Watch this. If you are a Leftwinger...FEAR this......
Gunner Asch
The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.
...It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474
Buerste
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:0bpfl5hfn0pcu3cmr...@4ax.com...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZs8k4pJcyk
>
>
Now that MA did it's job, it's CA's turn to turn away from Obammy and his
deep-throat policies. Get rid of Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, etc.
dav19...@nowhere.invalid
<gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
>existence.
>...It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
As long as all Americans are stuck in the
Left/Right...Democrat/Republican......Coke/Pepsi duopoly party
structure that has been bought and paid for by the financial/social
engineers behind the Federal Reserve system, together with its Counsel
on Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission bureaucratic operatives,
the United States will continue to decline.
You are currently being given the "choice" between National Socialism
(Nazism) on the "right", and Maoist Communism on the "left". BOTH ARE
THE SAME THING!!!
Both have dictators, both have puppet filled judicial benches, both
have massive police surveillance apparatuses, and both have the goal
of exterminating "social undesirables".....which should certainly be a
worry to you.
The American public must avoid the "divide and conquer" tactics of
these megalomaniacal elitists whom consider themselves the
"illuminated ones", consider themselves in possession of the "divine
right of kings" to engineer society, and whose goal is exterminating
all who disagree with them.
Support third party candidates that truly want to throw off these
parasites and get the US Government back to operating on
Constitutional priciples and sound monetary principles.
Audit the Federal Reserve, nationalize the ill gotten assests of its
owners, abolish the Federal Reserve, and jail its operatives who have
engaged in criminal/treasonous conduct (or execute them...that is
usually how traitors are dealt with).
The fate of the Republic depends upon it.
Dave
hal
wrote:
You people are morons. You think going back and repeating all the
same mistakes your masters made is somehow going to turn out
different. And you call Democrats stupid. Your stupidity truly is
incredible.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Key provisions - such as a mandate requiring individuals to buy private
> health insurance without a public option - are giveaways to mega-
> corporations on a scale so vast that it boggles the mind.
Yup, this health bill is naught but a total surrender to corporate
"health" monopolies. Without a public option it must fail.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve B
<hal> wrote in message news:4b585e76...@news.newsguy.com...
"We have met the enemy, and they is us." - Pogo -
Welcome to "us".
Steve
cavelamb
They must have easily identifiable enemies, Steve.
And they can never be wrong.
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
Steve B
"cavelamb" <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:PKOdnQTxO7E2HMXW...@earthlink.com...
Sure they can be wrong, but when you have Newton Smith on your crew, it's
just a few keystrokes to change what you said to coincide with the current
reality.
Steve
Hawke
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:56:46 -0800, sittingduck <du...@spamherelots.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Key provisions - such as a mandate requiring individuals to buy private
>> health insurance without a public option - are giveaways to mega-
>> corporations on a scale so vast that it boggles the mind.
>
> Yup, this health bill is naught but a total surrender to corporate
> "health" monopolies. Without a public option it must fail.
>
You're right. The current bill was a piece of crap with it mandating we
all buy insurance we can't pay for and then not giving us a choice of a
government run system. All it did was provide the insurance companies
with millions of more customers.
Better to say the republicans stopped health care reform. Lay the blame
for failure on them, let things continue to fester, and leave it to the
republicans to come up with a solution to the problems because they
won't let the Dems fix things.
Apparently, things haven't gotten bad enough for the public to actually
start screaming at the republicans to allow the reforms to take place.
Millions of Americans will have to suffer some more. If they don't they
won't force the politicians to make the changes. Look at Massachusetts,
they have a statewide health system where 97% of people are already
covered, so they didn't bother worrying about the rest of the country.
It'll have to get a lot worse before 97% of the whole country has
coverage. That's what I love about our system. Nothing changes until it
gets so bad that the place is about to have a complete break down. It's
not what one would call an efficient form of government. Unfortunately,
the founding fathers were so afraid of government being tyrannical that
they made one that barely functions until it's on the verge of collapse.
Hawke
Buerste
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hjagq3$h9d$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Everybody wants HCR...just not where whole States and Unions are excused
from paying for it. The Democrats disgusted the citizens with their open
bribes and back-room deals and arrogance. Most of the country is against
what the DEMOCRATS want. It's not just about what the fringe left wants,
the rest of the country should have a say too.
F. George McDuffee
<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
<snip>
>You're right. The current bill was a piece of crap with it mandating we
>all buy insurance we can't pay for and then not giving us a choice of a
>government run system. All it did was provide the insurance companies
>with millions of more customers.
=============
Very similar to the liberal social worker that told the single
mom who said she had no food to feed her child and herself that
she could use her cell phone to order takeout Chinese or a
delivery pizza...
Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:56:46 -0800, sittingduck <du...@spamherelots.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Key provisions - such as a mandate requiring individuals to buy
>>> private health insurance without a public option - are giveaways to
>>> mega- corporations on a scale so vast that it boggles the mind.
>>
>> Yup, this health bill is naught but a total surrender to corporate
>> "health" monopolies. Without a public option it must fail.
>>
>>
> You're right. The current bill was a piece of crap with it mandating we
> all buy insurance we can't pay for and then not giving us a choice of a
> government run system. All it did was provide the insurance companies
> with millions of more customers.
>
> Better to say the republicans stopped health care reform. Lay the blame
> for failure on them, let things continue to fester, and leave it to the
> republicans to come up with a solution to the problems because they
> won't let the Dems fix things.
Precisely. Republicans refused to participate wielding a false veto
power that the Democrats hadn't the balls to challenge. Let the
Republicans take the rap.
The only downside is the human misery that will ensue.
> Apparently, things haven't gotten bad enough for the public to actually
> start screaming at the republicans to allow the reforms to take place.
> Millions of Americans will have to suffer some more. If they don't they
> won't force the politicians to make the changes. Look at Massachusetts,
> they have a statewide health system where 97% of people are already
> covered, so they didn't bother worrying about the rest of the country.
> It'll have to get a lot worse before 97% of the whole country has
> coverage. That's what I love about our system. Nothing changes until it
> gets so bad that the place is about to have a complete break down. It's
> not what one would call an efficient form of government. Unfortunately,
> the founding fathers were so afraid of government being tyrannical that
> they made one that barely functions until it's on the verge of collapse.
>
>
> Hawke
This is *not* the government given us by the Founding Fathers...
Hawke
>> Apparently, things haven't gotten bad enough for the public to
>> actually start screaming at the republicans to allow the reforms to
>> take place. Millions of Americans will have to suffer some more. If
>> they don't they won't force the politicians to make the changes. Look
>> at Massachusetts, they have a statewide health system where 97% of
>> people are already covered, so they didn't bother worrying about the
>> rest of the country. It'll have to get a lot worse before 97% of the
>> whole country has coverage. That's what I love about our system.
>> Nothing changes until it gets so bad that the place is about to have a
>> complete break down. It's not what one would call an efficient form of
>> government. Unfortunately, the founding fathers were so afraid of
>> government being tyrannical that they made one that barely functions
>> until it's on the verge of collapse.
