined a truss with an arch, if one built

> diagonal bracing with the top members curved to�

>
> He stopped and stood still. He had not thought of
> combining a truss with an arch, that day. In the next
> moment, he was at his desk, bending over it, with one
> knee on the seat of the chair, with no time to think of
> sitting down, he was drawing lines, curves, triangles,
> columns of calculations, indiscriminately on the
> blueprints, on the desk blotter, on somebody's letters.
>
> And an hour later, he was calling for a long-distance
> line, he was waiting for a phone to ring by a bed in a
> railway car on a siding, he was saying, "Dagny! That

> bridge of ours�throw in the ash can all the drawings

> I sent you, because . . . What? . . . Oh, that? To hell
> with that! Never mind the looters and their laws!
> Forget it! Dagny, what do we care! Listen, you know
> the contraption you called the Rearden Truss, that
> you admired so much? It's not worth a damn. I've
> figured out a truss that will beat anything ever built!
> Your bridge will carry four trains at once, stand three
> hundred years and cost you less than your cheapest
> culvert. I'll send you the drawings in two days, but I
> wanted to tell you about it right now. You see, it's a
> matter of combining a truss with an arch. If we take
> diagonal bracing and . . .
>
> What? . . . I can't hear you. Have you caught a cold? . . .
> What are you thanking me for, as yet? Wait till I
> explain it to you."
>
> - Atlas Shrugged
>

You really do have to be the dumbest old motherfucker who ever came down
the pike. What does it even mean, "combining a truss with an arch," and
what comes after that, "...take diagonal bracing.."(?) You, stupid fuck,
are blissfully inspired by an inferior fiction writer's slinging around
of a couple of common terms no decent engineer would use, capped off by
an ellipsis leading to nowhere you can either imagine or have the
intellectual ability to conjecture, and elevate nonsense prose to actual
existence of tangible goods that a faceless pool of grasping "looters"
is poised to seize.

There really aren't enough words--and even one would be squandered--to
describe a blithering moron such as you are.

LNC

[Obveeus]

"reilloc" <rei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You really do have to be the dumbest old motherfucker who ever came down
> the pike. What does it even mean, "combining a truss with an arch," and
> what comes after that, "...take diagonal bracing.."(?) You, stupid fuck,
> are blissfully inspired by an inferior fiction writer's slinging around of
> a couple of common terms no decent engineer would use, capped off by an
> ellipsis leading to nowhere you can either imagine or have the
> intellectual ability to conjecture, and elevate nonsense prose to actual
> existence of tangible goods

There is a reason it is called *science fiction*. Faster than Light Travel,
time travel, interdimensional travel, transporters, etc... would all fall
into the same category of 'toss out a few semi technical words and then do
some handwaving to completion'.

[calvin]

On Nov 8, 1:55 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

The two of you really think that engineering,
or faux engineering, was the point of that
selection, or the point of my choice of it?

[Obveeus]

I assumed your ATLAS rambling was a message about the coming doom of the mob
society (some response to the election results?). My followup to reilloc,
though, was to address that much/most of science fiction offers the same
level of handwaving that he was complaining about occurring in the passage
you quoted from ATLAS SHRUGGED.

[calvin]

I reject your 'welcome back'. Thanks but no thanks.
moviePig and 'Tom' claim to have read the book.
Let them explain the excerpt. Good day, sir.

[Obveeus]

I eagerly await enlightenment, but I'm worried that no one other than
yourself may know the true meaning that you intended to convey.

[calvin]

He stood at the window, trying not to think. ...

What was the use? Why had he done it? Why should
he ever want to do anything again? . . .

"Dagny! That
bridge of ours—throw in the ash can all the drawings

I sent you, because . . . What? . . . Oh, that? To hell
with that! Never mind the looters and their laws!

Forget it! Dagny, what do we care! ...

[Obveeus]

Thanks for the explanation.

[calvin]

I assume that was sarcasm. Maybe I was wrong not to
explain the context. I thought the context could easily
be inferred from the excerpt.

There had just been decreed a horrible, industry killing
collection of economic directives. Thus Rearden was
depressed, and wondering what had been the use of
his whole life, when it had all come to this.

But then he suddenly thought of something that fired
him up again, a mental breakthrough that could be
translated into action and production. Forgetting
his temporary depression, he was alive again, and
fully functioning.

Then he excitedly called Dagny, who also was
depressed from hearing of the government's new
economic 'solutions'. But he had forgotten about
that and had no time for it. "Forget that. Listen."

And Dagny, too, was lifted out of her despair by
Rearden's example of how he had pulled himself
out of it.

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:

On Nov 8, 3:07 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> I eagerly await enlightenment, but I'm worried that no one other than
> >> yourself may know the true meaning that you intended to convey.

>There had just been decreed a horrible, industry killing
>collection of economic directives. Thus Rearden was
>depressed, and wondering what had been the use of
>his whole life, when it had all come to this.
>
>But then he suddenly thought of something that fired
>him up again, a mental breakthrough that could be
>translated into action and production. Forgetting
>his temporary depression, he was alive again, and
>fully functioning.
>
>Then he excitedly called Dagny, who also was
>depressed from hearing of the government's new
>economic 'solutions'. But he had forgotten about
>that and had no time for it. "Forget that. Listen."
>
>And Dagny, too, was lifted out of her despair by
>Rearden's example of how he had pulled himself
>out of it.

So, I asked 'where is calvin since the election results came in'.
Your reply with this quote from ATLAS SHRUGGED was to demonstrate that the
world had suddenly changed to lift us out of despair and give us hope after
all?

[calvin]

I don't know if you're joking, or being intentionally obtuse,
or what. I will explain this last link and then try to stay the
hell away from you people. No, I'm not leaving the group
permanently again, but this impossibility of communication
reminds me that it's just no fun around here.

I thought you would assume that the election outcome
got me down. So I posted what was to me an inspiring
piece of ('pedestrian', William will say) prose that was
meant by the author to show that the actions of other
people need only reach a depth into one's psyche that
is nowhere near that person's core.

This particular Atlas Shrugged thread was not started by
me, by the way, nor was it drifted to the election by me,
nor was I the one who made it about me. That was done
'reilloc' and you.

[reilloc]

Somewhere, in time or space, bad fiction or just unsorted lists of
words, there's a Dagny for Calvin, waiting by the phone to hear his
voice say, "I finally got them to sell me that bridge in Brooklyn, dear."

LNC

[nick]

On Nov 8, 3:40 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

I don't need to be lifted out of despair. I've been watching Fox News
since Tuesday night and I couldn't be more cheerful. I'm shallow. I
derive happiness from the despair of others.

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>On Nov 8, 3:40 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> So, I asked 'where is calvin since the election results came in'.
>> Your reply with this quote from ATLAS SHRUGGED was to demonstrate that
>> the
>> world had suddenly changed to lift us out of despair and give us hope
>> after
>> all?
>
>I don't know if you're joking, or being intentionally obtuse,
>or what. I will explain this last link and then try to stay the
>hell away from you people. No, I'm not leaving the group
>permanently again, but this impossibility of communication
>reminds me that it's just no fun around here.
>
>I thought you would assume that the election outcome
>got me down. So I posted what was to me an inspiring
>piece of ('pedestrian', William will say) prose that was
>meant by the author to show that the actions of other
>people need only reach a depth into one's psyche that
>is nowhere near that person's core.

