Andrew's Ideal World
Heidi Graw
What is *your* ideal world in which you
would like to live? Can you describe
it for us point by point?
Thanks,
Heidi
Andrew Usher
> Andrew,
>
> What is *your* ideal world in which you
> would like to live? Can you describe
> it for us point by point?
I'm probably one of the smartest people in the world, but no one can
fully outline a utopia from his own head. I will not try only to have
you pick it apart.
Andrew Usher
Andre Lieven
weaseled:
> Heidi Graw wrote:
> > Andrew,
>
> > What is *your* ideal world in which you
> > would like to live? Can you describe
> > it for us point by point?
>
> I'm probably one of the smartest people in the world,
ROTFLMAO !
No evidence EVER offered ? Pedo factless bullshit loon claim
always fails.
> but no one can
> fully outline a utopia from his own head. I will not try only to have
> you pick it apart.
Translation: "I have nothing that cannot be utterly demolished by a
fifth grader."
Andre
Heidi Graw
>"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3db2f7af-3baa-49a1...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> Heidi Graw wrote:
>>
>> What is *your* ideal world in which you
>> would like to live? Can you describe
>> it for us point by point?
>Andrew wrote:
> I'm probably one of the smartest people in the world,
O.k....<chuckle>
>...but no one can
> fully outline a utopia from his own head.
An outline is just that...an outline. I don't
need, nor want, you to give us in indepth analysis.
>I will not try only to have you pick it apart.
Chicken! :-)
Are you afraid I'd point out some flaws which
you don't want to read about?
But, really, Andrew. I just want to understand
your beliefs...where you stand on things.
Thus far, I've gathered:
1. You would like to see a mininum guaranteed
income in place for men. In Canada, we have that.
We have pensions for the elderly, the disabled,
and the unemployed. Granted, there are arguments
as to whether or not these guaranteed incomes
are high enough to cover food, clothing, transportation
and shelter. Some are better able to budget than
others.
2. You would like to see voting rights for women revoked.
I'm assuming, given the above, that you would like
to see all women removed from positions within
political parties, too.
Good luck with that one. This is like trying to squeeze
toothpaste back into the tube. It just isn't going to happen.
You will simply have to reconcile yourself to that fact.
3. You would like to see greater tolerance for men in regards to
sexual infidelity. At issue: if a man voluntarily and without
onerous compulsion, and of his free will, makes an oath of
sexual fidelity, should he live up to such an oath? And if
he breaks that oath, should he be held accountable for
it? What should a man do if he breaks his vow?
4. You would like to see more leniency extended in cases of
sexual relations with minors. I'm assuming you're talking
about an adult/minor relationships. How should such
a relationship be handled? Should we have a minimum
age of consent? Are present ones too high, too low?
What do you suggest?
Perhaps to you would add to this list? Points 5 and onward?
5. What are your views on women in the workforce? Should
widows and divorcees have access to earning their own
living?
6. What are you views on women and education? Would
you allow women to go to school? Would you limit
the level they were allowed to attain?
7. Women and health? To what extent would you allow
women access to health-care?
Anything else you wish to add?
Thanks,
Heidi
MCP
"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3db2f7af-3baa-49a1...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Jeeeezzzz!! we really DO fancy ourself don't we. :-) :-)
Andrew Usher
> "Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3db2f7af-3baa-49a1...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > Heidi Graw wrote:
> >> Andrew,
> >>
> >> What is *your* ideal world in which you
> >> would like to live? Can you describe
> >> it for us point by point?
> >
> > I'm probably one of the smartest people in the world, but no one can
> > fully outline a utopia from his own head. I will not try only to have
> > you pick it apart.
>
Not particularly.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> 1. You would like to see a mininum guaranteed
> income in place for men. In Canada, we have that.
> We have pensions for the elderly, the disabled,
> and the unemployed. Granted, there are arguments
> as to whether or not these guaranteed incomes
> are high enough to cover food, clothing, transportation
> and shelter. Some are better able to budget than
> others.
I would like to see all that replaced with a single guaranteed income
that covers all adults. I have outlined my plan before;
http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income .
> 2. You would like to see voting rights for women revoked.
> I'm assuming, given the above, that you would like
> to see all women removed from positions within
> political parties, too.
The law of Nature is that women should never be permitted to have
authority over adult men.
> 3. You would like to see greater tolerance for men in regards to
> sexual infidelity. At issue: if a man voluntarily and without
> onerous compulsion, and of his free will, makes an oath of
> sexual fidelity, should he live up to such an oath? And if
> he breaks that oath, should he be held accountable for
> it? What should a man do if he breaks his vow?
I'll ignore you nonsense about 'oaths'. If a man cheats, his wife may
leave but she is not entitled to any of his money or property or even
their children if he wants them.
> 4. You would like to see more leniency extended in cases of
> sexual relations with minors. I'm assuming you're talking
> about an adult/minor relationships. How should such
> a relationship be handled? Should we have a minimum
> age of consent? Are present ones too high, too low?
> What do you suggest?
Maximum 15, minimum 12, consent of the minor's parents should not be
deciding.
> 5. What are your views on women in the workforce? Should
> widows and divorcees have access to earning their own
> living?
The same as all other women.
> 6. What are you views on women and education? Would
> you allow women to go to school? Would you limit
> the level they were allowed to attain?
Women should not be permitted to limit men's opportunities. Men should
be at least preferred for all paid positions (graduate assistantships
and beyond) as there are a limited number of places.
> 7. Women and health? To what extent would you allow
> women access to health-care?
Women should have full access to a universal health care system, just
as men do.
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
>> Heidi Graw wrote:
>
>> 1. You would like to see a mininum guaranteed
>> income in place for men. In Canada, we have that.
>> We have pensions for the elderly, the disabled,
>> and the unemployed. Granted, there are arguments
>> as to whether or not these guaranteed incomes
>> are high enough to cover food, clothing, transportation
>> and shelter. Some are better able to budget than
>> others.
> Andrew wrote:
> I would like to see all that replaced with a single guaranteed income
> that covers all adults. I have outlined my plan before;
> http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income .
Certainly, in Canada, we see a move in that direction already.
Government and corporations know that with mechanization
and more and more reliance on technology, high paying jobs
are decreasing, while low paying service jobs are increasing.
This, of course, puts pressure on people to live with less,
which doesn't help to ease criminal activities. What leaders
fear most is the uprising of the impoverished masses. They
don't want to risk that, so...ever more they are implementing
programs to ease the pressure on those who need help
the most. Subsidized housing is one of those things.
Where housing, like in BC, it outrageously expensive,
the government will top-up using tax-dollars to support
those who need it.
As yet, guaranteed income is based on an "as needed"
basis. It hasn't extended to those who have sufficient
means to get by.
But, what do you think about a scheme which does
not tax income, but rather, consumption? Those who
consume the most, pay the most. Don't tax production,
which in effect punishes those who work hard to get
ahead, but tax what they buy and use.
For example: a corporation requires materials to operate.
Tax the materials and supplies, but not the profit. An individual
could earn tax-free money, but pays taxes on materials and
goods that he/she wants.
In this way, a corporation, or an individual can have a
greater say in how much taxes it is they wish to pay.
Consume more, pay more. Buy less, pay less taxes.
I'll get to those other things your reply to me a bit later.
Heidi
Andrew Usher
> I'll get to those other things your reply to me a bit later.
Well that never happened.
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
Sorry, Andrew, but I actually have a life to live that involves
things to do, places to see and "real" people to spend time with.
I never know what is going to happen from one day to the next.
Anyway, I've had to "table" our discussion for the moment.
But, I will get back to it just as soon as I can schedule some
time for it.
Take care,
Heidi
PolishKnight
"Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote to Andrew:
> 2. You would like to see voting rights for women revoked.
> I'm assuming, given the above, that you would like
> to see all women removed from positions within
> political parties, too.
>
> Good luck with that one. This is like trying to squeeze
> toothpaste back into the tube. It just isn't going to happen.
> You will simply have to reconcile yourself to that fact.
Hello Heidi!
This statement is delightful example of feminine naivety. For
starters, the definition of the problem ("squeezing toothpaste back into
the tube") is a self-negative since the action of "squeezing" is to push
something out. I'll come back to it in a moment but first let's examine
the arrogance of presuming that progressive ideals are irreversible:
The same people who make this presumption often don't consider the
history or circumstances of their other beliefs. Consider the leftist
marriage to hippy green nature kooks: They believe that only by
returning to 18th century technologies such as, get this, windmills, can
they continue to have electricity to power their computers to post about
how evil technology is. It's amazing that 1950's era Christians are
less afraid of technology (nuclear power, oil, microwave ovens, mobile
phone radition) than modern hypocritical green advocates who believe
that using plastic bags at the supermarket will cause the end of the
world in their lifetime.