>>
>>
>> Hawke
>
> Everybody wants HCR...just not where whole States and Unions are excused
> from paying for it. The Democrats disgusted the citizens with their
> open bribes and back-room deals and arrogance. Most of the country is
> against what the DEMOCRATS want. It's not just about what the fringe
> left wants, the rest of the country should have a say too.
If everybody wanted health care reform it would have happened already.
The problem is it's like illegal immigration, some people want the
illegals to keep coming and some people want our health care system to
stay just like it is. Just ask yourself who is making out like a bandit
right now with the current system. Then you'll know who is fighting to
keep it from being changed.
The other problem is that asking the public what it wants is nonsense.
They public doesn't know what we should do about health care. The
decisions about how to change the system to one that works and costs
less should be made by experts on the subject not by a vote of the
public. Right now the right is just saying no to what the Democrats want
to do. That's because they insist on a system run by private, for
profit, insurance companies. They want that because the are free market
fundamentalists. Even though it has been shown all over the world that
the government run systems do better than the for profit ones they won't
even think of changing to that kind of system. So how do you let them
have a say when their position is that we won't allow anything but a
free market system? How do you work with people who won't make any
concessions? That's what lies at the heart of the problem. There is no
way to compromise with the position the republicans are taking. You do
it their way or they kill the whole thing. So how do you work something
out with people like that?
Hawke
dca...@krl.org
> The other problem is that asking the public what it wants is nonsense.
> They public doesn't know what we should do about health care. The
> decisions about how to change the system to one that works and costs
> less should be made by experts on the subject not by a vote of the
> public.
The decisions about how to change the system needs to be done by the
public. The experts should present ways to change the system and
argue why their way is best. But the public should always be the
people that decide.
> Even though it has been shown all over the world that
> the government run systems do better than the for profit ones they won't
> even think of changing to that kind of system. So how do you let them
> have a say when their position is that we won't allow anything but a
> free market system?
How do you prevent anyone from having a say? Do you want to eliminate
democracy?
How do you work with people who won't make any
> concessions? That's what lies at the heart of the problem. There is no
> way to compromise with the position the republicans are taking. You do
> it their way or they kill the whole thing. So how do you work something
> out with people like that?
>
> Hawke
You convince the public that your way is best. You don't craft a bill
that most of Congress has not read and tell everyone this is a great
plan and the only way to go. Once you have the hearts and minds of
the American public on your side, the rest is easy.
Dan
Stuart Wheaton
All that it would have taken to derail the special deal for Nelson was
to have a few R's vote for cloture, and then against the Bill.
Michael A. Terrell
"dca...@krl.org" wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 6:30 am, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
> > The other problem is that asking the public what it wants is nonsense.
> > They public doesn't know what we should do about health care. The
> > decisions about how to change the system to one that works and costs
> > less should be made by experts on the subject not by a vote of the
> > public.
>
> The decisions about how to change the system needs to be done by the
> public. The experts should present ways to change the system and
> argue why their way is best. But the public should always be the
> people that decide.
>
> > Even though it has been shown all over the world that
> > the government run systems do better than the for profit ones they won't
> > even think of changing to that kind of system. So how do you let them
> > have a say when their position is that we won't allow anything but a
> > free market system?
>
> How do you prevent anyone from having a say? Do you want to eliminate
> democracy?
Alan Grayson (D, FL) wants to take away free speech:
http://www.mycongressmanisnuts.com/
Hawkie would love this democrat ID10T.
> How do you work with people who won't make any
> > concessions? That's what lies at the heart of the problem. There is no
> > way to compromise with the position the republicans are taking. You do
> > it their way or they kill the whole thing. So how do you work something
> > out with people like that?
>
> >
> > Hawke
>
> You convince the public that your way is best. You don't craft a bill
> that most of Congress has not read and tell everyone this is a great
> plan and the only way to go. Once you have the hearts and minds of
> the American public on your side, the rest is easy.
>
> Dan
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
Michael A. Terrell
sittingduck wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> > Alan Grayson (D, FL) wants to take away free speech:
> >
> > http://www.mycongressmanisnuts.com/
> >
> >
> > Hawkie would love this democrat ID10T.
>
> for it.
He wants the woman who built that website fined five million dollars
and to spend five years in prison. What's to like about that?
Michael A. Terrell
sittingduck wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
>
>
> By Sahil Kapur, Raw Story. Posted January 22, 2010.
>
> Congressman says of recent Supreme Court ruling removing decades of
> campaign spending limits on corporations "opens the floodgates for the
> purchases and sale of the law."
>
> WASHINGTON -- Responding to the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday to overturn
> corporate spending limits in federal elections, progressive firebrand Rep.
> Alan Grayson (D-FL) immediately highlighted a series of moves to "avoid the
> terrible consequences of the decision."
>
> "If we do nothing then I think you can kiss your country goodbye," Grayson
> told Raw Story in an interview just hours after the decision was announced.
>
> "You won't have any more senators from Kansas or Oregon, you'll have
> senators from Cheekies and Exxon. Maybe we'll have to wear corporate logos
> like Nascar drivers."
>
> Grayson said the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling --
> which removes decades of campaign spending limits on corporations -- "opens
> the floodgates for the purchases and sale of the law."
>
> "It allows corporations to spend all the money they want to buy and sell
> elected officials through the campaign process," he said. "It allows them
> to reward political sellouts, and it allows them to punish elected
> officials who actually try to do what's right for the people."
>
> Fearing this decision before it became official, Grayson last week filed
> five campaign finance bills and a sixth one on Thursday. Grayson said the
> bills are important to securing the people's "right to clean government."
>
> The bills have names like the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act and
> the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act. The first slaps a 500 percent excise
> tax on corporate spending on elections, and the second mandates businesses
> to disclose their attempts to influence elections. More details are
> available on the congressman's Web site.
>
> "These bills will save us from drowning in corporate money and special
> interest money," Grayson said. "They should have been passed a long time
> ago but after the Supreme Court opened those floodgates, I think it's
> imperative we get these things done."
>
> Reforming campaign finance laws has been a daunting task, as senators Russ
> Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ) have made concerted attempts and
> failed.
>
> "I'm very optimistic," Grayson said. "I discussed the bills with the
> leadership when I filed them, which was a week ago in the case of the first
> five."
>
> "The bills are short and readable, which frankly is pretty unusual these
> days," he said. "The longest one is four pages long and there are six of
> them."
>
> Grayson has created the Web site SaveDemocracy.net to gather petitions in
> support of his bills. On Friday at 8:30 AM EST there were nearly 40,000
> signatories.
> http://tinyurl.com/y8cmxjw
He is the local screaming idiot politician. If you think he is ok,
you need help.
F. George McDuffee
<dca...@krl.org> wrote:
<snip>
The major factor in this argument appears to be the failure to
differentiate between [setting] policy and implementation.