So, your response to the question 'where is calvin since the election
results came in' was not an answer or attempt to answer the question?
To be fair, you should sympathize with me a bit for my confusion since I was
struggling to see where the answer to my question was in that quote. Now
I'm just left wondering (if the quote was inded one big metaphor to your
current psyche) what 'eureka' mental discovery did you make that pulled you
out of the post-election funk?

>This particular Atlas Shrugged thread was not started by
>me, by the way, nor was it drifted to the election by me,
>nor was I the one who made it about me. That was done
>'reilloc' and you.

Yep. I noticed you had been gone since the election and wondered why. No
harm was intended.

[Obveeus]

"nick" <leftbehindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't need to be lifted out of despair. I've been watching Fox News
>since Tuesday night and I couldn't be more cheerful. I'm shallow. I
>derive happiness from the despair of others.

FOX 'News' in despair? Does that mean that they have finally moved on from
denial? I checked in the morning after the election and they were
explaining how a 2008 8% point loss had turned into a 2012 1% point
loss...proving that the GOP was on the right track.

[moviePig]

You should've guessed that the explanation wouldn't be worth the
weight...

[nick]

On Nov 8, 4:47 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

Yeah, one of their announcers was saying that she hoped Obama had
learned his lesson with this election, so, yeah, they still might be
in the denial stage. But do you expect them to go into acceptance
mode and say, you know what, the Fox viewership white male demographic
is getting older and it's only going to get even less relevent by the
next election?

[moviePig]

I dunno. I'm pretty sure that the only restaurant in town serving
hot, steaming bowls of pissed-off will at least temporarily *gain*
clientele...

[calvin]

What's the point of this insanity? Only conservatives
are down because of the election. Do you or Obveeus
seriously think that I was concerned about the 'despair'
of the winners? Why would he interpret what i said that
way? Why would you follow up on such as that? Why
did he ask about me to start with if this was his motive?
To whomever might be reading this, I will never again
feel like I should respond to someone asking about
where I've been.

[Obveeus]

I'd be happy if they just started honestly saying that the *only* way out of
this financial deficit mess is going to be spending cuts AND tax
increases...and encouraging their loyal followers to stop conveying the
message to their Congressman that any compromise will result in them being
thrown into the harbor.

[Obveeus]

You would get mad if we claimed that you had no concern for 50+% of
society...it sounds way to close to 47%.

> Why would he interpret what i said that way?

Well, to be honest, I didn't really interpret it that way. The problem for
me was that your quote offered no explanation for what had lifted you up, so
I was left with no choice but to guess that it was the election outcome
giving you hope. Yes, stating that was meant to needle you a bit, but only
as a prod to reveal what it was that really gave you hope. On that, I'm
still not sure, but maybe you just intended to say that you are drawing from
your inner strength and not letting anything get you down?

> Why would you follow up on such as that? Why
>did he ask about me to start with if this was his motive?
>To whomever might be reading this, I will never again
>feel like I should respond to someone asking about
>where I've been.

I assume everyone on Usenet is older than dirt, living alone, and generally
without real life companionship because that it who posts to Usenet. If we
don't keep some tabs on each other, what stops one of us from being the next
person found as a petrified corpse in their computer chair 5 years after
they died...and partially eaten by their cats to boot.

[nick]

Substitute dogs for cats and cue Nick Lowe's "Marie Provost:".

[calvin]

On Nov 8, 6:04 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

> Well, to be honest, I didn't really interpret it that way.  The problem for
> me was that your quote offered no explanation for what had lifted you up, so
> I was left with no choice but to guess that it was the election outcome
> giving you hope.  Yes, stating that was meant to needle you a bit, but only
> as a prod to reveal what it was that really gave you hope.  On that, I'm
> still not sure, but maybe you just intended to say that you are drawing from
> your inner strength and not letting anything get you down?

No, I personally have no hope or inner strength. The only
way I'm trying to deal with the outcome of the election is
remembering what I think Gore Vidal said in Fellini's 'Roma',
that he found Rome to be the place where he would watch the
collapse of civilization. With my computer and the internet,
I'll watch from middle Georgia.

[Ralph]

Let’s give Calvin a time-limited break. He’s suffering some serious
setbacks lately — the dismal box office of “Atlas Shrugged, Part II,”
his two movie scenarios that failed to reflect realities, the stunning
stupidity of Romney writing a victory speech and preparing for his
inauguration for no other reason than believing Faux News’
mythological interpretations of the polls, the Jon Stewart summation
that Florida is not only irrelevant to this election but thanks to the
thoughtful if not stunningly common sense strategies of Obama’s
campaign is likely irrelevant to future elections. (Couldn’t happen to
a more deserving state.) Calvin is nursing the nearly mortal wounds of
voter suppression, the war on women, exclusion, overt racism — in
other words, the hate from the old fart white Christian Bigots and
their retard offspring who still believe this is their country. Not
any more. Calvin inadvertently exposes himself not as John Galt but
Dagny; he’s a Repub version of Myra Breckinridge. Happy Thanksgiving,
Calvin. Be sure to use Walmart’s layaway program to purchase your
Mittens and Queen Ann dolls as Xmas gifts for your fellow Randians.
Walmart assures there are plenty in stock.

[moviePig]

You forgot to capitalize 'middle'.

[calvin]

On Nov 8, 7:49 pm, Ralph <ralphben...@nowreviewing.com> wrote:
> ... Calvin inadvertently exposes himself not as John Galt but
> Dagny; ...

Don't be silly. In my best years I could have reasonably
aspired no higher than Owen Kellogg, and aspiring ain't
necessarily achieving.

Don't know who he is? Then you haven't read the book.
What a surprise.

[calvin]

No, I forgot that civilization will go down in
step with the decline of the value of the dollar,
so I can watch only as long as my utility bills
are within the payable range.

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>No, I personally have no hope or inner strength. The only
>way I'm trying to deal with the outcome of the election is
>remembering what I think Gore Vidal said in Fellini's 'Roma',
>that he found Rome to be the place where he would watch the
>collapse of civilization. With my computer and the internet,
>I'll watch from middle Georgia.

On the bright side, if it turns out that you are wrong, that will be even
better.

[moviePig]

Owen Kellogg ...sure. He was a cereal killer.

[Obveeus]

"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>On Nov 8, 8:44 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 7:49 pm, Ralph <ralphben...@nowreviewing.com> wrote:
>>
>> > ... Calvin inadvertently exposes himself not as John Galt but
>> > Dagny; ...
>>
>> Don't be silly. In my best years I could have reasonably
>> aspired no higher than Owen Kellogg, and aspiring ain't
>> necessarily achieving.
>>
>> Don't know who he is? Then you haven't read the book.
>> What a surprise.
>
>Owen Kellogg ...sure. He was a cereal killer.