Amazing. It's like the Shaker cult and the Luddites are back again.
Never underestimate, Heidi, the ability for people to reject modern
ideas or to embrace old ones, just for the sake of... change. Change...
Hope... I heard that somewhere...
Also, another historical example I love to use is the notion that real
estate always goes up. This may amaze you to hear, but some people have
discovered that it often costs more to rent than to own. The key is
that most people, who follow the herd for instance, often wind up being
sacrificial lambs as the herd falls over a cliff. Then there are the
evolved people who look at the fundamentals.
Back to the toothpaste: If it got "squeezed" out of the tube it's
because a certain group of people, those with guns and the ability to
earn money rather than gestate children into poverty, gave them to
women. Guess who? Yep, men. If a sufficient critical mass of men in
ANY group: politicians, military, even common working schlubs, were to
reject the notion of the women's vote then that's the end of it.
In addition, this may amaze you to hear but most women really don't care
that much about the vote as you might think. Sure, most women LIKE the
idea when it's an entitlement, like squeezed out toothpaste. But then
again, do women really WANT the vote or even women's equality as much as
chivalrous patronage and entitlements? I've found that even women in
the states are initially insulted when I suggest to them I don't think
they should be allowed to vote, much like the line about offering a
woman a million dollars to sleep with you, but when it's real and I say
I'm going to pay for a date with them, they find they really don't care.
Hell, most men don't bother to vote in the states. It doesn't really
take a lot to get someone to give it up. Most women would probably give
up the right to vote for a Gucci bag or a pair of Versace shoes.
In the meantime, Heidi, these rights, much like electricity, are not
things that stay "squeezed" out. They have to be either protected or
generated, respectively. I laughed when the tree huggers in California,
that rejected evil coal, gas, and oil forms of electricity because the
trees said they were baaaaad suddently experienced rolling power
outages. Even in Malibu, Barbara Streisand had her 10 A/C units and
clothes dryers go out and then, gasp, she had to live with something
known as... reality. Eeeek! When the power wasn't generated by men
anymore (literally) that was the end of the notion of "natural"
electrical power and plumbing that magically delivers water.
Rather than us men needing "luck" to take away the women's vote, it's
your ideology that requires trillions of dollars (or billions of
loonies) to keep women out of the kitchen, so to speak, and even then
the movement has petered out and is in decline as the only way to keep
new liberal voters coming in is to seek an alliance with Muslim voters.
Yeah, that'll work REAL good! France is becoming Le Taliban. Coming
back to the states last week on Lufthansa, the flight crew all had to
know how to speak Turkish.
If YOU"RE lucky, you'll live to see the day when mere moderates such as
GA or myself are in charge. We're the CHIVALROUS guys (by comparison.)
regards,
PolishKnight
PolishKnight
"Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote:
Sheesh, logic 101 is needed here.
You claim leaders fear the impovershed masses even as they are the ones
putting them in. It's called tossing (or leading) someone into a pit,
throwing them a carrot, and they worship you forever. Why do you think
they were so gung ho to get women voters? Who puts these GUYS into
office?
Yeah, this is like saying it's men's fault that so many women dig bad
boys...
Criminals are useful to generate fear of crime in the populace, get
support for bigger prisons and labor unions for guards and police, and
then get campaign contributions or support from said unions.
More people on welfare means more votes for politicians that create
policies that in the long run drive jobs to other countries. Such as...
pharmaceutical firms.
> As yet, guaranteed income is based on an "as needed"
> basis. It hasn't extended to those who have sufficient
> means to get by.
>
> But, what do you think about a scheme which does
> not tax income, but rather, consumption? Those who
> consume the most, pay the most. Don't tax production,
> which in effect punishes those who work hard to get
> ahead, but tax what they buy and use.
Define consumption.
Do babies "consume" milk and nutritional formula? Do people "consume"
houses? Even worse, what happens when people "consume" a vacation in
Florida or Cuba rather than in Vancouver?
> For example: a corporation requires materials to operate.
> Tax the materials and supplies, but not the profit. An individual
> could earn tax-free money, but pays taxes on materials and
> goods that he/she wants.
This is called VAT and the problem with this is the government enforcing
and tracking that all the materials are consumed in the process of them
being made into something else. What if my brother-in-law's furniture
business has a few 2x4's fall of the truck and wind up on my deck?
regards,
PolishKnight
PolishKnight
<a2a073b2-81e4-4c30...@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 6:18�pm, Andrew Usher <kook under his-...@loon.nut>
I'm sure you're the expert on fifth grader thinking, Andre. :-)
Sorry, but I couldn't resist.
regards,
PolishKnight
(It was a joke!)
Mark Borgerson
mare...@comcast.net says...
> In article <9tKdm.37554$Db2.27532@edtnps83>,
> "Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote to Andrew:
>
> > 2. You would like to see voting rights for women revoked.
> > I'm assuming, given the above, that you would like
> > to see all women removed from positions within
> > political parties, too.
> >
> > Good luck with that one. This is like trying to squeeze
> > toothpaste back into the tube. It just isn't going to happen.
> > You will simply have to reconcile yourself to that fact.
>
> Hello Heidi!
>
> This statement is delightful example of feminine naivety. For
> starters, the definition of the problem ("squeezing toothpaste back into
> the tube") is a self-negative since the action of "squeezing" is to push
> something out.
It is? I guess you've never squeezed into a crowded subway, then. ;-)
> I'll come back to it in a moment but first let's examine
> the arrogance of presuming that progressive ideals are irreversible:
>
> The same people who make this presumption often don't consider the
> history or circumstances of their other beliefs. Consider the leftist
> marriage to hippy green nature kooks: They believe that only by
> returning to 18th century technologies such as, get this, windmills, can
> they continue to have electricity to power their computers to post about
> how evil technology is. It's amazing that 1950's era Christians are
> less afraid of technology (nuclear power, oil, microwave ovens, mobile
> phone radition) than modern hypocritical green advocates who believe
> that using plastic bags at the supermarket will cause the end of the
> world in their lifetime.
>
> Amazing. It's like the Shaker cult and the Luddites are back again.
>
> Never underestimate, Heidi, the ability for people to reject modern
> ideas or to embrace old ones, just for the sake of... change. Change...
> Hope... I heard that somewhere...
>
> Also, another historical example I love to use is the notion that real
> estate always goes up. This may amaze you to hear, but some people have
> discovered that it often costs more to rent than to own.
Those people must be landlords! ;-) After all if it cost
more to own than to rent, landlords would all go out of
business!
OTOH, it you're being careful about your language, it almost
always costs more to rent than to own. Owning real estate
is cheap---just taxes and maintenance. It's the buying
that's expensive! ;-)
> The key is
> that most people, who follow the herd for instance, often wind up being
> sacrificial lambs as the herd falls over a cliff. Then there are the
> evolved people who look at the fundamentals.
Have real estate prices started back up where you live? We're still
going lower here----median home prices are off a whopping 5.3% compared
to the same period last year. Sales are down about 32%---I guess people
aren't moving in or out until the economy stabilizes a bit more.
>
> Back to the toothpaste: If it got "squeezed" out of the tube it's
> because a certain group of people, those with guns and the ability to
> earn money rather than gestate children into poverty, gave them to
> women. Guess who? Yep, men. If a sufficient critical mass of men in
> ANY group: politicians, military, even common working schlubs, were to
> reject the notion of the women's vote then that's the end of it.
>
> In addition, this may amaze you to hear but most women really don't care
> that much about the vote as you might think. Sure, most women LIKE the
> idea when it's an entitlement, like squeezed out toothpaste. But then
> again, do women really WANT the vote or even women's equality as much as
> chivalrous patronage and entitlements? I've found that even women in
> the states are initially insulted when I suggest to them I don't think
> they should be allowed to vote, much like the line about offering a
> woman a million dollars to sleep with you, but when it's real and I say
> I'm going to pay for a date with them, they find they really don't care.
> Hell, most men don't bother to vote in the states. It doesn't really
> take a lot to get someone to give it up. Most women would probably give
> up the right to vote for a Gucci bag or a pair of Versace shoes.
If women don't care much about the right to vote, why are the tournout
rates for women higher than those for men?