AFAIK there was *NO* attempt made by Congress or the various
Congressional research organizations to obtain hard data on the
actual operations and implementations of the several universal
health care plans in operation in the other OECD countries, such
as Canada, the UK and France] including their problems as well as
advantages. It is therefore unknown what the inputs for the
development of the current proposed legislation were, other than
pitchers of martinis, "everybody knows," and "they say."
One "fact" that should be determined is the actual G&A [general
and administrative] i.e. non medical costs for the existing
insurance plans such as the health insurance companies, blues,
and HMOs.
Another "fact" that the American people need to make a rational
decision about universal health care is how much tax revenue is
being lost by the tax exempt status of the "super deluxe" health
coverage plans. FWIW - One possible interim action would be to
enact a cap on the value of the tax-exempt medical coverage with
the full income tax rates applied over that cap. [Why should
people who pay taxes, who may not have their own health
insurance, subsidize these "super deluxe" plans?]
The basic [economic] question, although there are serious issues
of equity and ethics involved, should be "what is the total cost
to American society of maintaining the current system v what is
the total cost to American society for "universal health care?"
While there is no object/hard data currently available, and much
depends on the coverage, implementation, and administration, it
appears that "universal health care" has the potential to result
in considerable aggregate cost avoidance for society as a whole.
For sure, the elimination of employer provided health
coverage/administration will result in significant cost savings,
so this should improve the international competitiveness of
domestic manufacturing operations because of lower labor costs.
Hawke
Two facts that are critical to this issue are these; number one, all
other industrial economies except the U.S. have adopted universal health
care systems of one kind or another. All of them cover all their
citizens and all of them cost less than 10% of GDP in per capita
spending. One other thing, as far as the overall health of their people,
it's just as good and probably better in the other countries. So they
are doing the job better and at less cost than we are. That alone says
we need to make a change.
Fact two, the American people want a health care system that covers all
and costs as little as possible. A for profit business has a different
need. It needs to give the least of a good or service while selling it
for the maximum price it can for its good or service. Those needs of the
country and of the business are in complete conflict with each other.
Therefore, the need of the country cannot be obtained from a for profit
business at the lowest price possible. The people and the insurance
companies want opposite things. Insurance companies want to get the most
money they can get and individuals want health care for the cheapest
price. The inherent conflict of interest between health insurance
companies and the need of the people means a private, for profit system
of insurance cannot provide the best coverage for everyone for the
lowest price. Everyone in power already knows that. The fight is over
keeping things the way they are because it's so profitable for the
current health insurance industry not to change anything. As of now the
special interests continue to have their way and the people are the
losers. By the way, the republicans continue to support the insurance
industry to the detriment of the people. As usual.
Hawke
Wes
>Two facts that are critical to this issue are these; number one, all
>other industrial economies except the U.S. have adopted universal health
>care systems of one kind or another. All of them cover all their
>citizens and all of them cost less than 10% of GDP in per capita
>spending. One other thing, as far as the overall health of their people,
>it's just as good and probably better in the other countries. So they
>are doing the job better and at less cost than we are. That alone says
>we need to make a change.
I have a great idea, all you people from the left side of the isle, start your own health
care system. Let me know how it works out. If it really works, you will have some
company soon.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
William Wixon
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:%mJ6n.112590$H15....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
> Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>>Two facts that are critical to this issue are these; number one, all
>>other industrial economies except the U.S. have adopted universal health
>>care systems of one kind or another. All of them cover all their
>>citizens and all of them cost less than 10% of GDP in per capita
>>spending. One other thing, as far as the overall health of their people,
>>it's just as good and probably better in the other countries. So they
>>are doing the job better and at less cost than we are. That alone says
>>we need to make a change.
>
>
> I have a great idea, all you people from the left side of the isle, start
> your own health
> care system. Let me know how it works out. If it really works, you will
> have some
> company soon.
>
> Wes
>
somehow that made me think of this.
http://www.conversantlife.com/files/imagecache/blog_wizard/files/blog_wizard/TheLittleRedHen.png
(funny the google search found that pic at a website critical of bank
bailouts. usually the "little red hen" is used as an example to denigrate
"socialists".)
http://www.economicdisasterarea.com/index.php/uncategorized/the-little-voters-and-taxpayers-of-iceland/
Gunner Asch
>Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>>Two facts that are critical to this issue are these; number one, all
>>other industrial economies except the U.S. have adopted universal health
>>care systems of one kind or another. All of them cover all their
>>citizens and all of them cost less than 10% of GDP in per capita
>>spending. One other thing, as far as the overall health of their people,
>>it's just as good and probably better in the other countries. So they
>>are doing the job better and at less cost than we are. That alone says
>>we need to make a change.
>
>
>I have a great idea, all you people from the left side of the isle, start your own health
>care system. Let me know how it works out. If it really works, you will have some
>company soon.
>
>Wes
They dont have any money. The folks with actual cash are
Conservatives..and those folks really dont want to have it stolen from
them.
Well..except for Democrat Politicians of course. They are the richest
of all politicians. Democrats have far far more millionares in Congress
than do Republicans. Which just shows how good they are at graft and
corruption.
Gunner
Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.
Don Foreman
As is government of the people, by the people, for the people, mein
Herr?
>They public doesn't know what we should do about health care. The
>decisions about how to change the system to one that works and costs
>less should be made by experts on the subject not by a vote of the
>public.
Who funds it? We the public do. Our government's treasury is funded
by taxing the public and by creating public debt that presumably will
be repaid by future taxation. Only exception to this might be that
portion of corporate taxes that are attributable to export sales. Our
government is not a net producer of anything, it can only consume and
levy taxes and/or create public debt to fund its activities and
adventures.
I'm all for use of best available expertise, intellect and genuine
leadership to show the public the best course, but regarding the
public as incompetent to participate in our governance is not
acceptable even if you don't like how some of the public lives, speaks
or smells. It may be fairly accurate because the vox populi sometimes
seems as dumb as a bowl of mice --they bought the Obama slogans of
"change" and "hope" -- but ceding governance to experts acceptable to
a party with unfettered power about guarantees corruption.
Hark the voice of the people of Massachusetts.
Ours is a very inefficient form of government because the people are,
as a body, slow learners. We've historically eventually gotten it
right eventually. Page from Obama's campaign, let's HOPE we can still
do that before we perish under a load of global debt we lack the
productivity to sustain.
> Right now the right is just saying no to what the Democrats want
>to do. That's because they insist on a system run by private, for
>profit, insurance companies. They want that because the are free market
>fundamentalists. Even though it has been shown all over the world that
>the government run systems do better than the for profit ones they won't
>even think of changing to that kind of system. So how do you let them
>have a say when their position is that we won't allow anything but a
>free market system? How do you work with people who won't make any
>concessions?
Bingo! Right, left, Dem, Repub, we need our leaders to focus on
leading to discovery of a solution that works best for the people and
the country rather than on partisan zealotry and quest for dominance.
> That's what lies at the heart of the problem. There is no
>way to compromise with the position the republicans are taking. You do
>it their way or they kill the whole thing. So how do you work something
>out with people like that?