I really enjoyed THE ROAD TO WELLVILLE...and, hey, John Cusack was in it.

[Tom]

Since it's not just me, do you concede you can't communicate clearly?

Tom

[Tom]

Well, that's probably a good thing for you since many of us don't care
where you've been or where you're going.

Tom

[Tom]

'calvin' a Hobbit? Nah, I don't see it...

Tom

[Tom]

Your future...

http://ebookbrowse.com/the-portable-phonograph-pdf-d287676707

Tom

[calvin]

On Nov 8, 11:08 pm, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> Your future...
>
> http://ebookbrowse.com/the-portable-phonograph-pdf-d287676707

Four posts in a row, three directly to me and the other one
about me. Looks like you do care.

Oddly, The Portrable Phonograph is one of my all-time
favorite short stories, first read in college days.

[trotsky]

Wow, calvin, it sounds like you are really taking this thing badly, so I
guess there is some justice in the world.

[trotsky]

On 11/8/12 9:12 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On Nov 8, 8:44 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 7:49 pm, Ralph <ralphben...@nowreviewing.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ... Calvin inadvertently exposes himself not as John Galt but
>>> Dagny; ...
>>
>> Don't be silly. In my best years I could have reasonably
>> aspired no higher than Owen Kellogg, and aspiring ain't
>> necessarily achieving.
>>
>> Don't know who he is? Then you haven't read the book.
>> What a surprise.
>
> Owen Kellogg ...sure. He was a cereal killer.

After he went cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

[calvin]

The justice in the world is that when your boys bring the
country crashing down, it's going to fall on your head too

[moviePig]

Not to quibble, but... that's not 'justice, it's 'indifference'.

[trotsky]

That's just right wing talking points bullshit. You know what's funny?
I saw a news story on CBS this morning that detailed China having the
same problem that we have: too much of a gap between the rich and the
poor. This isn't a complex issue. The majority of human beings want
the rest of humanity to live comfortably. You represent a minority
group, the asshole contigent, that don't want this. You think you
represent a legitimate political viewpoint and a "Randian philosophy"
and all your really are is a carcinoma on the face of society. You're
the modern equivalent of the Flat Earth Society. Your "greed is good"
equates to "suffering is good" or even "suffering is acceptable." It
isn't. This isn't the Dark Ages. Do you know what you represent,
calvin? You represent a bunch of dumb fucks that would still let people
die of the bubonic plague if they didn't have health insurance. There
is NOTHING about your point of view that is remotely reasonable or even
intelligent.

[nick]

On Nov 9, 9:17 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:

Calvin, our boys didn't so much win this election as your guys lost
it. The election was a rejection of far right extremism--that anti-
birth control/pro-rape thing didn't work out too well-- as well as
how Republicans paid the price of narrowcasting itself into the party
of the rural white male. These aren't impossible things to fix. But
once more, it looks like the message the Republicans are taking out
of this is the Rush Limbaugh line that the they're just not
conservative enough. If we had been more conservative and less
accomodating we would have won. That's the attitude. As long as you
keep driving off that cliff, it's only going to get worse. So instead
of blasting the winners here, maybe you need to look inward and figure
out where your side went wrong, and it wasn't because Democrats are
nothing but takers and moochers and you didn't do enough to get that
message across.

[calvin]

Even if you were right in all you say (which of course you
aren't) there is some point at which the debt becomes too high
to sustain by borrowing, higher taxation on the producers, and
the Fed creating money out of nothing. Then it all collapses;
and your so-called compassion won't help much, except maybe
you'll want to share your stash of cockroaches with those
who're hungrier than you are.

[moviePig]

Here's my lone noisemaker in the post-election celebration, and it's
merely to quote an election-night post I read on ./slashdot:

----------------
Dear Republican Party:

I am a solid liberal, but some of the finest times in my life [have
been when] having a serious discussion with an intelligent
conservative. But tonight, William F. Buckley is rolling over in his
grave. The economy is weak. A shallow analysis says Obama should have
been voted out. But you didn't deliver.
Because the Right in the U.S.A. has been taken over by shrill blind
ideological fanatics and well, frankly, the stupid. So the only guy
who could maneuver from the primaries, where the truly crackpot
rightwing idiots held power, to the general elections, was an empty
vapid lying suit like Romney.
The pendulum swings left and right in this country, your time will
come again. But the only way you are going to get there, Republicans,
is to use your brain. Stop pandering to the loud shrill dumb voices on
the right. Cut them out, excise them, ignore them, marginalize them as
they deserve, because they are a liability, not a strength. And
thereby be a serious power again. Otherwise, you collapsed tonight,
and you will continue to collapse, until you come to grips with the
raging Randroids, hatemongers, and assorted narrow minded morons on
your side of the fence.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of stupid moronic liberals as
well.
But the difference is, they don't hold the power in the Democratic
party for now.

Yours [truly],
One happy elated American liberal tonight


The path of lies, empty suits, vile sources of cash, and fearmongering
was repudiated, soundly.

All is good in the world.

I sleep the deep happy sleep of the mightily vindicated, tonight.
----------------

[calvin]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 10:46:27 AM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
> Here's my lone noisemaker in the post-election celebration, and it's
> merely to quote an election-night post I read on ./slashdot:
> ----------------

> ...

> The path of lies, empty suits, vile sources of cash,
> and fearmongering was repudiated, soundly.

> ...
> ----------------

Correction: That's the side that won.

[Obveeus]

"nick" <leftbehindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Calvin, our boys didn't so much win this election as your guys lost
>it. The election was a rejection of far right extremism--that anti-
>birth control/pro-rape thing didn't work out too well-- as well as
>how Republicans paid the price of narrowcasting itself into the party
>of the rural white male. These aren't impossible things to fix. But
>once more, it looks like the message the Republicans are taking out
>of this is the Rush Limbaugh line that the they're just not
>conservative enough. If we had been more conservative and less
>accomodating we would have won. That's the attitude. As long as you
>keep driving off that cliff, it's only going to get worse. So instead
>of blasting the winners here, maybe you need to look inward and figure
>out where your side went wrong, and it wasn't because Democrats are
>nothing but takers and moochers and you didn't do enough to get that
>message across.

The way the Republicans are acting right now, I expect that in 4 years we
are going to be watching their Presidential candidate in a video clip
talking about how he cannot do anything about the 52%...and 4 years after
that they will be brushing off the 57%. Lots of baby boomers retiring in
the coming years.

[calvin]

On Nov 9, 10:31 am, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Where our side went wrong, as you asked, was in letting
it slip away at the end by making some bad mistakes:

(1) After your gal, Candy, gave the second debate to
Obama by helping him out on the misrepresentation
of his response to the 9/11/12 terrorist attack, Romney
should have set the record straight on that at the
beginning of the third debate, and never let up. The
media would then not have been able to bury the story
of the poor response, the lie, and the coverup. But
Romney, incredibly, did nothing and the story, which
should have been the October surprise, was ignored
by all except the conservative news sources.