>
> In the meantime, Heidi, these rights, much like electricity, are not
> things that stay "squeezed" out. They have to be either protected or
> generated, respectively. I laughed when the tree huggers in California,
> that rejected evil coal, gas, and oil forms of electricity because the
> trees said they were baaaaad suddently experienced rolling power
> outages. Even in Malibu, Barbara Streisand had her 10 A/C units and
> clothes dryers go out and then, gasp, she had to live with something
> known as... reality. Eeeek! When the power wasn't generated by men
> anymore (literally) that was the end of the notion of "natural"
> electrical power and plumbing that magically delivers water.
If a bit of a blackout bugs them----they must really hate those
brush fires and mudslides! The interesting thing is that, the
more expensive your real estate, the more likely it is to burn
or slide down the hill!
Danged Californians even raise the cost of our clean hydro power
in the Northwest by bidding up the rates from Bonneville to
get their clean power fix!
>
> Rather than us men needing "luck" to take away the women's vote, it's
> your ideology that requires trillions of dollars (or billions of
> loonies) to keep women out of the kitchen, so to speak, and even then
> the movement has petered out and is in decline as the only way to keep
> new liberal voters coming in is to seek an alliance with Muslim voters.
> Yeah, that'll work REAL good! France is becoming Le Taliban. Coming
> back to the states last week on Lufthansa, the flight crew all had to
> know how to speak Turkish.
Were there a lot of Turkish speakers coming to the US? I would think
there would be more traveling between Germany and the Middle East.
Maybe ALL the Lufthansa crews need to speak Turkish now. I wonder
how many of the US flight crews are required to speak Spanish.
>
> If YOU"RE lucky, you'll live to see the day when mere moderates such as
> GA or myself are in charge. We're the CHIVALROUS guys (by comparison.)
>
I suspect she'll have to live at least three or four more decades, then.
The conservatives had their chance a few times in the last few decades
and blew it badly. I don't see the Republicans doing much except
further self-destruction for another 8 to 12 years.
Mark Borgerson
Heidi Graw
>"Mark Borgerson" <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.24e51b6ed...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>PK wrote:
>>Most women would probably give
>> up the right to vote for a Gucci bag or a pair of Versace shoes.
> Mark B. wrote:
> If women don't care much about the right to vote, why are the tournout
> rates for women higher than those for men?
I did a google "voter turnout by gender" and checked out some
North American and International statistics. Woah! Women are
extremely politically involved and active! Where women are
allowed to vote, the participation rate, if not equal to, is moreso
than men.
So, Mark B., you are right. Where allowed, women will excercise
their right to vote and they'll do so in rates greater than men. There
are also a number of countries where women have been playing
catch-up to men in terms of voter participation rates. Total
global participation rate for women is only about 18%...lots of room
left for improvement.
If these trends continue, then I can foresee a time where things
will become so lobsided in terms of participation that programs
will be geared towards increasing men's participation in the
political arena.
There's no way that women will give up their right to vote
any time soon. And since they compose the majority of
voters, where allowed to vote, there's no way they'll give up
this right unless a military dictatorship removes that right
(which will mean that men will lose it, too.)
Anyway, as it is now, there's no way women will give
up their right to vote in exchange for a Gucci or
Versace. Men like PK may think women can be
bought that easily, but it ain't happening.
Take care,
Heidi
PolishKnight
Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <marek1965-7418E...@news.giganews.com>,
> mare...@comcast.net says...
> > In article <9tKdm.37554$Db2.27532@edtnps83>,
> > "Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote to Andrew:
> >
> > > 2. You would like to see voting rights for women revoked.
> > > I'm assuming, given the above, that you would like
> > > to see all women removed from positions within
> > > political parties, too.
> > >
> > > Good luck with that one. This is like trying to squeeze
> > > toothpaste back into the tube. It just isn't going to happen.
> > > You will simply have to reconcile yourself to that fact.
> >
> > Hello Heidi!
> >
> > This statement is delightful example of feminine naivety. For
> > starters, the definition of the problem ("squeezing toothpaste back into
> > the tube") is a self-negative since the action of "squeezing" is to push
> > something out.
>
> It is? I guess you've never squeezed into a crowded subway, then. ;-)
Touche! :-)
> > I'll come back to it in a moment but first let's examine
> > the arrogance of presuming that progressive ideals are irreversible:
> >
> > The same people who make this presumption often don't consider the
> > history or circumstances of their other beliefs. Consider the leftist
> > marriage to hippy green nature kooks: They believe that only by
> > returning to 18th century technologies such as, get this, windmills, can
> > they continue to have electricity to power their computers to post about
> > how evil technology is. It's amazing that 1950's era Christians are
> > less afraid of technology (nuclear power, oil, microwave ovens, mobile
> > phone radition) than modern hypocritical green advocates who believe
> > that using plastic bags at the supermarket will cause the end of the
> > world in their lifetime.
> >
> > Amazing. It's like the Shaker cult and the Luddites are back again.
> >
> > Never underestimate, Heidi, the ability for people to reject modern
> > ideas or to embrace old ones, just for the sake of... change. Change...
> > Hope... I heard that somewhere...
> >
> > Also, another historical example I love to use is the notion that real
> > estate always goes up. This may amaze you to hear, but some people have
> > discovered that it often costs more to rent than to own.
>
> Those people must be landlords! ;-) After all if it cost
> more to own than to rent, landlords would all go out of
> business!
Er, doh. I meant costs more to own than rent! (It's my RPN syndrome.)
Note that I (tried to say) it costs _some_ more to own than rent. I
never said that real estate always goes down either. In addition, it's
possible to run either a losing or unprofitable business just as it's
possible for someone to pay rent indefinitely provided they have a
greater income stream overall (in other places.)
My landlords often rented to me for less than the base costs of the
property (PITI: Principal, Insurance, Tax, Interest) but because they
had equity in the property, they could do so. On the other hand, as we
discussed earlier, they could have probably made more money on taking
the equity in their property and investing it in another business.
The general rule of thumb is that if the monthly rent is 1/2 percent or
less than the property's list price, then the landlord is losing money
overall assuming they are tying up equity in the property or still
paying off most of their loan.
And yes, landlords here and in many places around the country are losing
money but they do so more slowly, at least, then owners who pay their
monthly mortgage payment on an empty house hoping that the small
seasonal rise last month signaled that they'll be able to sell their
price at 2006 rates again. The high end borrowers generally had more
money to cushion the market (in this case, tall grass got cut _last_).
So my wife and I are in conflict: Do we grab a townhouse in a year or so
from one of the herd OR do we wait 2 or 3 years from a single family
home?
> OTOH, it you're being careful about your language, it almost
> always costs more to rent than to own. Owning real estate
> is cheap---just taxes and maintenance. It's the buying
> that's expensive! ;-)
Well, SELLING has costs too since most sellers, especially nowadays,
have to pay their agent and sometimes the buyer's agent as well and
maybe even closing costs. In addition, if they are trying to sell in a
down market, then they are supposed to bring money to the table for a
short sale.
I remember Heidi disapproving of my bankruptcy I told her I filed. I
wonder what she thinks of homeowners speculating with the bank's money.
> > The key is
> > that most people, who follow the herd for instance, often wind up being
> > sacrificial lambs as the herd falls over a cliff. Then there are the
> > evolved people who look at the fundamentals.
>
> Have real estate prices started back up where you live? We're still
> going lower here----median home prices are off a whopping 5.3% compared
> to the same period last year. Sales are down about 32%---I guess people
> aren't moving in or out until the economy stabilizes a bit more.
It's funny that when the market STARTED to slide in winter of 2006 or
so, real estate bulls claimed: "That's just SEASONAL losses! The market
will come back in the spring!"
Now that the market showed a slight bump in summer, the pundits are
failing to notice that most of that bump is seasonal (didja know that
church attendance was higher last Sunday than the whole week before? It
must mean more people are going to church!)
The rest of the bump can be explained by a foreclosure hold that Obama
ordered the banks to impose similar to an OPEC embargo. As I said
above, though, the banks are in the same position as obstinant sellers
who need to pay for maintenance costs on an empty home and then flood
the market later.
It's going to be a cold, cold winter! -- Groundhog Day
> > Back to the toothpaste: If it got "squeezed" out of the tube it's
> > because a certain group of people, those with guns and the ability to
> > earn money rather than gestate children into poverty, gave them to
> > women. Guess who? Yep, men. If a sufficient critical mass of men in
> > ANY group: politicians, military, even common working schlubs, were to
> > reject the notion of the women's vote then that's the end of it.