You start by understanding that compromise cuts both ways, and that
the good of our nation and our populace must be of higher priority
than dominance by your party or any party. You continue by finding
and electing leaders, regardless of party affiliation, that have the
skills, will and motivation to lead for the common good rather than
for personal aggrandizement or profit.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:
>I'm all for use of best available expertise, intellect and genuine
>leadership
Here
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/msg/6ea71b482d414ca4
you rated Palin above Obama. One of the reasons that some truly
qualified people aren't interested in public service is that they know
how few voters are capable of making non-partisan judgments.
>Right, left, Dem, Repub, we need our leaders to focus on
>leading to discovery of a solution that works best for the people and
>the country rather than on partisan zealotry and quest for dominance.
Sure, but a lot of people who say that are clearly disingenuous. They
vote for the candidate they perceive (often mistakenly) will promote
their pet issue(s). Then they rationalize their partisanship.
Try a dose of reality by imagining that Moses was running against
Charlton Heston, and that Moses uttered a word against guns, and Chuck
promised free guns for everyone. Beck and Limbaugh would claim that
Chuck had proven leadership experience, and that Moses was a soft and
aging quitter who didn't finish his task, which was cutting and
running. Gummer would write 50,000 posts demanding to see Moses' birth
certificate. You and most of your friends would vote for Chuck. Now,
deny that all you like, but the fact is that if a *real* leader were
to stand up and tell the truth, nobody you know would vote for him.
Therefore, you will continue to get the candidates who are willing to
tell you only what you want to hear.
> by finding
>and electing leaders, regardless of party affiliation, that have the
>skills, will and motivation to lead for the common good rather than
>for personal aggrandizement or profit.
Hmm. Who's the most recent blatant example of being out for herself,
and how's her "genuine leadership" of Alaska going? Where did she get
the idea that she met your standards, and how did you reward those who
made the decision to choose her? If by some miracle she becomes the
nominee next time, you'll vote for her *again*.
Wayne
F. George McDuffee
<du...@spamherelots.com> wrote:
>> Alan Grayson (D, FL) wants to take away free speech:
>
>Grayson: Fight Now or 'Kiss Your Country Goodbye' to Exxon, Wal-Mart
>
>By Sahil Kapur, Raw Story. Posted January 22, 2010.
>
>Congressman says of recent Supreme Court ruling removing decades of
>campaign spending limits on corporations "opens the floodgates for the
>purchases and sale of the law."
<snip>
=============
This is simply the end result of a bad SCOTUS decision that
corporations are "persons at law." [Santa Clara County v.
Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 1886 ]
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html
A review of the court's opinion as posted above indicates "the
fix was in" and quite likely a bribe of one or more of the
Justices was involved as considerable sophist and convoulated
reasoning is involved.
Buerste
1. The idea that the public is too stupid to know what's good for them is
rather arrogant.
2. The idea of compromise for Democrats is total capitulation to their way
only.
John R. Carroll
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:29:37 -0800, sittingduck
> <du...@spamherelots.com> wrote:
>
>>> Alan Grayson (D, FL) wants to take away free speech:
>>
>> Grayson: Fight Now or 'Kiss Your Country Goodbye' to Exxon, Wal-Mart
>>
>> By Sahil Kapur, Raw Story. Posted January 22, 2010.
>>
>> Congressman says of recent Supreme Court ruling removing decades of
>> campaign spending limits on corporations "opens the floodgates for
>> the purchases and sale of the law."
> <snip>
> =============
> This is simply the end result of a bad SCOTUS decision that
> corporations are "persons at law." [Santa Clara County v.
> Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 1886 ]
> http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html
>
> A review of the court's opinion as posted above indicates "the
> fix was in" and quite likely a bribe of one or more of the
> Justices was involved as considerable sophist and convoulated
> reasoning is involved.
Believe it or not George, California ended up having a constitutional
convention that was specifically intended to break the back of that
descision.
The result, in 1911, was voter initiated ballot initiatives.
The railroads were putting or keeping their guys in the State Legislature.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
Yeah but they are easily manipulated Tom, especially when all of their
financial and medical info is available.
Just look at yourself.
> 2. The idea of compromise for Democrats is total capitulation to
> their way only.
They appear not to be that smart.
Otherwise, they would be burying Republican's on a daily basis with the Bush
legacy.
--
John R. Carroll
HH&C
> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
The founders had no such arrogance.
> 2. The idea of compromise for Democrats is total capitulation to their way
> only.
Enter McCain.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
3. Which simply shows how stupid Democrats really are.
Ed Huntress
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:p2tpl5ha0g0ggfs0h...@4ax.com...
The stupidity was all yours, Gunner. You probably qualify for Medi-Cal on
two counts: high medical bills, and treatment of your previous heart
condition. You probably didn't even call the Kern Health Consumer Center in
Bakersfield, to see what you're eligible for. With your income, you're
eligible for something. Or you were.
--
Ed Huntress
Larry Jaques
<dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> scrawled the following:
>On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:30:54 -0800, Hawke
><davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>The other problem is that asking the public what it wants is nonsense.
>
>As is government of the people, by the people, for the people, mein
>Herr?
Why do you guys bother with this troll? Plonk him and forget him.
--
We either make ourselves happy or miserable.
The amount of work is the same.
-Carlos Castaneda, mystic and author (1925-1998)
-------
pyotr filipivich
<bue...@wowway.com> reported Elvis on Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:03:56
-0500 in misc.survivalism:
"If I say two plus two is four and you say two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg
-
pyotr filipivich
It often seems the only way to make the Left open to the Rights ideas
...is with a shaped charge.
Don Foreman
>On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 02:02:54 -0600, Don Foreman
><dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm all for use of best available expertise, intellect and genuine
>>leadership
>
>Here
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/msg/6ea71b482d414ca4
>you rated Palin above Obama.
I said that McCain didn't thrill me and Palin thrilled me even less
but Obama scared the hell out of me. That wasn't partisan. He didn't
worry me because he's a Democrat. Now, a year later, he obviously
worries more than a few thinking Democrats.
>One of the reasons that some truly
>qualified people aren't interested in public service is that they know
>how few voters are capable of making non-partisan judgments.
A person qualified to serve as a political leader will figure out how
to get elected and then lead with integrity. It's been done before,
though not recently.
>>Right, left, Dem, Repub, we need our leaders to focus on
>>leading to discovery of a solution that works best for the people and
>>the country rather than on partisan zealotry and quest for dominance.
>
>Sure, but a lot of people who say that are clearly disingenuous. They
>vote for the candidate they perceive (often mistakenly) will promote
>their pet issue(s). Then they rationalize their partisanship.
Voting for a candidate is not partisan, and partisan votes are for the
party regardless of the candidates or at least strongly favor a
candidate of the "right" party.
>
>Try a dose of reality by imagining that Moses was running against
>Charlton Heston, and that Moses uttered a word against guns, and Chuck
>promised free guns for everyone. Beck and Limbaugh would claim that
>Chuck had proven leadership experience, and that Moses was a soft and
>aging quitter who didn't finish his task, which was cutting and
>running. Gummer would write 50,000 posts demanding to see Moses' birth
>certificate. You and most of your friends would vote for Chuck. Now,
>deny that all you like, but the fact is that if a *real* leader were
>to stand up and tell the truth, nobody you know would vote for him.