(2) Christie gave Obama an enormous boost, which was
unnecessary because all he needed to do was publicly
demand what he wanted from Obama, who would have
had no choice but to do what was asked.

(3) The Hispanic vote should have been courted by
appeal to conservative principles, instead of cynically
acting, like the Democrats, as if all Hispanics are to
be seduced by givaways and amnesty.

(4) The BS that fills most of your paragraph should have
been been turned over to Ryan to aggressively refute;
and more important, Ryan should have been unleashed
instead of being inhibited by the campaign managers.

Of course you and all of the left want the Republicans
to take the wrong lesson from the loss, to make your
victory as lasting as possible, and that may well happen.
Truth may not only be the first casualty of war, but also
the first casualty of an election defeat.

[Tom]

Care about you? Nah... I care about the truth and calling you out on
your bullshit.

Do you have your lead pipe handy?

Tom

[moviePig]

Although it's true that your man never hewed to any idea long enough
to raise it to the status of 'lie' -- or, indeed, of more than
'improv' -- still, I'd think a coherent, mostly well-intended post
like the one I quoted would merit a deeper response than "I know you
are, but what am I?"

[Tom]

All of what you wrote above is wholly inaccurate. Anyone who's watched
Candy Crowley for even a few minutes knows she leans right.

Furhtermore, Condi Rice says there is no coverup. Who you gonna
believe... her or your Fox News masters?

>
> (2) Christie gave Obama an enormous boost, which was
>  unnecessary because all he needed to do was publicly
>  demand what he wanted from Obama, who would have
>  had no choice but to do what was asked.

Wrong again... the President called the Governor first. The President
is a chess master in a world full of checkers players.

>
> (3) The Hispanic vote should have been courted by
>  appeal to conservative principles, instead of cynically
>  acting, like the Democrats, as if all Hispanics are to
>  be seduced by givaways and amnesty.

What giveaways? Do you mean amnesty in the way Ronald Reagan granted
amnesty to 3M undocumented immigrants?

Why didn't you mention the slef- deportation comments by Gov. Romney?
Didn't those comments not make it to your world?

>
> (4) The BS that fills most of your paragraph should have
>  been been turned over to Ryan to aggressively refute;
>  and more important, Ryan should have been unleashed
>  instead of being inhibited by the campaign managers.

Rep. Ryan was hamstrung by his close association to Rep. Akin and his
budget projections, which were contradictory to Moderate Mitt's
agenda. That's why the campaign buried him in the closing weeks and
sequestered him from reporters.

>
> Of course you and all of the left want the Republicans
> to take the wrong lesson from the loss, to make your
> victory as lasting as possible, and that may well happen.
> Truth may not only be the first casualty of war, but also
> the first casualty of an election defeat.

The Republican party, as it currently exists, wouldn't know the truth
if it fell on them. The lesson to be learned is we need a centrist
approach to solving our country's issues, but men like John Boehner
and Mitch McConnell couldn't find the political center with a compass.

Hold on to your delusions, 'calvin' and keep you lead pipe close.

Tom

[moviePig]

> ...

> > (2) Christie gave Obama an enormous boost, which was
>  unnecessary because all he needed to do was publicly
>  demand what he wanted from Obama, who would have
>  had no choice but to do what was asked.

> ...

> > Of course you and all of the left want the Republicans
> to take the wrong lesson from the loss, to make your
> victory as lasting as possible, and that may well happen.
> Truth may not only be the first casualty of war, but also
> the first casualty of an election defeat.

As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.
World without end.
Amen.
Amen.
-Southern Baptist Doxology

(Iirc, Nate Silver's embarrassingly dead-on predictions were made
months before the "strategy errors" you cite.)

[calvin]

I wonder why you think the ravaged world of
The Portable Phonograph awaits only conservatives.
To be more specific, I wonder why you think the
guy with the cough who is approaching has no
weapon. And last I wonder why you don't
appreciate the fact that the guy with the machine
is sharing the music with others, in fact limiting
his listening to the sharing sessions.

[calvin]

I went back and read it again, but all I could do in a
a point-by-point response would be to say, "false,
false, false, false, ..." It's a bit shocking that someone
as intelligent as you regarding the arts and literature
can be so undiscriminating in the area of politics. That
may be mostly from a habit of not paying attention to
anyone except Jon Stewart and Bill Maher.

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:

>Where our side went wrong, as you asked, was in letting
>it slip away at the end by making some bad mistakes:

Do you believe that there was any point in time when Romney was actually
ahead?

>(1) After your gal, Candy, gave the second debate to
> Obama by helping him out on the misrepresentation
> of his response to the 9/11/12 terrorist attack, Romney
> should have set the record straight on that at the
> beginning of the third debate, and never let up. The
> media would then not have been able to bury the story
> of the poor response, the lie, and the coverup. But
> Romney, incredibly, did nothing and the story, which
> should have been the October surprise, was ignored
> by all except the conservative news sources.

The GOP flogged that horse to death...and apparently the House plans to keep
flogging later this month. Somewhere, someone in the GOP must know that
every person with a security budget will always claim to need more the next
year, that every incident of violence around the world can not be
pre-emptively prevented, and that increasing the battle is not always the
way to reduce a body count.

>(2) Christie gave Obama an enormous boost, which was
> unnecessary because all he needed to do was publicly
> demand what he wanted from Obama, who would have
> had no choice but to do what was asked.

If I remember correctly, Christie already tried to do the GOP bias dance and
gave several public addresses where he acknowledged the need/assistance from
the Federal Government, but omited using Obama's name. The result was that
his own constituents became annoyed that he was using the hurricane as a
political tool instead of worrying about his people. After he got called on
that, he stopped acting in a biased manner and started acting like a
Governor.

>(3) The Hispanic vote should have been courted by
> appeal to conservative principles,

Yep...and that s the biggest mistake of the GOP.

> instead of cynically
> acting, like the Democrats, as if all Hispanics are to
> be seduced by givaways and amnesty.

...or cynically acting like all Republicans and pretending that all
Hispanics are illegal aliens.

>(4) The BS that fills most of your paragraph should have
> been been turned over to Ryan to aggressively refute;
> and more important, Ryan should have been unleashed
> instead of being inhibited by the campaign managers.

Ryan is so much closer to a Palin replica than any of you right wingers seem
to realize. He was hired for his right wing imagery, but substance does not
exist.

>Of course you and all of the left want the Republicans
>to take the wrong lesson from the loss, to make your
>victory as lasting as possible, and that may well happen.
>Truth may not only be the first casualty of war, but also
>the first casualty of an election defeat.

The only truth here is that moving further to the right is not going to win
future elections or make this country a better place.

[calvin]

On Nov 9, 12:08 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>

> >Of course you and all of the left want the Republicans
> >to take the wrong lesson from the loss, to make your
> >victory as lasting as possible, and that may well happen.
> >Truth may not only be the first casualty of war, but also
> >the first casualty of an election defeat.
>
> The only truth here is that moving further to the right is not going to win
> future elections or make this country a better place.