> >
> > In addition, this may amaze you to hear but most women really don't care
> > that much about the vote as you might think. Sure, most women LIKE the
> > idea when it's an entitlement, like squeezed out toothpaste. But then
> > again, do women really WANT the vote or even women's equality as much as
> > chivalrous patronage and entitlements? I've found that even women in
> > the states are initially insulted when I suggest to them I don't think
> > they should be allowed to vote, much like the line about offering a
> > woman a million dollars to sleep with you, but when it's real and I say
> > I'm going to pay for a date with them, they find they really don't care.
> > Hell, most men don't bother to vote in the states. It doesn't really
> > take a lot to get someone to give it up. Most women would probably give
> > up the right to vote for a Gucci bag or a pair of Versace shoes.
>
> If women don't care much about the right to vote, why are the tournout
> rates for women higher than those for men?
There are more men in prison for one thing. But that's not the point.
Care has multiple meanings. One dictionary definition of care that I
meant is:
protection; charge: He is under the care of a doctor.
Rights, especially the right to vote, are still protected almost
entirely by men. Plenty of soldiers fight to protect rights, for
example, without necessarily EXERCISING them.
My point is that women "care" about the right to vote less than they
care about sexist entitlements. It's similar to people who care about
losing weight (didja notice how many ads are on TV for that issue?) yet
people who watch TV are statistically more fat. It's strange, how can
they care so much about an issue but not be effective?
Funny story: A mistress of a German investor I used to work for gained
50 lbs eating at expensive French restaurants. So she went to the store
and bought exercise equipment and set up a gym and she didn't lose
weight. Apparently, buying the products and leaving them, unopened in
the boxes, was uneffective. I guess she was waiting for the waiters and
clerks to do it for her.
> > In the meantime, Heidi, these rights, much like electricity, are not
> > things that stay "squeezed" out. They have to be either protected or
> > generated, respectively. I laughed when the tree huggers in California,
> > that rejected evil coal, gas, and oil forms of electricity because the
> > trees said they were baaaaad suddently experienced rolling power
> > outages. Even in Malibu, Barbara Streisand had her 10 A/C units and
> > clothes dryers go out and then, gasp, she had to live with something
> > known as... reality. Eeeek! When the power wasn't generated by men
> > anymore (literally) that was the end of the notion of "natural"
> > electrical power and plumbing that magically delivers water.
>
> If a bit of a blackout bugs them----they must really hate those
> brush fires and mudslides! The interesting thing is that, the
> more expensive your real estate, the more likely it is to burn
> or slide down the hill!
>
> Danged Californians even raise the cost of our clean hydro power
> in the Northwest by bidding up the rates from Bonneville to
> get their clean power fix!
Don't worry Mark! They'll be burning much more electricity to build
those windmills. They should get the power back to you in 50 years or
so. :-)
> > Rather than us men needing "luck" to take away the women's vote, it's
> > your ideology that requires trillions of dollars (or billions of
> > loonies) to keep women out of the kitchen, so to speak, and even then
> > the movement has petered out and is in decline as the only way to keep
> > new liberal voters coming in is to seek an alliance with Muslim voters.
> > Yeah, that'll work REAL good! France is becoming Le Taliban. Coming
> > back to the states last week on Lufthansa, the flight crew all had to
> > know how to speak Turkish.
>
> Were there a lot of Turkish speakers coming to the US? I would think
> there would be more traveling between Germany and the Middle East.
> Maybe ALL the Lufthansa crews need to speak Turkish now. I wonder
> how many of the US flight crews are required to speak Spanish.
>
> > If YOU"RE lucky, you'll live to see the day when mere moderates such as
> > GA or myself are in charge. We're the CHIVALROUS guys (by comparison.)
> >
>
> I suspect she'll have to live at least three or four more decades, then.
> The conservatives had their chance a few times in the last few decades
> and blew it badly. I don't see the Republicans doing much except
> further self-destruction for another 8 to 12 years.
>
> Mark Borgerson
Republicans engage in self-destruction due to stupidity. The left does
so as a matter of progress. :-)
Obama's popularity figures are now lower than GW's figures at this time.
I guess that is change we can believe in. With real estate, a 5 percent
bump is change we can believe in for another month or two...
regards,
PolishKnight
PolishKnight
"Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote:
> >"Mark Borgerson" <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.24e51b6ed...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> >>PK wrote:
> >>Most women would probably give
> >> up the right to vote for a Gucci bag or a pair of Versace shoes.
>
> > Mark B. wrote:
> > If women don't care much about the right to vote, why are the tournout
> > rates for women higher than those for men?
>
> I did a google "voter turnout by gender" and checked out some
> North American and International statistics. Woah! Women are
> extremely politically involved and active! Where women are
> allowed to vote, the participation rate, if not equal to, is moreso
> than men.
>
> So, Mark B., you are right. Where allowed, women will excercise
> their right to vote and they'll do so in rates greater than men.
Indeed. Patriarchal patronage not only granted women the right to vote,
but gave them all kinds of government money to engage in goodie grabs.
It works great until the money and/or male support wears out as
women-only DV shelter runners in California are discovering...
> There
> are also a number of countries where women have been playing
> catch-up to men in terms of voter participation rates. Total
> global participation rate for women is only about 18%...lots of room
> left for improvement.
See what I said about immigration from these countries to the USA,
Europe, and maybe Canada? They're exporting THEIR culture to US, not
the other way around.
I'm amazed, quite frankly, it turned out this way. About 30 years ago,
it was expected that every country would have it's citizens wearing blue
jeans and listening to Brittany Spears/Madonna CD's and thinking like a
Southern California written sitcom.
> If these trends continue, then I can foresee a time where things
> will become so lobsided in terms of participation that programs
> will be geared towards increasing men's participation in the
> political arena.
Yeah, right. Hahahahaha! That's like Damsels in Distress who have men
fight off the dragon for them and pretend their equal will be the ones
saving men. Sure...
If programs are geared towards helping EVERYONE, Heidi, then the Marxist
formula of from someone according to their ability, to their supporters
according to their need doesn't work anymore.
> There's no way that women will give up their right to vote
> any time soon.
Yeah, the damsel in distress is not going to let that dragon capture her
again. She'll blow her whistle real hard and demand that dragon
exercise chivalry and free her.
Nice paradigm, when it works. Like real estate always goes up! The
USSR will be around forever!
>And since they compose the majority of
> voters, where allowed to vote, there's no way they'll give up
> this right unless a military dictatorship removes that right
> (which will mean that men will lose it, too.)
There are plenty of other ways, Heidi. Didja ever hear of corporations?
Of powerful political lobbies? Or better yet, redefining what a "right"
means? (For example, the right to not be discriminated against by race
really means discriminating against certain people based upon race.)
Have a few men or Muslim (including Muslim women) judges say that
women's right to vote means they have the right to not be allowed to
vote and that's that. I'm sure the same people who drafted Canada's
human rights platform can come up with better wording.
> Anyway, as it is now, there's no way women will give
> up their right to vote in exchange for a Gucci or
> Versace. Men like PK may think women can be
> bought that easily, but it ain't happening.
If women participate in voting because it's easy and men pay the price
for it, why is it unreasonable to state that women will give up the vote
easily for something else?
For the record, it was amazing how baby rabies women in their 30's in
the states were ready to say or do anything to get a little cash
attention.
regards,
PolishKnight
Heidi Graw
>> 4. You would like to see more leniency extended in cases of
>> sexual relations with minors. I'm assuming you're talking
>> about an adult/minor relationships. How should such
>> a relationship be handled? Should we have a minimum
>> age of consent? Are present ones too high, too low?
>> What do you suggest?
>Andrew wrote:
>Maximum 15, minimum 12, consent of the minor's parents should not be
>deciding.
Does that mean you consider the age of majority (18 or 19, even 21 in
some areas) to be set too high? Would you like to see a 12-year old
boy cast his vote at the polls?
If you don't want to see parents having to make decisions over their
children's lives, these children will then have to be treated like
independed adults.
Granted, there are increasing cases where youngsters are
physically developing earlier than ever before, but they are
far from emotional and mental maturation until about the
age of 25.
What is it about a 12-year old girl that you find so sexually
attractive? Is it because you find emotional and mental
immaturity sexually attractive? Or that, as an adult man,
you feel that 12-year old girls can be molded and shaped
into your version of what sort of woman you believe she
should turn out to be? That the whole idea of having
power over a powerless and naive girl is a sexy turn
on for you?
If you had a 12-year old daughter, would you make her
available for an adult man to use according to his will?
The obstacle for you, Andrew, is that by far, most
fathers in the Western world prefer not to see their young
girls engage in sex with adult men, even teenage boys.