>Therefore, you will continue to get the candidates who are willing to
>tell you only what you want to hear.
A dose of reality is imagining Moses v. Charlton Heston with guns as a
central issue? Your posit goes even further into fantasy as it
progresses.
You create fiction contrived to riducule me rather than address the
ideas I presented, and present that as "a dose of reality".
If you seek a pissing contest, I suggest you continue to focus west.
Good luck with that.
>> by finding
>>and electing leaders, regardless of party affiliation, that have the
>>skills, will and motivation to lead for the common good rather than
>>for personal aggrandizement or profit.
>
>Hmm. Who's the most recent blatant example of being out for herself,
>and how's her "genuine leadership" of Alaska going? Where did she get
>the idea that she met your standards, and how did you reward those who
>made the decision to choose her? If by some miracle she becomes the
>nominee next time, you'll vote for her *again*.
You attribute a lot to me with absolutely no basis. Bash Sarah all
you like, I don't take her seriously either. "Perky" isn't on my
short list of qualifications for high office, and being so easily
demolished by an interviewer like Katie Couric hardly indicates
qualification to be a leader of and statesperson for our country.
Ed Huntress
"Don Foreman" <dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
news:409ql55qk0arokm0v...@4ax.com...
But she has great legs. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:32:08 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 02:02:54 -0600, Don Foreman
>><dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm all for use of best available expertise, intellect and genuine
>>>leadership
>>
>>Here
>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/msg/6ea71b482d414ca4
>>you rated Palin above Obama.
>
>I said that McCain didn't thrill me and Palin thrilled me even less
>but Obama scared the hell out of me. That wasn't partisan.
Oh please. There's never going to be a dem who tells you what you want
to hear, so you'll always vote against them. The repugs count on
people like you who tell themselves that they want good candidates,
but in reality will vote for whatever anti-intellectual or flake they
put forward. The next one will be telling you that corporate funding
of elections is great, and you'll accept that as easily as you did the
starting of a phony and unnecessary off-the-books war.
> He didn't
>worry me because he's a Democrat. Now, a year later, he obviously
>worries more than a few thinking Democrats.
He doesn't worry me in the slightest. But the electorate does,
especially the ones who'll vote for dim bulbs like Palin, and who
believe that any leader can overhaul a disaster overnight, and without
sacrifice. They're in denial, or as Ron Paul summarizes:
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/we-have-broken-from-reality-a-psychotic-nation_01152010
>>One of the reasons that some truly
>>qualified people aren't interested in public service is that they know
>>how few voters are capable of making non-partisan judgments.
>
>A person qualified to serve as a political leader will figure out how
>to get elected and then lead with integrity. It's been done before,
>though not recently.
Is that your excuse for voting for Bush and Palin? Is it what you'll
say when you vote for the next mental-midget? It's not impossible for
somebody like Beck to get nominated. He could say that he'd grow into
the job, and you and many others will prefer hoping that he's right to
hearing the truth.
>>>Right, left, Dem, Repub, we need our leaders to focus on
>>>leading to discovery of a solution that works best for the people and
>>>the country rather than on partisan zealotry and quest for dominance.
>>
>>Sure, but a lot of people who say that are clearly disingenuous. They
>>vote for the candidate they perceive (often mistakenly) will promote
>>their pet issue(s). Then they rationalize their partisanship.
>
>Voting for a candidate is not partisan, and partisan votes are for the
>party regardless of the candidates or at least strongly favor a
>candidate of the "right" party.
As I said, rationalize all you like.
>>Try a dose of reality by imagining that Moses was running against
>>Charlton Heston, and that Moses uttered a word against guns, and Chuck
>>promised free guns for everyone. Beck and Limbaugh would claim that
>>Chuck had proven leadership experience, and that Moses was a soft and
>>aging quitter who didn't finish his task, which was cutting and
>>running. Gummer would write 50,000 posts demanding to see Moses' birth
>>certificate. You and most of your friends would vote for Chuck. Now,
>>deny that all you like, but the fact is that if a *real* leader were
>>to stand up and tell the truth, nobody you know would vote for him.
>>Therefore, you will continue to get the candidates who are willing to
>>tell you only what you want to hear.
>
>A dose of reality is imagining Moses v. Charlton Heston with guns as a
>central issue? Your posit goes even further into fantasy as it
>progresses.
>
>You create fiction contrived to riducule me rather than address the
>ideas I presented, and present that as "a dose of reality".
Nonsense. I put forward two extreme examples, one an (allegedly)
indisputably successful leader, and another who played the first in a
movie. Don't pretend that I didn't hit the nail right on the head. In
fact, even though I only offered Heston's name to make a point about
people denying reality, the fact is that if he really were a candidate
against just about anyone, then you and a lot of like-minded would
vote for him. At any time, but especially when partisan voters are fed
up, they're willing to roll the dice on anyone who's at least
entertaining. That's *all* that McCain and company were doing when
they picked Palin. It turns out that exactly as a lot of us suspected,
they didn't even vet her.
>If you seek a pissing contest, I suggest you continue to focus west.
>Good luck with that.
>
>>> by finding
>>>and electing leaders, regardless of party affiliation, that have the
>>>skills, will and motivation to lead for the common good rather than
>>>for personal aggrandizement or profit.
>>
>>Hmm. Who's the most recent blatant example of being out for herself,
>>and how's her "genuine leadership" of Alaska going? Where did she get
>>the idea that she met your standards, and how did you reward those who
>>made the decision to choose her? If by some miracle she becomes the
>>nominee next time, you'll vote for her *again*.
>
>You attribute a lot to me with absolutely no basis. Bash Sarah all
>you like, I don't take her seriously either. "Perky" isn't on my
>short list of qualifications for high office, and being so easily
>demolished by an interviewer like Katie Couric hardly indicates
>qualification to be a leader of and statesperson for our country.
If only you'd said that where it counted instead of where it's easy.
Perhaps a few percent of the party faithful sent a message that they
didn't find Palin's nomination acceptable, but you weren't one of
them. Steele's selection shows that the party hasn't learned its
lesson, and if they try a similar tactic next time, you'll only have
yourself to blame. And don't think it can't get worse. Millions
believe that they have high moral standards, but that habeas corpus is
optional. How long before that kind of thinking leads to polls showing
that a Bauer/Palin ticket could be a hit?
Wayne
wmbjk...@citlink.net
That must be one of the reasons why Don ranked her above Obama. Oh
gee, that was overly harsh. The real reason must be that he thinks
that Couric could *really* demolish Obama if she wanted to. ;-)
BTW, did you hear about Oprah being flabbergasted that Palin would get
up at 3 to have her hair done? That's what we need in leadership,
people who are dedicated... to their fu^&ing vanity. Typical hockey
mom, sitting in a makeup chair for hours each day. 'Cause as everybody
knows, when you're hustling kids to practice, false eyelashes and a
tan are the most important necessities. :-)
Wayne
Ed Huntress
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:a2erl5tcabuchjfi5...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:59:01 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Don Foreman" <dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
>>news:409ql55qk0arokm0v...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:32:08 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>>> Bash Sarah all
>>> you like, I don't take her seriously either. "Perky" isn't on my
>>> short list of qualifications for high office, and being so easily
>>> demolished by an interviewer like Katie Couric hardly indicates
>>> qualification to be a leader of and statesperson for our country.