Future elections are not the pressing problem.
Making the country a better place is not the pressing problem.
Saving the country from a financial nuclear fireball is the pressing
problem.

[Obveeus]

If you believe that, then you should be calling your Republican
Congressmen/Senators and demanding that they raise taxes (not just cut
spending).

Side note: you never did address the issue of inheritance tax as a Randian
issue. Why not set that tax at 100% since none of those lucky by birth
folks ever earned any of what they are handed?

[calvin]

On Nov 9, 1:08 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 9, 12:08 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Of course you and all of the left want the Republicans
> >> >to take the wrong lesson from the loss, to make your
> >> >victory as lasting as possible, and that may well happen.
> >> >Truth may not only be the first casualty of war, but also
> >> >the first casualty of an election defeat.
>
> >> The only truth here is that moving further to the right is not going to
> >> win
> >> future elections or make this country a better place.
>
> >Future elections are not the pressing problem.
> >Making the country a better place is not the pressing problem.
> >Saving the country from a financial nuclear fireball is the pressing
> >problem.
>
> If you believe that, then you should be calling your Republican
> Congressmen/Senators and demanding that they raise taxes (not just cut
> spending).

Raising taxes decreases government revenue because it
inhibits investment and business expansion, which bring in
more revenue when taxes are decreased. However, even
accepting your premise, it wouldn't help much. The last I heard
on this was that if taxes on the rich were made 100% for a year,
the increase in revenue would be enough to run the government
for only one month at the current spending rate. (Only Occupy
protesters are stupid enough to think that a 100% tax makes
sense, however.)

>
> Side note:  you never did address the issue of inheritance tax as a Randian
> issue.  Why not set that tax at 100% since none of those lucky by birth
> folks ever earned any of what they are handed?

I don't remember being asked about that. In any case, inheritance tax
and estate tax are two related and complicated issues. As for your
false and knee-jerk premise, "none of those lucky by birth folks ever
earned any of what they are handed", well, the moochers to whom
you want to hand that money certainly didn't earn it.

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
On Nov 9, 1:08 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> If you believe that, then you should be calling your Republican
>> Congressmen/Senators and demanding that they raise taxes (not just cut
>> spending).
>
>Raising taxes decreases government revenue because it
>inhibits investment and business expansion, which bring in
>more revenue when taxes are decreased.

Which is, of course, a lie as can be shown by looking at the economic data
of this country's history. Taxation and productivity have only a very
loosly direct relationship and taxes have been higher for most of the last
century than they are now. Certainly, productivity was not lower during all
that higher tax time.

> However, even
>accepting your premise, it wouldn't help much. The last I heard
>on this was that if taxes on the rich were made 100% for a year,
>the increase in revenue would be enough to run the government
>for only one month at the current spending rate.

Any solution to the current economic problem has to include both tax
increases and spending cuts. If you insist on taking one of the two items
off the table, you doom this country to further massive debt increases.

> (Only Occupy
>protesters are stupid enough to think that a 100% tax makes
>sense, however.)

No one actually believes it, so why make such false claims?

>> Side note: you never did address the issue of inheritance tax as a
>> Randian
>> issue. Why not set that tax at 100% since none of those lucky by birth
>> folks ever earned any of what they are handed?
>
>I don't remember being asked about that. In any case, inheritance tax
>and estate tax are two related and complicated issues. As for your
>false and knee-jerk premise, "none of those lucky by birth folks ever
>earned any of what they are handed", well, the moochers to whom
>you want to hand that money certainly didn't earn it.

The moochers I want to hand money to are called 'Americans' since 100% of
them are currently living in a country that is spending more than it takes
in at the expense of future generations. Aside from a (sortof almost) year
or two of Clinton's presidency, that deficit spending has been a constant
theft from the as yet unborn children that has gone on for 60+ years.

[calvin]

On Nov 9, 1:52 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:

> >Raising taxes decreases government revenue because it
> >inhibits investment and business expansion, which bring in
> >more revenue when taxes are decreased.
>

> Which is, of course, a lie ...

I dealt with this in this very forum nearly nine years ago:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several people in this thread don't seem to understand
how tax cuts can both stimulate the economy and increase
government revenue. Especially, the possibility of
increasing government revenue by cutting taxes eludes
them. But the paradox isn't very hard to understand,
if you try.

I'll put this in terms of a simplified example:

Let's say that Suzy is a typical little girl who
needs some extra spending money. She decides to
set up a lemonade stand, at 25 cents per cup. It
costs her 20 dollars of savings to set up the business,
with a crude table, chair, sign, and the first day's supply
of lemonade and ice. Every day she sells a hundred paper
cups of lemonade, bringing in 25 dollars. She has to
spend 5 dollars a day on replenishing supplies,
and she has to pay 10 dollars a day in city tax.

After her initial investment, made from her savings,
she clears 10 dollars a day, which is what she needed
in extra money, and she's also able to gradually restore
her savings. The government gets ten dollars a day
from Suzy, which it spends on worthwhile programs,
while Suzy makes 10 dollars a day in profit. Also,
5 dollars a day goes to business for the sellers of
powdered lemonade, ice, and paper cups.

So everything is stable, with Suzy and the government
benefitting from the lemonade business. Suzy's
suppliers benefit a little too.

Now the city elects a new mayor, who decides to cut
taxes in half. This means that the government gets
only 5 dollars a day from Suzy. So how can it
continue its worthwhile programs?

Well, Suzy now gets to keep an extra 5 dollars a day.
But instead of splurging and spending it, she saves
it, and uses it to set up new lemonade stands in
4 other neighborhoods. Every week she sets up
another little girl with a lemonade stand of her own
in another neighborhood. For each new business,
in similar neighborhoods, the government starts getting
an additional 5 dollars a day.

Suzy collects 2 dollars a day from each new business,
each of which, after paying Suzy 2 dollars a day, and
5 dollars a day in tax to the city, and 5 dollars a day
to replenish supplies, has 13 dollars a day in profit.

Suzy can only expand to four new businesses, because
of issues of age and logistics, but the net result of
all of her expansion, made possible by the city's
tax cut, is that the city is now bringing in 25 dollars
a day in taxes to use for its worthwhile programs, 4 new
jobs have been created, creating a total of 52 dollars
a day in profit for the 4 new girls, and increasing Suzy's
daily profit from 10 dollars a day to 18, giving her
a lot of extra money to save for college. Also, the
suppliers of the 5 girls are getting 5 times their
original daily business.

That's how tax cuts create new investments, which
create jobs and more business, bringing benefits and
wealth to more people, and INCREASING GOVERNMENT REVENUE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:12c7cc3b-f758-4fd4...@r5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

>On Nov 9, 1:52 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >Raising taxes decreases government revenue because it
>> >inhibits investment and business expansion, which bring in
>> >more revenue when taxes are decreased.
>>
>> Which is, of course, a lie ...
>
>I dealt with this in this very forum nearly nine years ago:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Several people in this thread don't seem to understand
>how tax cuts can both stimulate the economy and increase
>government revenue. Especially, the possibility of
>increasing government revenue by cutting taxes eludes
>them. But the paradox isn't very hard to understand,
>if you try.