The ancient pre-Christian traditions of the "barbarians"
in Europe held that girls were not to be married off until
the age of 17 to 21, while the young men were not
given in marriage until the age of 21 to 22 and older.
To me, these minimum ages seem reasonable.
I'm thinking of a few fathers who I know who have
daughters. When these girls were 12 to 18 years
old, and if you were sniffing around to get at them,
these men would think nothing of stringing up
by the balls. From discussions I had with these
fathers, you'd be in serious trouble. They came
up with all sorts of inventive tortures to inflict
on you. I think you're going to have a tough
time trying to convince these fathers to give
up their daughters at such a young age.
Heidi
Mark Borgerson
> In article <MPG.24e51b6ed...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <marek1965-7418E...@news.giganews.com>,
> > mare...@comcast.net says...
> > > In article <9tKdm.37554$Db2.27532@edtnps83>,
> > > "Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote to Andrew:
> > >
> > > > 2. You would like to see voting rights for women revoked.
> > > > I'm assuming, given the above, that you would like
> > > > to see all women removed from positions within
> > > > political parties, too.
> > > >
> > > > Good luck with that one. This is like trying to squeeze
> > > > toothpaste back into the tube. It just isn't going to happen.
> > > > You will simply have to reconcile yourself to that fact.
> > >
> > > Hello Heidi!
> > >
> > > This statement is delightful example of feminine naivety. For
> > > starters, the definition of the problem ("squeezing toothpaste back into
> > > the tube") is a self-negative since the action of "squeezing" is to push
> > > something out.
> >
> > It is? I guess you've never squeezed into a crowded subway, then. ;-)
>
> Touche! :-)
Aha----a PUNishsing response.
Another factor that may have some bearing on rental costs---in many
urban or long-established suburban areas, the mortgages on rental
properties may be paid off. Landlords with lots of capital may
finance on shorter terms and stay in business past the end of
the loan. From that point, they're on the gravy train.
> The general rule of thumb is that if the monthly rent is 1/2 percent or
> less than the property's list price, then the landlord is losing money
> overall assuming they are tying up equity in the property or still
> paying off most of their loan.
>
> And yes, landlords here and in many places around the country are losing
> money but they do so more slowly, at least, then owners who pay their
> monthly mortgage payment on an empty house hoping that the small
> seasonal rise last month signaled that they'll be able to sell their
> price at 2006 rates again. The high end borrowers generally had more
> money to cushion the market (in this case, tall grass got cut _last_).
>
> So my wife and I are in conflict: Do we grab a townhouse in a year or so
> from one of the herd OR do we wait 2 or 3 years from a single family
> home?
Just watch out for properties that have been vacant too long---some
are getting trashed by squatters.
>
> > OTOH, it you're being careful about your language, it almost
> > always costs more to rent than to own. Owning real estate
> > is cheap---just taxes and maintenance. It's the buying
> > that's expensive! ;-)
>
> Well, SELLING has costs too since most sellers, especially nowadays,
> have to pay their agent and sometimes the buyer's agent as well and
> maybe even closing costs. In addition, if they are trying to sell in a
> down market, then they are supposed to bring money to the table for a
> short sale.
>
> I remember Heidi disapproving of my bankruptcy I told her I filed. I
> wonder what she thinks of homeowners speculating with the bank's money.
>
> > > The key is
> > > that most people, who follow the herd for instance, often wind up being
> > > sacrificial lambs as the herd falls over a cliff. Then there are the
> > > evolved people who look at the fundamentals.
> >
> > Have real estate prices started back up where you live? We're still
> > going lower here----median home prices are off a whopping 5.3% compared
> > to the same period last year. Sales are down about 32%---I guess people
> > aren't moving in or out until the economy stabilizes a bit more.
>
> It's funny that when the market STARTED to slide in winter of 2006 or
> so, real estate bulls claimed: "That's just SEASONAL losses! The market
> will come back in the spring!"
A lot of the big losses have been confined to major metro
areas and their exurbs. People who decided that living outside
those areas are now looking smart for a whole new reason.
>
> Now that the market showed a slight bump in summer, the pundits are
> failing to notice that most of that bump is seasonal (didja know that
> church attendance was higher last Sunday than the whole week before? It
> must mean more people are going to church!)
The real estate bump may be tied to a bump in consumer confidence---
which may also be related to a seasonal drop in unemployment. The
real test will come in the next 6 months.
Plenty of US soldiers seem to be fighting to allow other nations' people
the right to vote. Not too many are fighting for our right to vote.
In recent history, absent a few National Guard actions, that's been
the job of the courts. Granted, the courts are mostly men.
>
> My point is that women "care" about the right to vote less than they
> care about sexist entitlements. It's similar to people who care about
> losing weight (didja notice how many ads are on TV for that issue?) yet
> people who watch TV are statistically more fat. It's strange, how can
> they care so much about an issue but not be effective?
You've just described a principle of good marketing---concentrate on
a target audience. No point in targeting weight loss adds to
skinny people! ;-) I think your analogy just bit the dust (low-calorie
dust, I hope).
>
> Funny story: A mistress of a German investor I used to work for gained
> 50 lbs eating at expensive French restaurants. So she went to the store
> and bought exercise equipment and set up a gym and she didn't lose
> weight. Apparently, buying the products and leaving them, unopened in
> the boxes, was uneffective. I guess she was waiting for the waiters and
> clerks to do it for her.
Wow---that must have cost a fortune. Expensive French restaurants are
not known for large portion sizes. She could have done the same thing
with much less expense at Denny's.
>
> > > In the meantime, Heidi, these rights, much like electricity, are not
> > > things that stay "squeezed" out. They have to be either protected or
> > > generated, respectively. I laughed when the tree huggers in California,
> > > that rejected evil coal, gas, and oil forms of electricity because the
> > > trees said they were baaaaad suddently experienced rolling power
> > > outages. Even in Malibu, Barbara Streisand had her 10 A/C units and
> > > clothes dryers go out and then, gasp, she had to live with something
> > > known as... reality. Eeeek! When the power wasn't generated by men
> > > anymore (literally) that was the end of the notion of "natural"
> > > electrical power and plumbing that magically delivers water.
> >
> > If a bit of a blackout bugs them----they must really hate those
> > brush fires and mudslides! The interesting thing is that, the
> > more expensive your real estate, the more likely it is to burn
> > or slide down the hill!
> >
> > Danged Californians even raise the cost of our clean hydro power
> > in the Northwest by bidding up the rates from Bonneville to
> > get their clean power fix!
>
> Don't worry Mark! They'll be burning much more electricity to build
> those windmills. They should get the power back to you in 50 years or
> so. :-)
Got a cite for that? It's moe than twice the time I've seen in some
studies of the payoff time for wind farms.
http://www.sei.ie/Renewables/Wind_Energy/Wind_Farm_Development/Financing_wind_farms/
>
> > > Rather than us men needing "luck" to take away the women's vote, it's
> > > your ideology that requires trillions of dollars (or billions of
> > > loonies) to keep women out of the kitchen, so to speak, and even then
> > > the movement has petered out and is in decline as the only way to keep
> > > new liberal voters coming in is to seek an alliance with Muslim voters.
> > > Yeah, that'll work REAL good! France is becoming Le Taliban. Coming
> > > back to the states last week on Lufthansa, the flight crew all had to
> > > know how to speak Turkish.
> >
> > Were there a lot of Turkish speakers coming to the US? I would think
> > there would be more traveling between Germany and the Middle East.
> > Maybe ALL the Lufthansa crews need to speak Turkish now. I wonder
> > how many of the US flight crews are required to speak Spanish.
> >
> > > If YOU"RE lucky, you'll live to see the day when mere moderates such as
> > > GA or myself are in charge. We're the CHIVALROUS guys (by comparison.)
> > >
> >
> > I suspect she'll have to live at least three or four more decades, then.
> > The conservatives had their chance a few times in the last few decades
> > and blew it badly. I don't see the Republicans doing much except
> > further self-destruction for another 8 to 12 years.
> >
> > Mark Borgerson
>
> Republicans engage in self-destruction due to stupidity. The left does
> so as a matter of progress. :-)
Hmm, can we prove the converse: If the left is not self-destructing,
does that mean it is making no progress! If so, true conservatives
should hope for a left-leaning administration that makes no progress---
then things will stay the same. ;-)
>
> Obama's popularity figures are now lower than GW's figures at this time.
> I guess that is change we can believe in. With real estate, a 5 percent
> bump is change we can believe in for another month or two...
>
That comparison isn't clear. Are you comparing the two right now, or
at the end of their first six months in office?