>>
>>But she has great legs. <g>
>
> That must be one of the reasons why Don ranked her above Obama. Oh
> gee, that was overly harsh. The real reason must be that he thinks
> that Couric could *really* demolish Obama if she wanted to. ;-)
If you listen closely, you'll notice that a lot of the right-wingers rank
her looks among the first in her list of attributes. And they're right. <g>
Don is NOT a winger of any sort, BTW.
>
> BTW, did you hear about Oprah being flabbergasted that Palin would get
> up at 3 to have her hair done? That's what we need in leadership,
> people who are dedicated... to their fu^&ing vanity. Typical hockey
> mom, sitting in a makeup chair for hours each day. 'Cause as everybody
> knows, when you're hustling kids to practice, false eyelashes and a
> tan are the most important necessities. :-)
>
> Wayne
Let the tea partiers have their kachina doll. It keeps them out of trouble.
--
Ed Huntress
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
><wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
>news:a2erl5tcabuchjfi5...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:59:01 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Don Foreman" <dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
>>>news:409ql55qk0arokm0v...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:32:08 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>>>> Bash Sarah all
>>>> you like, I don't take her seriously either. "Perky" isn't on my
>>>> short list of qualifications for high office, and being so easily
>>>> demolished by an interviewer like Katie Couric hardly indicates
>>>> qualification to be a leader of and statesperson for our country.
>>>
>>>But she has great legs. <g>
>>
>> That must be one of the reasons why Don ranked her above Obama. Oh
>> gee, that was overly harsh. The real reason must be that he thinks
>> that Couric could *really* demolish Obama if she wanted to. ;-)
>
>If you listen closely, you'll notice that a lot of the right-wingers rank
>her looks among the first in her list of attributes. And they're right. <g>
I don't get that. First of all, I don't even see the great attraction.
I'm thinking that a lot of the serious droolers have low standards due
to spending too much time watching waddlers every day. But beyond
that, we have folks who claim to be common-sense and practical-minded,
yet willfully ignoring what it takes to keep the object of their
unseemly slobbering in fighting trim. A personal tanning bed *at the
office*? Jeez Louise! What a shock to learn that she was a former
beauty pageant contestant, and that she couldn't even name a few
magazines she'd read.
>Don is NOT a winger of any sort, BTW.
Well, I don't remember him speaking up about much of substance. I
think that people like Don are willing to wait to see how the pie
turns out even though they handed the chef cow flaps to be used as
filling. Certainly he's been virtually silent about gummer's great
cull. Wouldn't wanna' stand up and protest by saying anything negative
doncha' know, even when it comes to somebody promoting anarchy and
sedition.
And this might be a good time to remind you - my track record of
seeing through these people is pretty good. I was in front of the pack
in recognizing gummer and buerste. Maybe Don will prove to be the one
I was wrong about, but I doubt it. We need a line in the sand to serve
as a marker. Will you admit to my ability to read these people if he
votes for Beck? :-)
>> BTW, did you hear about Oprah being flabbergasted that Palin would get
>> up at 3 to have her hair done? That's what we need in leadership,
>> people who are dedicated... to their fu^&ing vanity. Typical hockey
>> mom, sitting in a makeup chair for hours each day. 'Cause as everybody
>> knows, when you're hustling kids to practice, false eyelashes and a
>> tan are the most important necessities. :-)
>>
>> Wayne
>
>Let the tea partiers have their kachina doll. It keeps them out of trouble.
If only. They may be a joke, but they're a reflection of the nation's
psychosis. There's really not much difference between a TP nut
demanding that government keep its hands off her medicare, and a run
of the mill GOPer saying that they want bigger and better wars,
bridges to nowhere, a balanced budget, and lower taxes.
Wayne
Ed Huntress
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:4skrl5d68u28qbmjp...@4ax.com...
The Tea Partiers are part of an ancient tradition in democratic governments.
Although they started off as a publicity stunt for Fox News, they've become
a conventional populist party. They're probably a good thing overall. They
let off steam, give a voice to frustration, and often add something to the
overall debate.
And they're a better outlet for frustration than some of the violent
alternatives. You can't count on everyone being informed, and least of all
agreeing with you, in a democracy. And they're much better than resigned
acquiescence or withdrawal from politics.
Jefferson put it well in his infamous "Tree of Liberty" letter. Most people
who quote it skip over the conclusion that he prescribed, which accurately
describes the appropriate reaction to the tea partiers:
"Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the
single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of
rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were
founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years
without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed.
The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance
of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such
misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public
liberty...what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts,
pardon & pacify them."
The part about being "founded in ignorance," and setting them right,
pardoning, and pacifying them tends to be overlooked <g>, but the point is
that "the people cannot be all, & always informed," and they need a way to
blow off steam, to preserve that spirit that overcomes lethargy and
preserves a government by the people.
They aren't well informed, but they have the right spirit.
--
Ed Huntress
Don Foreman
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Don is NOT a winger of any sort, BTW.
Thanks for that disinterested accurate observation, Ed. You are an
unusually accurate and often critical reader.
Ed Huntress
"Don Foreman" <dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
I'm just trying to be accurate, Don. There are still a few people here with
whom one can have a good and respectful conversation, and they should be
pointed out to anyone who isn't sure.
--
Ed Huntress
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>"Don Foreman" <dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
>news:s20tl5tj2692cqj0k...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:04:56 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Don is NOT a winger of any sort, BTW.
I wouldn't use that term for Don, mostly because I rarely use the term
at all. But it does appear that he's about as reliable a right wing
vote as any winger could hope for. A huge number of the GOP faithful
sent a strong message against the right wing last election, but Don
wasn't one of them. He was willing to accept more of the same by
giving the reins to "bomb bomb iran" McCain, and have hillbilly "god
wants me to be VP" Palin a heartbeat away from the top job in the
world. I don't view that as a ford vs chevy decision, it's more like
car vs 3 wheeled shopping cart. :-) You'd have to ask somebody who
uses the term "winger" if it's fair to call Don that just because
dilapidated shopping carts look better than a car in his eyes.
>> Thanks for that disinterested accurate observation, Ed. You are an
>> unusually accurate and often critical reader.
>I'm just trying to be accurate, Don. There are still a few people here with
>whom one can have a good and respectful conversation, and they should be
>pointed out to anyone who isn't sure.