You made fun of the Occupy WallStreet crowd for thinking that 100% taxes
would solve the government's financial shortages. Should I read your above
cause/effect claim and make fun of you for thinking that 0% taxes would
raise the most amount of revenue?

The very simple fact is that there is an optimal point (tax rate) in between
the two extremes. That optimal point may move depending on the particulars
of the economy (wars, natural disasters, consumer confidence, etc...), but
there is always an optimal point. Some people will always claim that
optimal point is lower than current rates. The GOP/Tea Party, Libertarians
are screaming that right now...and always do...and will keep screaming it
even if tax rates are lowered because that is what they do. Anyone that
looks at the history of this nation can see that it was very productive in
the past and enjoyed much success...and that tax rates were much higher than
they are now. Even people limited to short term memory should be able to
compare the higher tax rate Clinton years with the lower tax rate Bush years
and conclude that lowering taxes does not increase productivity the way you
claim with your lemonade stand scenario. There are a lot more variables in
play here, but the fact remains that taxes are not high right now (relative
to US history).

[calvin]

On Nov 9, 2:40 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 9, 1:52 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >> >Raising taxes decreases government revenue because it
> >> >inhibits investment and business expansion, which bring in
> >> >more revenue when taxes are decreased.
>
> >> Which is, of course, a lie ...
>
> >I dealt with this in this very forum nearly nine years ago:

> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------­------

Why are you changing the subject? I attempted to illustrate
with a simplified example, the concept of increasing
government revenue by decreasing taxes. Did you read
my example? Do you just not want to bother to read it?
All I did was show that what looks like a paradox is not a
paradox. It is important to show that because the left
refuses to accept the concept that government revenue
can ever be increased by tax reduction.

Until you deal substantively with my example, I'm not going
to continue with you on this. Make whatever you like of that.

[William Hale]

In article
<5621bc2d-74b1-4cd4...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

I don't think anybody has denied that it is impossible for government
revenue to increase when taxes are reduced. Isn't this just the "trickle
down" theory that has been discussed many times.

Did government revenue increase during the eight years of Bush tax cuts?
I don't know, but I get the impression that it did not.

[Obveeus]

I read your example. It offered nothing that wasn't obvious and it does
nothing but lead to the false conclusion that lower taxes bring in more
revenue. Did you read my reply? Do you just not want to bother to read it?

>All I did was show that what looks like a paradox is not a
>paradox.

I never claimed a paradox existed. Did you read my reply above?

> It is important to show that because the left
>refuses to accept the concept that government revenue
>can ever be increased by tax reduction.

Again, you put forth a strawman (higher taxes always result in higher
revenue) that no one actually believes. Even the Occupy WallStreet people
you want to point and laugh at don't actually believe what you claim they
believe.

>Until you deal substantively with my example, I'm not going
>to continue with you on this. Make whatever you like of that.

I did deal with it substantively. I pointed out that by your logic, taxes
should be cut in half again so that even more tax revenue could be brought
in...then taxes should be cut in half again and even more tax revenue...and
etc... until the tax rate is 0% and the tax revenue is unlimited. I didn't
think I actually needed to fill in the details of the silly
extrapolation/conclusion in order for you to understand my point, which is
that taxes have an optimal level. Additionally, I addressed the substance
of your lemonade stand logic by pointing out that taxes were higher in the
past and tax revenue was higher and the country was more productive. George
Bush inspired the 'Bush tax cut' using the logic of your lemonade stand
example and look what actually happened to the country: taxes went down,
causing lower tax revenues, less productivity, and a huge increase in the
federal debt.

[William Hale]

In article
<5621bc2d-74b1-4cd4...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:

> On Nov 9, 2:40�ｿｽpm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > >On Nov 9, 1:52 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > >> >Raising taxes decreases government revenue because it
> > >> >inhibits investment and business expansion, which bring in
> > >> >more revenue when taxes are decreased.
> >
> > >> Which is, of course, a lie ...
> >
> > >I dealt with this in this very forum nearly nine years ago:

> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------�ｿｽ

> > >------
> > >Several people in this thread don't seem to understand
> > >how tax cuts can both stimulate the economy and increase

> > >government revenue. �ｿｽEspecially, the possibility of

> > >increasing government revenue by cutting taxes eludes

> > >them. �ｿｽBut the paradox isn't very hard to understand,

> > >if you try.
> >
> > You made fun of the Occupy WallStreet crowd for thinking that 100% taxes

> > would solve the government's financial shortages. �ｿｽShould I read your above

> > cause/effect claim and make fun of you for thinking that 0% taxes would
> > raise the most amount of revenue?
> >
> > The very simple fact is that there is an optimal point (tax rate) in
> > between

> > the two extremes. �ｿｽThat optimal point may move depending on the particulars

> > of the economy (wars, natural disasters, consumer confidence, etc...), but

> > there is always an optimal point. �ｿｽSome people will always claim that
> > optimal point is lower than current rates. �ｿｽThe GOP/Tea Party, Libertarians

> > are screaming that right now...and always do...and will keep screaming it

> > even if tax rates are lowered because that is what they do. �ｿｽAnyone that

> > looks at the history of this nation can see that it was very productive in
> > the past and enjoyed much success...and that tax rates were much higher
> > than

> > they are now. �ｿｽEven people limited to short term memory should be able to

> > compare the higher tax rate Clinton years with the lower tax rate Bush
> > years
> > and conclude that lowering taxes does not increase productivity the way you
> > claim with your lemonade stand scenario. There are a lot more variables in
> > play here, but the fact remains that taxes are not high right now (relative
> > to US history).

[cut]

> Until you deal substantively with my example, I'm not going
> to continue with you on this. Make whatever you like of that.

Suzy can start additional lemonade stands without depending on money she
gets from tax cuts. There are investors that are willing to lend their
money so that Suzy can expand her business to other street corners.

[trotsky]

On 11/9/12 2:35 PM, William Hale wrote:

> Suzy can start additional lemonade stands without depending on money she
> gets from tax cuts. There are investors that are willing to lend their
> money so that Suzy can expand her business to other street corners.

If Suzy had a Randian philosophy, though, she would start turning tricks
to make the big money.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 3:35:34 PM UTC-5, William Hale wrote:

>
> Suzy can start additional lemonade stands without depending on money she
> gets from tax cuts. There are investors that are willing to lend their
> money so that Suzy can expand her business to other street corners.

If money is coming in why waste it on penny-ante lemon stands where employee pilfering and foodstuff waste cuts into profits. Obviously, Sally would enter into hedge fund trading or the more traditional stock trades where she doesn't even have to leave the house cutting down on the liability of her own and employee's work-related accidents.

[moviePig]

To me, in this instance, the "politics" you find important seem like
complaining about particular wind gusts of the recent hurricane...

[moviePig]

> ...

...and, in doing so, may have become an early front-runner for 2016 --
albeit in some Republican party other than the Republican Party.

[moviePig]

Who was it again who's peddling fear?