If the latter, you should remember that Clinton left GW with a
much smaller deficit and an economy that was in much better shape than
was the case this January.
I think a better comparison will be the Presidential job approval
rating at the end of the administration. GW ended up at about 30%.
Only Nixon and Truman have ended up lower in the last 50 years.
Of all the Presidents in the last 50 years, only Clinton has
ended with higher ratings than he started with.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-
31.html
There's a good argument that Clinton's record was due as much to
pointless Republican attacks as the good economic record. If
that's true, pointless attacks on Obama may be helping him!
(pointless attacks are the expenditure of political capital
with no measurable result)
Mark Borgerson
PolishKnight
Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <marek1965-349FB...@news.giganews.com>,
> mare...@comcast.net says...
[edit]
> > Note that I (tried to say) it costs _some_ more to own than rent. I
> > never said that real estate always goes down either. In addition, it's
> > possible to run either a losing or unprofitable business just as it's
> > possible for someone to pay rent indefinitely provided they have a
> > greater income stream overall (in other places.)
> >
> > My landlords often rented to me for less than the base costs of the
> > property (PITI: Principal, Insurance, Tax, Interest) but because they
> > had equity in the property, they could do so. On the other hand, as we
> > discussed earlier, they could have probably made more money on taking
> > the equity in their property and investing it in another business.
> >
> Another factor that may have some bearing on rental costs---in many
> urban or long-established suburban areas, the mortgages on rental
> properties may be paid off. Landlords with lots of capital may
> finance on shorter terms and stay in business past the end of
> the loan. From that point, they're on the gravy train.
Er, well, duh! Of course when someone has a wad of money lying around
whether in property or bonds, etc they're on a gravy train.
Landlords can have a difficult time, however, if they get a bad tenant
since renters have rights and it may be difficult to collect money for
damages if they occur. Look at it this way: Would you loan someone a
quarter of a million dollars that you just met through an ad and ran a
basic credit check on? Yet that's similar to what landlords do with
tenants.
> > So my wife and I are in conflict: Do we grab a townhouse in a year or so
> > from one of the herd OR do we wait 2 or 3 years from a single family
> > home?
>
> Just watch out for properties that have been vacant too long---some
> are getting trashed by squatters.
In the old foreclosures market, it was common that the only way to get a
discount was to make a risky auction bid thereby creating a market for
well educated speculators or gamblers.
But today, with so many properties, it's not uncommon for the properties
to receive no bid at auction (an underwater mortgage, after all, is not
market competitive) and go to the general market where we can get a home
inspector and decide whether to make a low bid to the bank in exchange
for fixing it up (no doubt there's a lot of construction labor out there
to do it!)
> > It's funny that when the market STARTED to slide in winter of 2006 or
> > so, real estate bulls claimed: "That's just SEASONAL losses! The market
> > will come back in the spring!"
>
> A lot of the big losses have been confined to major metro
> areas and their exurbs. People who decided that living outside
> those areas are now looking smart for a whole new reason.
Oh for Pete's sake. Listen: How can the logic work that a region
enjoyed price increases because it was financially competitive compared
to a big city with higher prices NOT be inpacted if suddently those same
city slickers can now afford properties closer to home?
> > Now that the market showed a slight bump in summer, the pundits are
> > failing to notice that most of that bump is seasonal (didja know that
> > church attendance was higher last Sunday than the whole week before? It
> > must mean more people are going to church!)
>
> The real estate bump may be tied to a bump in consumer confidence---
> which may also be related to a seasonal drop in unemployment. The
> real test will come in the next 6 months.
And a massive shopping binge in December may be tied to the Christian
holiday of Christmas. Stay tuned!
Seriously, of COURSE it is! No need to make a real test to see if
prices, and sales, go down in the fall. It's only been doing that for
the past couple of decades or so.
> > Rights, especially the right to vote, are still protected almost
> > entirely by men. Plenty of soldiers fight to protect rights, for
> > example, without necessarily EXERCISING them.
>
> Plenty of US soldiers seem to be fighting to allow other nations' people
> the right to vote. Not too many are fighting for our right to vote.
> In recent history, absent a few National Guard actions, that's been
> the job of the courts. Granted, the courts are mostly men.
My point is that rights aren't "natural" or at least in the context that
Heidi and many others seem to think they are. The founding fathers used
the term for a specific reason in that the _moral_ support for rights
were based upon God rather than arbitrarily dictated by a King or
government. If they were natural in the sense that once squeezed out
like toothpaste, then we wouldn't have a military to begin with or even
police for that matter.
It's funny that Heidi seems to think that women won't give up their
rights for a Prada bag or Versaci shoes yet that's primarily what the
women's vote has been all along: Voting for political bad-boys who
promise them what they want to hear and then getting let down, blaming
their opponents, and then coming back for more. "Yeah baby. It will be
better next time. Promise. It's that other guy whose the jerk." "Oh...
Rex!"
I think that it would be better if we just had a faux Monarchy, like
England, so they could watch Princess Di's go to lavish parties while
"caring" about smooshy feel good causes and leave the real issues to the
adults.
> > Funny story: A mistress of a German investor I used to work for gained
> > 50 lbs eating at expensive French restaurants. So she went to the store
> > and bought exercise equipment and set up a gym and she didn't lose
> > weight. Apparently, buying the products and leaving them, unopened in
> > the boxes, was uneffective. I guess she was waiting for the waiters and
> > clerks to do it for her.
>
> Wow---that must have cost a fortune. Expensive French restaurants are
> not known for large portion sizes. She could have done the same thing
> with much less expense at Denny's.
Expensive French restaurants are known for being expensive so they will
cost a fortune irregardless, of course.
But one doesn't need large portions of something to get fat. Having
eaten at these places, the sauces are almost like a fine poison. And
you don't need creme broulet served in a big gulp to get fat from it.
*sigh* Are you serious? Like a factor of 2 really matters that much in
deciding the feasibility of these ideas?
Ok then, 25 years. Fine. Do you think the same guys that build our
roads are capable of making something that will last that long to begin
with? :-)
Indeed. In many ways, that is the success of the Clinton
administration: Bill's health care agenda flopped (You know, health
care? Suggested by Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign,
grabbed by Obama, and now floundering around?)
I asked Clinton supporters for the SPECIFIC reason they thought
Clinton's economic policies were so great and they usually fluster out:
"He did what Greenspan told him to do". Yeah, great. A presidential
waterboy. And also, he pushed along with Congress to make lots of loans
to lesser qualified minorities for political reasons such as racism and
pushing up the real estate market because, you know, real estate never
goes down! :-)
> > Obama's popularity figures are now lower than GW's figures at this time.
> > I guess that is change we can believe in. With real estate, a 5 percent
> > bump is change we can believe in for another month or two...
> >
>
> That comparison isn't clear. Are you comparing the two right now, or
> at the end of their first six months in office?
Latter.
> If the latter, you should remember that Clinton left GW with a
> much smaller deficit and an economy that was in much better shape than
> was the case this January.
Yes, but Clinton's economy was in some ways worse for GW since it was
pitched as being better than it really was. The dot.com crash happened
just before he left (I know, I was personally impacted by it) and the
press only started to ramp up complaints about it as GW was swearing in.
Additionally, Clinton entered office just as Bush I's recession was
turning around.
Despite those advantages, he still wound up being a patsy for Greenspan
and the Republicans. What an irony, eh?
Just as Obama's best accomplishments so far is sending more money to
rich white male bankers and investors and blowing all the money before
trying to pass his extreme leftist agenda. I couldn't have planned it
any better myself.
> I think a better comparison will be the Presidential job approval
> rating at the end of the administration. GW ended up at about 30%.
> Only Nixon and Truman have ended up lower in the last 50 years.
> Of all the Presidents in the last 50 years, only Clinton has
> ended with higher ratings than he started with.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-
> 31.html
Imagine if you had wanted to win an award for a great business idea or
something else you're proud of but, instead, you got on the news because
of a hilarious gaff you had with your fly being open during a press
conference.
If all Clinton cared about was popularity polls, then good for him. But
in terms of a leftist legacy and what he claimed to want to do when he
got into office, he's a spectacular failure. Send in... the clowns!
> There's a good argument that Clinton's record was due as much to
> pointless Republican attacks as the good economic record.
Yeah, look at how much those pointless Republican attacks helped Al Gore
become president... Oh, wait... :-)
It's liberal PR spin that the Republican attacks had a reverse effect.
It reminds me of what a narrator said on the History channel: "WWII USA
propogandists said that the Kamikazi's had little effect on naval
effectiveness. The Japanese... knew better."