I agree that he's one of them most of the time, in his posts that I've
read anyway. But not too long ago I wrote that a minority kid was
irrelevant (to the conversation). That last part was easily understood
by anyone reasonable, but Don used the opportunity to take an
incredibly cheap shot and accuse me of racism, and he really laid it
on thick for good measure. I'd be shocked if he truly believes that
I'm a racist, or will even repeat the accusation. Which pretty much
proves one of the things I was complaining about at the time, and
again in this thread - that he can be seriously disingenuous. And no,
one doesn't have to be especially hard on him to get that result, it's
just something he substitutes for debate when he feels the need. He
may have learned it from gummy, who's a true master.
Wayne
Ed Huntress
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:7s2vl5lrncvoheodi...@4ax.com...
The distinction I make is not between political positions, but whether you
can have an honest and respectful conversation with someone. That's always
been the case for me with Don, Wes, and a number of others here who are more
conservative or more liberal than I am.
Sometimes I'm slow changing gears after talking to one of the buttheads or
the obnoxious reprobates, many of whom cross-post here from the
survivalists' group, and the snarkiness carries over into a conversation
with one of the more reasonable and mature people here until I catch myself.
Maybe that's what you ran into with Don.
If you want to see a pesthole, step into misc.survivalism sometime. I hadn't
been there for over two years until Retief and I moved our recent argument
about government over there (where it's still going on). Jesus, what a bunch
of freaks! They live in an alternative universe, and Gunner looks like
Mother Theresa by comparison to some of his buddies there. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Don Foreman
>On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:58:26 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>"Don Foreman" <dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
>>news:s20tl5tj2692cqj0k...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:04:56 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Don is NOT a winger of any sort, BTW.
>
>I wouldn't use that term for Don, mostly because I rarely use the term
>at all. But it does appear that he's about as reliable a right wing
>vote as any winger could hope for. A huge number of the GOP faithful
>sent a strong message against the right wing last election, but Don
>wasn't one of them. He was willing to accept more of the same by
>giving the reins to "bomb bomb iran" McCain, and have hillbilly "god
>wants me to be VP" Palin a heartbeat away from the top job in the
>world. I don't view that as a ford vs chevy decision, it's more like
>car vs 3 wheeled shopping cart. :-) You'd have to ask somebody who
>uses the term "winger" if it's fair to call Don that just because
>dilapidated shopping carts look better than a car in his eyes.
You post such frivolously contrived adolescent attempt at invective,
and then label me as disingenuous! Ford vs Chevy, car vs 3 wheeled
shopping cart, you'd be rejected by the junior high debate team in
nearby Kingman AZ.
You've indicated scorn because I've not spoken out against matters
that are obviously very important to you, like your obsession with
Gunner, while your "speaking out" is bleating loudly behind a
pseudonym from your anonymous remote location. Bleat anonymously as
you will, but castigating me for not being your champion is patently
absurd.
I sign my work, I'm very easy to find, and I prefer respectful
exchanges. I'll concede that I am capable of scathing sarcasm when
appropriate.
>I agree that he's one of them most of the time, in his posts that I've
>read anyway. But not too long ago I wrote that a minority kid was
>irrelevant (to the conversation). That last part was easily understood
>by anyone reasonable, but Don used the opportunity to take an
>incredibly cheap shot and accuse me of racism, and he really laid it
>on thick for good measure. I'd be shocked if he truly believes that
>I'm a racist, or will even repeat the accusation. Which pretty much
>proves one of the things I was complaining about at the time, and
>again in this thread - that he can be seriously disingenuous. And no,
>one doesn't have to be especially hard on him to get that result, it's
>just something he substitutes for debate when he feels the need. He
>may have learned it from gummy, who's a true master.
Cite, please? I honestly don't recall the racism exchange you are
clearly still quite upset about, but your attribution here stimulates
curiosity. You're good at usenet history.
Ed and I have also (respectfully) snapped assholes about racism, among
other things.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
No, I've said that you have little to say about issues that should be
important to any sincere person, no matter who's doing the talking. It
happens that the two recent worst are steve b with his blatant racism,
and gummer promoting his great cull. Now, if you were just one of
those guys who doesn't say anything negative, then I wouldn't be
talkin' at ya'. But since you have lots negative to say about me,
you're working from an obvious double standard. Do you really think
that what those idiots do is less offensive than me calling them out
for it? Of course you don't, but your need to defend them in a
roundabout way trumps logic.
As for "obsession", I've asked you this before - what do you think the
ratio is between my posts about gummer, and his anti-everything
blabber? 100 to 1 perhaps? Have you ever accused him of having an
obsession? Of course you haven't. You don't care about obsessions at
all, your disingenuousness is just the closest you can come to
explaining your low standards.
>I sign my work, I'm very easy to find,
So what? Do you imagine someone's looking for you? Are you trying to
say that you've been looking for me? Why wouldn't you just email like
all the newsgroup readers who've visited here? Do you make a habit of
criticizing people for not posting their name and address? Do you
ignore the opinion of anyone who doesn't? Of the people who post under
what appears to be a full name, do you imagine that they're all real
names?
> and I prefer respectful
>exchanges. I'll concede that I am capable of scathing sarcasm when
>appropriate.
Ah, so disingenuous=sarcasm, and it's sometimes "appropriate"!
As usual, not word one addressing my comments in any meaningful way.
And that "remote location" thing... it's pathetic. I could be on the
moon, it wouldn't change the validity of my comments.
>>I agree that he's one of them most of the time, in his posts that I've
>>read anyway. But not too long ago I wrote that a minority kid was
>>irrelevant (to the conversation). That last part was easily understood
>>by anyone reasonable, but Don used the opportunity to take an
>>incredibly cheap shot and accuse me of racism, and he really laid it
>>on thick for good measure. I'd be shocked if he truly believes that
>>I'm a racist, or will even repeat the accusation. Which pretty much
>>proves one of the things I was complaining about at the time, and
>>again in this thread - that he can be seriously disingenuous. And no,
>>one doesn't have to be especially hard on him to get that result, it's
>>just something he substitutes for debate when he feels the need. He
>>may have learned it from gummy, who's a true master.
>
>Cite, please? I honestly don't recall the racism exchange
I don't believe you. It was barely a month ago.
> you are
>clearly still quite upset about, but your attribution here stimulates
>curiosity. You're good at usenet history.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/msg/756c2a6a61f12d11
Let the weaseling begin...
>Ed and I have also (respectfully) snapped assholes about racism, among
>other things.
Ed is a glass-half-full kinda' guy. Anticipating the ways you'll try
to twist my meaning...
Wayne
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
No, what I run into with him is his true nature, which like a lot of
people, only comes out when you press them. I can appreciate that such
is not your style. I'd say that you like to keep talking with some of
these folks like gummer and buerste, while I only care to talk at
them. As I see it, it's not as if there's a shortage. :-)
>If you want to see a pesthole, step into misc.survivalism sometime. I hadn't
>been there for over two years until Retief and I moved our recent argument
>about government over there (where it's still going on). Jesus, what a bunch
>of freaks!
I read both survivalism groups regularly. I know what you're talking
about, but I disagree that the posters there are generally any worse
than here. The main difference is that there's even fewer on-topic
posts. As a wise poster once wrote - "so many idiots, so little time".