[Obveeus]

If the choice was between Christie, Ryan, Rubio, Scott (though maybe the
current job loss eliminates him), Gingrich, Ron/Rand Paul, and Trump...I
would choose Christie. He still comes off as a tool of the Republican party
rather than a leader who can drag them in the right direction, but still
less of a tool than the others.

[trotsky]

On 11/9/12 3:22 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 3:35:34 PM UTC-5, William Hale wrote:
>
>>
>> Suzy can start additional lemonade stands without depending on money she
>> gets from tax cuts. There are investors that are willing to lend their
>> money so that Suzy can expand her business to other street corners.
>
> If money is coming in why waste it on penny-ante lemon stands

I, too, think the idea of lemon stands is a bad one.

[moviePig]

On Nov 9, 4:47 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

For at least a brief Pollyanna moment, I'm indulging my fantasy. It's
the one that says our electorate really would like a return of the two-
party system ...so that a reasonable-sounding Conservative that
openly, flatly repudiates his party's loonies (and, yes, their votes)
might have a real shot at gaining Independents and crossovers.

[calvin]

I have an obvious move here, but I won't make it. I looked
over the thread and see that it's 9 to 1 at this point. I'm
in the position of a chess master going from board to board,
making a move and then on to the next. But the problem is
that I'm not a master of this. There are boards where it's
my turn, but I have to stop somewhere, so I'll resign here
where my move is the most obvious. All of you have
checkmate by default, not that you wouldn't have won anyway.

I will retire to merely observing the accelerating crumbling of
civilization.

[calvin]

On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> I have an obvious move here, but I won't make it.  I looked
> over the thread and see that it's 9 to 1 at this point.  I'm
> in the position of a chess master going from board to board,
> making a move and then on to the next.  But the problem is
> that I'm not a master of this.  There are boards where it's
> my turn, but I have to stop somewhere, so I'll resign here
> where my move is the most obvious.  All of you have
> checkmate by default, not that you wouldn't have won anyway.
>
> I will retire to merely observing the accelerating crumbling of
> civilization.

What a pompous ass.

[Tom]

On Nov 9, 11:16 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 11:47 am, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 1:13 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 8, 11:08 pm, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Your future...
> > > >http://ebookbrowse.com/the-portable-phonograph-pdf-d287676707
>
> > > Four posts in a row, three directly to me and the other one
> > > about me.  Looks like you do care.
>
> > > Oddly, The Portrable Phonograph is one of my all-time
> > > favorite short stories, first read in college days.
>
> > Care about you? Nah... I care about the truth and calling you out on
> > your bullshit.
>
> > Do you have your lead pipe handy?
>
> I wonder why you think the ravaged world of
> The Portable Phonograph awaits only conservatives.

I don't believe we're headed towards the ravaged world of TPP... you
do.

> To be more specific, I wonder why you think the
> guy with the cough who is approaching has no
> weapon.

Why do you think I think that?

>And last I wonder why you don't
> appreciate the fact that the guy with the machine
> is sharing the music with others, in fact limiting
> his listening to the sharing sessions.

I wonder how you arrived at all of these conclusions about my opinion
about this short story, when in fact, I have said nothing about my
thoughts about it.

Tom

[Tom]

Steve LaTourette, (R) Ohio, seems to be quite sensible...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/#49765622

...but I think this guy more likely appeals to the low information
types...

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/09/15048850-wisconsins-ron-johnson-laments-ignorance?lite

The current version of the GOP is on life support and the generator
powering the respirator is almost out of gas.

Tom

[Tom]

Quitter.

People who do nothing deserve nothing.

Tom

[moviePig]

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_m...

>
> ...but I think this guy more likely appeals to the low information
> types...
>

> http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/09/15048850-wisconsins-ron-...

>
> The current version of the GOP is on life support and the generator
> powering the respirator is almost out of gas.

Indeed, LaTourette doesn't sound awful in that clip. And I assume
he's learned how to get quickly past his unfortunate moniker...

[Tom]

Heh... I thought the same thing when I first heard of him.

Tom

[Tom]

They're still pedaling fear... My apologies for the length, but this
is a worthwhile read...

Tom


I'm seeing Americans post photos of our Flag hung upside down because
the President won reelection. They're defending this action as a
"Naval sign of distress". Let me tell you something: you are not on a
battleship, you are a manager at McDonalds in Follansbee, WV, and you
are in fact, a lunatic.

I've avoided "spiking the football" over a great night for the
President and for common sense in the Senate - Richard Murdock and
Todd Akin deserved more than a loss. But I've held off, because I
respect, am friends with, and on certain issues agree with, many
patriotic Republicans who work hard to make this country a better
place and simply disagreed with who should be Commander in Chief.
That's fair and healthy.

And, I also didn't spike the football because I've lost elections
before and I know how terrible it feels.

It's called maturity and not enough people in either party have it.

The following jaw punch is not directed at common sense Republicans,
nor does it condone radicals on the Left. It is directed at the right
wing fanatics who put party before country, conspiracy before reality,
and ideology before science and intellect.

To Tea Party Patriots and hardcore Religious Engineers:

Republicans lost because their party leadership and most candidates
feared you, listened to you, and looked the other way on important
issues as you picked the dumbest, craziest nominees in key primaries
(Murdock and Akin), or converted otherwise sensible, experienced
candidates to Crazy Town (Romney).

There's nothing wrong with wanting limited government. I do. There's
nothing wrong with believing in God, the Golden Rule, or wanting to
reduce abortions. I do, too. But you've taken it too damn far and
scare the shit out of people you could otherwise persuade.

Yes, the message and messenger matter (you're failing at both, BTW),
but no Madison Avenue P.R. firm, K Street lobbying firm, Fox News
"analyst", or local chapter of "Freedom Works" can sell the flaming
dung you're slinging.

Smart people can lose. But smart people always learn.

You didn't lose because you "weren't conservative enough" or because
the country has become full of lazy "takers" who don't want to earn a
living or just want America to "turn in to Europe".

You didn't lose because of Hurricane Sandy or because Chris Christie
hugged the President on TV - they were both doing their jobs.

You didn't lose because of a liberal media, liberal college campuses,
liberal polls that were "weighted to Democrats" (mostly because they
were accurate), or because of "election fraud"... actually, that
probably benefited you this time.

No. You lost because your policies, tone, conspiracies, rigid
inflexibility and irrational rhetoric helped align enough moderates,
swing voters, and minority groups whom otherwise could be persuaded by
Republicans, to align with Democrats and a beatable incumbent.

It's not that you didn't get your message out, it's that we all
actually heard it and threw up a little in our mouths.

There isn't a mandate for Democrats in this election. Liberalism
wasn't rewarded in this election. However, calm pragmatism,
compassion, working together, compromise and sincerity were rewarded.
People may not have agreed with President Obama, but more felt he was
sincere and that he understood their daily problems, fears, and
dreams. If you don't trust what the polls say, take a look at who is
sworn in on January 20th. I thought you'd at least believe in Math
when it came to counting to 270.