Clinton is popular, but as a dishonest, slimy, but likeable clown.
Ironically, it helped to destroy the cherished myth/image that the left
had built up over the years: The professor scholar, whose so smart (and
you can be too if you agree with him) with his facts and figures and,
therefore, right.
The public is still confused. Consider that McCain (I call him
McTraitor) didn't lose by THAT big of a margin and he did nutty things
such as voting for the bailout bill, suspending his campaign, and
basically trying to out liberal Obama and attend LaRaza functions.
> If
> that's true, pointless attacks on Obama may be helping him!
Yeah, the numbers don't lie. His popularity is up. Oh, wait... Don't
people like blowing trillions on boondoggle pork (literally) purchases
for 6 bucks a pound when Harris Teeters sells it for 79 cents? :-)
> (pointless attacks are the expenditure of political capital
> with no measurable result)
>
> Mark Borgerson
By the same token, Mark, blowing a wad on one stimulus after another,
without anything to show for it, and then trying to pass everything at
once doesn't help either.
Maybe Obama will get lucky and be a lame duck for a year or so until
Republicans take over the house and senate and give him bills to sign.
I'm sure he'll just love that when he's popular. All hail the King!
regards,
PolishKnight
>
Andrew Usher
> >> Heidi wrote:
> >> 4. You would like to see more leniency extended in cases of
> >> sexual relations with minors. I'm assuming you're talking
> >> about an adult/minor relationships. How should such
> >> a relationship be handled? Should we have a minimum
> >> age of consent? Are present ones too high, too low?
> >> What do you suggest?
>
> >Andrew wrote:
> >Maximum 15, minimum 12, consent of the minor's parents should not be
> >deciding.
>
> Does that mean you consider the age of majority (18 or 19, even 21 in
> some areas) to be set too high?
I think for the age of majority, 15 would be acceptable (
http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:age-of-majority ), while 12 would
not.
> Would you like to see a 12-year old boy cast his vote at the polls?
Not particularly, but it wouldn't be any worse than allowing women to
vote.
> If you don't want to see parents having to make decisions over their
> children's lives, these children will then have to be treated like
> independed adults.
This is a tautology. So? By the way, the age of consent most places is
lower than the age of majority, and that doesn't seem to be a
particular problem.
> What is it about a 12-year old girl that you find so sexually
> attractive?
I don't personally, but I know that some men do, and anyway I set 12
as a _minimum_ so employing it as an average is silly.
By the way, when I said 'maximum 15, minimum 12', I did not mean that
any age between 12 and 15 would be OK. I meant that 15 and up should
always be legal, under 12 always illegal, 12-14 determined by the
facts of the individual case (and as stated consent of the parents
should never be the only factor in this).
> Is it because you find emotional and mental
> immaturity sexually attractive? Or that, as an adult man,
> you feel that 12-year old girls can be molded and shaped
> into your version of what sort of woman you believe she
> should turn out to be? That the whole idea of having
> power over a powerless and naive girl is a sexy turn
> on for you?
I will not reply to such insinuations.
> If you had a 12-year old daughter, would you make her
> available for an adult man to use according to his will?
Fallacy of a complex question !
Indeed, probably the worst case of that fallacy I've yet seen.
> The obstacle for you, Andrew, is that by far, most
> fathers in the Western world prefer not to see their young
> girls engage in sex with adult men, even teenage boys.
There's a lot of other things their kid do that they'd prefer they
didn't, as well. Why should sex be singled out?
> I'm thinking of a few fathers who I know who have
> daughters. When these girls were 12 to 18 years
> old, and if you were sniffing around to get at them,
> these men would think nothing of stringing up
> by the balls.
This sort of violence is not acceptable in a civilised society, no
matter what.
> From discussions I had with these
> fathers, you'd be in serious trouble. They came
> up with all sorts of inventive tortures to inflict
> on you.
Both you and they are sick people, then.
> I think you're going to have a tough
> time trying to convince these fathers to give
> up their daughters at such a young age.
'Give up'? That's the fundamental problem here, you think fathers
ought to have control over their daughters' sexuality and that them
sleeping with anyone is the father 'giving up' something.
Well that's not how it works. I would guess almost all people nowadays
have their first sexual experience with someone their parents did not
approve of, and that that's not really a bad thing. Besides, fathers
that feel this way are likely to still do so once their daughters turn
18, should they still have the right to torture any man sleeping with
her then, Heidi? Really?
Andrew Usher
Mark Borgerson
mare...@comcast.net says...
What does this mean? Which region enjoyed price increases? My region
certainly didn't have price increases like those around many major
metro areas.
Which city slicker can afford properties closer to home? Where is
their home? Do you mean that people in the far-out suburbs can
now afford homes closer to work?
>
> > > Now that the market showed a slight bump in summer, the pundits are
> > > failing to notice that most of that bump is seasonal (didja know that
> > > church attendance was higher last Sunday than the whole week before? It
> > > must mean more people are going to church!)
> >
> > The real estate bump may be tied to a bump in consumer confidence---
> > which may also be related to a seasonal drop in unemployment. The
> > real test will come in the next 6 months.
>
> And a massive shopping binge in December may be tied to the Christian
> holiday of Christmas. Stay tuned!
Or there may be a less massive shopping season that will leave retailers
disappointed. ;-)
>
> Seriously, of COURSE it is! No need to make a real test to see if
> prices, and sales, go down in the fall. It's only been doing that for
> the past couple of decades or so.
Good. So we have data against which to measure the magnitude of
the change so we can see if this year is significantly different.
>
> > > Rights, especially the right to vote, are still protected almost
> > > entirely by men. Plenty of soldiers fight to protect rights, for
> > > example, without necessarily EXERCISING them.
> >
> > Plenty of US soldiers seem to be fighting to allow other nations' people
> > the right to vote. Not too many are fighting for our right to vote.
> > In recent history, absent a few National Guard actions, that's been
> > the job of the courts. Granted, the courts are mostly men.
>
> My point is that rights aren't "natural" or at least in the context that
> Heidi and many others seem to think they are. The founding fathers used
> the term for a specific reason in that the _moral_ support for rights
> were based upon God rather than arbitrarily dictated by a King or
> government. If they were natural in the sense that once squeezed out
> like toothpaste, then we wouldn't have a military to begin with or even
> police for that matter.
>
> It's funny that Heidi seems to think that women won't give up their
> rights for a Prada bag or Versaci shoes yet that's primarily what the
> women's vote has been all along: Voting for political bad-boys who
> promise them what they want to hear and then getting let down, blaming
> their opponents, and then coming back for more. "Yeah baby. It will be
> better next time. Promise. It's that other guy whose the jerk." "Oh...
> Rex!"
Of course men have been voting for those same people all along. What is
their reason for doing so?
>
> I think that it would be better if we just had a faux Monarchy, like
> England, so they could watch Princess Di's go to lavish parties while
> "caring" about smooshy feel good causes and leave the real issues to the
> adults.
>
> > > Funny story: A mistress of a German investor I used to work for gained
> > > 50 lbs eating at expensive French restaurants. So she went to the store
> > > and bought exercise equipment and set up a gym and she didn't lose
> > > weight. Apparently, buying the products and leaving them, unopened in
> > > the boxes, was uneffective. I guess she was waiting for the waiters and
> > > clerks to do it for her.
> >
> > Wow---that must have cost a fortune. Expensive French restaurants are
> > not known for large portion sizes. She could have done the same thing
> > with much less expense at Denny's.
>
> Expensive French restaurants are known for being expensive so they will
> cost a fortune irregardless, of course.
>
> But one doesn't need large portions of something to get fat. Having
> eaten at these places, the sauces are almost like a fine poison. And
> you don't need creme broulet served in a big gulp to get fat from it.
The last fancy French place where I had a meal, the Fleur de Lys in
Vegas, had pretty small portions. I doubt whether the whole meal was
more than 800 calories. Of course, the bottle of wine added another
700 calories or so. The alcoholic beverages, and the longer meal
times that give you more time to drink, may bring you closer to
the Denny's calorie total. I've never lingered over a meal with
a snifter of brandy at Denny's ;-)
Are YOU serious?? A factor of two in the time for return on investment
is a major factor in deciding whether an investment is worthwhile.
>
> Ok then, 25 years. Fine. Do you think the same guys that build our
> roads are capable of making something that will last that long to begin
> with? :-)
Absolutely---but then I spent my summers working on freeways for the
California Department of Transportation in the 70's. The roads I
worked on are still there. Sure, they require maintenance---but
what heavily used article does not.