> They live in an alternative universe, and Gunner looks like
>Mother Theresa by comparison to some of his buddies there. d8-)
I must have missed something. If there's a poster anywhere who's
topped gummer's dedication to outrageous BS and his wet dreams about
hanging thousands from lamp posts, I demand that you give me his name
so that I can get to work. :-)
Wayne
Hawke
> Buerste wrote:
>
>> 1. The idea that the public is too stupid to know what's good for them
>> is rather arrogant.
>> 2. The idea of compromise for Democrats is total capitulation to their
>> way only.
>
> You 'tards let a total failure named bush become president. Stood by while he
> ran the country into the ground, and elected him again!
> Look at the morons that are still leading the right.... it's pathetic.
> People like you are the epitome of stupid.
> I'll grant you, Obama's not much better. But to hear you dipshits only now
> start to cry about the abuses that have gone on for a decade or more is
> hilarious.
>
That's because they didn't thing there was anything wrong with what Bush
was doing, in fact he was setting a right wing agenda they approved of.
Just look at the things he wanted to do. Lower taxes on the rich, stop
regulating business and the financial industry, apply free trade
policies that allowed jobs to be sent to China, leaving health care to
the private insurance industry, and ignoring global warming, just to
name a few of his asinine policies. Another one, preventing stem cell
research because of his religious views. Yeah, he did all kinds of
things that the right wing thought were great. They also sat on their
hands as he spent more than the country took in every year in office.
Funny how they are all bent out of shape about deficits now when Bush
doubled the national debt in no time. We're reaping what we sowed by
putting republicans in power for eight years. They got just what they
wanted and proved the wisdom of the saying be careful what you wish for,
you just may get it. Well, the right wing got what they wanted. Now look
at us. The sad thing is they still have learned nothing and would do the
same thing again if you gave them half a chance.
Hawke
Don Foreman
>>
>>Cite, please? I honestly don't recall the racism exchange
>
>I don't believe you. It was barely a month ago.
>
>> you are
>>clearly still quite upset about, but your attribution here stimulates
>>curiosity. You're good at usenet history.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/msg/756c2a6a61f12d11
Ah! No wonder I didn't remember. Please show where I called you a
racist in that exchange!
"bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions
differing from his own"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Defining any person as IRRELEVANT is clearly intolerant and
prejudicial.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:24:51 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>Cite, please? I honestly don't recall the racism exchange
>>
>>I don't believe you. It was barely a month ago.
>>
>>> you are
>>>clearly still quite upset about, but your attribution here stimulates
>>>curiosity. You're good at usenet history.
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/msg/756c2a6a61f12d11
>
>Ah! No wonder I didn't remember.
So you remember calling me a "bigot", and were only mystified because
I recalled the word as "racist" instead, huh? Is that your story? Too
funny.
> Please show where I called you a
>racist in that exchange!
>
>"bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions
>differing from his own"
>wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
As I predicted, more weaseling, and really weak word games at that.
Most definitions of "bigot" include the race component, which fits
with the context of the case at hand, which included a minority. How
many definitions did you have to go through before finding one that
didn't mention that race aspect?
"A bigot (in modern usage) is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of
any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of
different ethnicity, race, or class."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot_%28disambiguation%29
"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or
politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Bigots
BTW, I knew you weren't up to being honest about your lame cheap-shot,
but I thought it would be presumptuous to say so.
>Defining any person as IRRELEVANT is clearly intolerant and
>prejudicial.
But I didn't define a "person" as irrelevant, except in your
disingenuous mind, and you damned well know it.
dis�in�genu�ous (dis?in jen?yo??o? ?s)
adjective
1. not straightforward; not candid or frank; insincere
2. slyly deceptive or misleading, typically by means of a pretense
of ignorance or unawareness
Fits you and your cheap-shot perfectly. The irony is that you prefer
playing stupid to manning-up.
I gave you too much credit when I predicted that you wouldn't repeat
the allegation. Good on ya' for emphasizing my point though.
Wayne
Don Foreman
>
>dis�in�genu�ous (dis?in jen?yo??o? ?s)
>
>adjective
>
> 1. not straightforward; not candid or frank; insincere
> 2. slyly deceptive or misleading, typically by means of a pretense
>of ignorance or unawareness
>
>Fits you and your cheap-shot perfectly. The irony is that you prefer
>playing stupid to manning-up.
You once again ascribe my preferences with imagination without basis.
In response to your question, I'm not sure about whether I'd prefer
playing stupid to manning up because you've not defined either
behavior in your terms or any terms.
I have found concealment of intellect to occasionally be useful during
my lifetime with intent of acceptance, harmony and small team
performance. Is that what you mean by "playing stupid"?
Similar ambiguity attaches to your note about "manning up". I've
manned up here and there, now and then. I'm a combat vet that
defended your first-amendment right to bleat and spew vitriol against
those you disagree with, what do you mean (or know about) "manning
up"?
>I gave you too much credit when I predicted that you wouldn't repeat
>the allegation.
You did indeed.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:28:28 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>
>>
>>dis�in�genu�ous (dis?in jen?yo??o? ?s)
>>
>>adjective
>>
>> 1. not straightforward; not candid or frank; insincere
>> 2. slyly deceptive or misleading, typically by means of a pretense
>>of ignorance or unawareness
>>
>>Fits you and your cheap-shot perfectly. The irony is that you prefer
>>playing stupid to manning-up.
>
>You once again ascribe my preferences with imagination without basis.
BS If I thought you'd sincerely misunderstood anything, I'd have
suggested that you go back and re-read the thread. But I know full
well that your reading comprehension isn't as bad as you pretended.
Your phony indignation and your need to make a false allegation are
obvious to any sensible reader. Your word games and selective
definitions are more of the same lame tactics.
>I have found concealment of intellect
LOL You sound more like gummer every day, and I believe we're seeing
the limit of your "intellect" in this thread. Ed handed you a
sugar-coated excuse when he wrote: "Sometimes I'm slow changing gears
after talking to one of the buttheads or the obnoxious reprobates,
many of whom cross-post here from the survivalists' group, and the
snarkiness carries over into a conversation with one of the more
reasonable and mature people here until I catch myself. Maybe that's
what you ran into with Don." But you preferred to double-down, and in
the process made my point better than I ever could.
>to occasionally be useful during
>my lifetime with intent of acceptance, harmony and small team
>performance. Is that what you mean by "playing stupid"?
I'll clarify - your disingenuousness *is* stupid. The best you can
hope for with that approach is that some peabrain will claim to
believe you. But even they'll *know* it's BS.
>Similar ambiguity attaches to your note about "manning up". I've
>manned up here and there, now and then. I'm a combat vet that
>defended your first-amendment right to bleat and spew vitriol against
>those you disagree with, what do you mean (or know about) "manning
>up"?
You sure play that vet card a lot. Newsflash: it's an even weaker
excuse for being a weasel than everything else you've offered so far.
>>I gave you too much credit when I predicted that you wouldn't repeat
>>the allegation.
>You did indeed.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Wayne