Sincerity is the only thing in politics you can't fake. You can't
teach it. No matter how shiny a candidate's bio is, how smooth he is,
or how perfect the gray hairs rest on his temples --- any average Joe
on the street can spot a bullshitter.

Mitt is a generous and good man, but he didn't know who he was or
"needed" to be at any given time in that campaign. That's largely his
fault for lacking core convictions or personal toughness (Ronald
Reagan and George W. Bush possessed both traits - that's why they
won).

But you, the right wing base of the party, who drove so many of us
moderate republicans out the door years ago, were the main catalyst.
Your inability to reason, compromise, or let new facts and evidence
challenge your predetermined outcomes led millions of moderates to no
longer be able to stand on stage with you.

Frankly, you're embarrassing - more so than a crazy family member at
dinner, or having your mom drop you off at a high school dance.

You say stupid shit and look stupid saying it.

You pass amendments to ban flag burning and then hang it upside down
and post it on Facebook when you lose.

You preach limited government in the economy when Democrats are in
charge and then look the other way when you're in charge.

You want a government small enough to stay out of corporations and
banks but big enough for bedrooms and hospital respirators (see
Schiavo, Terri).

There's a hatred inside of you that burns in a way that scares normal
people.

You made unlikely allies in large corporations who are more interested
in tax breaks and loopholes even if the government has to cut your
Medicare and Social Security or cut education to a point where states
and local governments have no financial choice but to educate your
children in portable trailer classrooms with 35 other students.

Would these corporations do this just to help pad their quarterly
earnings reports with certain tax and regulatory policies? You bet
your sweet ass they do. And you better believe they're happy to have
you make the "freedom" argument as "concerned citizen patriots" on
their behalf.

Yet, after those corporations spent billions on TV adds and herded you
like sheep over the last half decade to discredit Barack Obama for
everything from being a "Godless communist" --- to his "being born in
Kenya and hatching a secret plot to take down America" --- to
Obamacare's "death panels and job killing regulations" -

YOU still lost.

After having a Senate Republican Leader state that his party's top
priority in Congress was to make "Obama a one term President" and a
House of Representatives that blocked everything he tried to do and
then had the brass to criticize him for "not getting anything done" -

YOU still lost.

After attacking gay people who want equal protection under the law
(BTW, I'm referring to the 14th amendment to the constitution, I know
you forget most of the amendments after the 2nd one) -

YOU still lost.

After attacking the Hispanic community who's tired of being spoken
"at" like criminals, attacking low income women who rely on Planned
Parenthood for services of which 98% have nothing to do with abortion,
and attacking relatively trivial things like PBS that children and
adults enjoy as "1" damn television channel that doesn't include Honey
Boo Boo or a "Fox News Breaking Alert" announcing Obama's latest
"Czar" appointment -

YOU still lost.

And after throwing all the red meat in your warped political base out
to the rest of the country to eat, the majority of Americans weren't
hungry for it and didn't trust ordering from your unhealthy, de-
regulated menu -

YOU still lost.

You can read me the constitution, but you clearly don't have a
practical understanding of what you've read, heard on television, or
forwarded to your entire email list of like minded xenophobes.

This country is great because our founders were smart enough to limit
the government's power and give the people enough freedom and
authority to correct their own mistakes in pursuit of a "more perfect
union" (it's in the first damn line of the Preamble, in case you can't
find it in your Tea Party Constitution Cliffs Notes).

Our founders were utterly brilliant and sophisticated. I don't like to
speak for them, but I doubt they would have been friends with Glenn
Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. Nah, they wouldn't have made the
guest list at Mt. Vernon or Monticello.

But let's be clear, our founders weren't perfect. They owned slaves.
Only White male property owners had a say in things. Women, blacks,
native americans, and other constituencies had to wait for an American
dream and in many cases, are still waiting and working for it.
Speaking of work, children were working 12-16 hour days with zero
safety protections in statute. Zero.

The constitution, subsequent amendments and Supreme Court rulings and
opinions since 1800 aren't perfectly clear (those who think they are
tend to have had a healthy serving of Kool-Aid and have never watched
oral arguments at the Supreme Court).

The founders knew that they, and the constitution they drafted,
weren't perfect. This is why they added a Bill of Rights and why they
created a Supreme Court and a process that has allowed us to add 27
amendments to their work of art.

Their imperfection is what led to a Civil War to prove that human and
civil rights aren't a "states' rights issue" - they're endowed by our
creator, not by legislatures in Mississippi or Alabama, and they're
protected equally in our constitution, but also in our democratically
passed laws.

I run from the Capitol steps to the Lincoln Memorial most mornings
that I'm in Washington. I may not be fast or smart, but I can read
what's carved in stone.

Please. I welcome a challenge to what I've said. If you think because
I voted for President Obama that I'm a socialist or that I don't want
a better America, I'm happy to take time from running a business I've
co-founded and time from money I'm trying to raise for Big Brothers
Big Sisters of America to pause and give you a fresh one. At no
charge.

But I do ask this: be a real Patriot. Look at that flag you've hung
upside down. Look at what you've done to it and what that means.
Thousands of our bravest men and women, braver than me, just lost
limbs and in many cases their lives so that Iraqis and Afghanis could
vote however they see fit. I did that on Tuesday and so did you.
That's what that flag stands for - equal access to a process, not a
guarantee for any of our desired outcomes.

A country that defeated Hitler, Mussolini, and bin Laden won't crumble
because the guy you wanted to be President got beat.

You lost. Now learn from it.

Sincerely,

A Proud American

[bermuda999]

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 4:25:52 PM UTC-5, reilloc wrote:
> On 11/8/2012 2:03 PM, calvin wrote:

>
> > On Nov 8, 2:56 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>

> >>> I reject your 'welcome back'. Thanks but no thanks.
>
> >>> moviePig and 'Tom' claim to have read the book.
>
> >>> Let them explain the excerpt. Good day, sir.
>
> >>
>
> >> I eagerly await enlightenment, but I'm worried that no one other than
> >> yourself may know the true meaning that you intended to convey.
>
> > He stood at the window, trying not to think. ...
>
> > What was the use? Why had he done it? Why should
> > he ever want to do anything again? . . .

>
> > "Dagny! That
> > bridge of ours�throw in the ash can all the drawings
> > I sent you, because . . . What? . . . Oh, that? To hell
> > with that! Never mind the looters and their laws!
> > Forget it! Dagny, what do we care! ...
> > What? . . . I can't hear you. Have you caught a cold? . . .
> > What are you thanking me for, as yet? Wait till I
> > explain it to you."
>

>
> Somewhere, in time or space, bad fiction or just unsorted lists of
> words, there's a Dagny for Calvin, waiting by the phone to hear his
> voice say, "I finally got them to sell me that bridge in Brooklyn, dear."

"He jerked her closer, to stifle the sight of his own shudder. His hands were going through the automatic motions of intimacy – and she complied, but in a manner that made him feel as if the beats of her arteries under his touch were snickering giggles"
-A. Rand Atlas Shrugged

[Tom]

I wonder how many times Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock read this
passage before they went on dates...

Tom