The Projected lifetimes of many of the new wind turbines
are about 20 years. I suspect that they will pay off the capital
investment in about 5-10 years if power rates don't.
I tried googling for some data on the ROI for large wind farms, but
got buried in a mass of links about ROI on small home wind turbines.
So who gets the credit or blame for the economic problems in the Bush
administration? Unlike Clinton, Bush even had a friendly Congress for
much of the time.
>
> > > Obama's popularity figures are now lower than GW's figures at this time.
> > > I guess that is change we can believe in. With real estate, a 5 percent
> > > bump is change we can believe in for another month or two...
> > >
> >
> > That comparison isn't clear. Are you comparing the two right now, or
> > at the end of their first six months in office?
>
> Latter.
>
> > If the latter, you should remember that Clinton left GW with a
> > much smaller deficit and an economy that was in much better shape than
> > was the case this January.
>
> Yes, but Clinton's economy was in some ways worse for GW since it was
> pitched as being better than it really was. The dot.com crash happened
> just before he left (I know, I was personally impacted by it) and the
> press only started to ramp up complaints about it as GW was swearing in.
> Additionally, Clinton entered office just as Bush I's recession was
> turning around.
Hmmm---two Bush administrations and two recessions. Nice to see they're
batting 1000! ;-)
>
> Despite those advantages, he still wound up being a patsy for Greenspan
> and the Republicans. What an irony, eh?
In what way was he a patsy?
>
> Just as Obama's best accomplishments so far is sending more money to
> rich white male bankers and investors and blowing all the money before
> trying to pass his extreme leftist agenda. I couldn't have planned it
> any better myself.
I agree. You've shown no evidence of any economic planning skills.
The country as a whole has done better than you in that it hasn't
had to declare bankruptcy--yet ;-)
>
> > I think a better comparison will be the Presidential job approval
> > rating at the end of the administration. GW ended up at about 30%.
> > Only Nixon and Truman have ended up lower in the last 50 years.
> > Of all the Presidents in the last 50 years, only Clinton has
> > ended with higher ratings than he started with.
> >
> > http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-
> > 31.html
>
> Imagine if you had wanted to win an award for a great business idea or
> something else you're proud of but, instead, you got on the news because
> of a hilarious gaff you had with your fly being open during a press
> conference.
>
> If all Clinton cared about was popularity polls, then good for him. But
> in terms of a leftist legacy and what he claimed to want to do when he
> got into office, he's a spectacular failure. Send in... the clowns!
>
It's not about any Clinton agenda. It's about how the people feel
about the President. Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea bring
Presidential job approval into this discussion.
> > There's a good argument that Clinton's record was due as much to
> > pointless Republican attacks as the good economic record.
>
> Yeah, look at how much those pointless Republican attacks helped Al Gore
> become president... Oh, wait... :-)
DOH! If they were effective, then, by definition, they weren't
pointless! The republicans used their political capital to
good effect. Too bad Bush couldn't follow through. That investment
of political capital was a short-term success and a long-term
failure.
>
> It's liberal PR spin that the Republican attacks had a reverse effect.
> It reminds me of what a narrator said on the History channel: "WWII USA
> propogandists said that the Kamikazi's had little effect on naval
> effectiveness. The Japanese... knew better."
AAARGH! You're depending on the history channel for historical
perspective....
>
> Clinton is popular, but as a dishonest, slimy, but likeable clown.
That may be your opinion. I'm sure that there are a couple of
families that feel differently this week.
> Ironically, it helped to destroy the cherished myth/image that the left
> had built up over the years: The professor scholar, whose so smart (and
> you can be too if you agree with him) with his facts and figures and,
> therefore, right.
Was Clinton ever a professor? I know he was a Rhodes Scholar. That
alone, is enough to separate him from GWB.
>
> The public is still confused. Consider that McCain (I call him
> McTraitor) didn't lose by THAT big of a margin and he did nutty things
> such as voting for the bailout bill, suspending his campaign, and
> basically trying to out liberal Obama and attend LaRaza functions.
When your home state is Arizona, it is foolish to offend the
hispanic population.
>
> > If
> > that's true, pointless attacks on Obama may be helping him!
>
> Yeah, the numbers don't lie. His popularity is up. Oh, wait... Don't
> people like blowing trillions on boondoggle pork (literally) purchases
> for 6 bucks a pound when Harris Teeters sells it for 79 cents? :-)
What kind of pork do you get for 79 cents?
>
> > (pointless attacks are the expenditure of political capital
> > with no measurable result)
> >
> > Mark Borgerson
>
> By the same token, Mark, blowing a wad on one stimulus after another,
> without anything to show for it, and then trying to pass everything at
> once doesn't help either.
What do you mean 'nothing to show for it'? My retirement account,
based on the S&P 500, is up 20% since Obama was innaugurated!
>
> Maybe Obama will get lucky and be a lame duck for a year or so until
> Republicans take over the house and senate and give him bills to sign.
> I'm sure he'll just love that when he's popular. All hail the King!
Better take your meds---you seem to be getting delusional. I don't
think there is any way that the Republicans are going to take over the
house and senate in a year or so. It's the Republicans who are
resigning in droves. Even when a governor appoints another republican,
I think the newbie loses all seniority. In addition, there just aren't
enough seats up for election in that time frame. Whatever the problems
Obama and the Democrats have, the Republicans have shown no hint of a
positive plan for the economy or anything else.
Mark Borgerson
Heidi Graw
Terrorist tactics? LOL...
Well, certainly a pedophile has much to fear in my
area. A common adage among the male population
where I live: "The cops better find the perp before
I do."
(snip)
>> Heidi wrote:
>> If you had a 12-year old daughter, would you make her
>> available for an adult man to use according to his will?
>Andrew wrote:
> Fallacy of a complex question !
There's nothing complex about my question.
It's very straight forward and direct.
(snip)
>> Heidi wrote:
>> I'm thinking of a few fathers who I know who have
>> daughters. When these girls were 12 to 18 years
>> old, and if you were sniffing around to get at them,
>> these men would think nothing of stringing up
>> by the balls.
> Andrew wrote:
> This sort of violence is not acceptable in a civilised society, no
> matter what.
There's nothing civilized about taking advantage
of 12-15 year old girls, either. And where the
law fails, vigilante justice prevails.
Certainly, the fathers within my social circle
don't take too kindly to adult men hanging
around their young pre-teen and teenage
daughters.
If they got ahold of the perp before the cops
do, the perp has definitely much to fear.
>> Heidi wrote:
>> From discussions I had with these
>> fathers, you'd be in serious trouble. They came
>> up with all sorts of inventive tortures to inflict
>> on you.
> Andrew wrote:
> Both you and they are sick people, then.
No, Andrew, it's not us who are sick. Adult
men hankering for sex with children are the
sick ones. The perp would do well to hope
the cops catch him first.
A friend of ours was in Guatamala not that
long ago. He cut his trip short because he
could not stand to see all these men of
the Catholic faith pawning off their 12-year
old girls to the tourists. His anger rose
such hights he was darn near close to
committing murder. However, he didn't particularly
relish the thought of languishing away in a Guatamalan
prison. So, he came home thoroughly disgusted
at what he saw fathers do to their children!
It sickened him to see this kind of child abuse.
Heidi
Andrew Usher
> Terrorist tactics? LOL...
>
> Well, certainly a pedophile has much to fear in my
> area. A common adage among the male population
> where I live: "The cops better find the perp before
> I do."
Well I guess that could be called 'terrorist tactics'!
> (snip)
Once again, you snip all the important stuff.
> >> Heidi wrote:
> >> If you had a 12-year old daughter, would you make her
> >> available for an adult man to use according to his will?
>
> >Andrew wrote:
> > Fallacy of a complex question !
>
> There's nothing complex about my question.
> It's very straight forward and direct.
Like hell it is. Just like the classic 'Have you stopped beating your
wife?', it contains prejudicial hidden premisses.
> > This sort of violence is not acceptable in a civilised society, no
> > matter what.
>
> There's nothing civilized about taking advantage
> of 12-15 year old girls, either. And where the
> law fails, vigilante justice prevails.
Fortunately, few people actually commit this sort of vigilante
justice.
There have to be some priorities in decent society, and avoiding
violence as the solution to personal problems - no matter how much we
feel like it - is one of them.
Look, if you justify violence in response to this, the same argument
could be held to justify violence in a lot of other situations. Just a
few years ago, I had a situation where a woman called the police on
me, and when they arrived, they treated me in what I consider an
unjust manner. I have repeatedly fantasised in detail what I would
like to do to that woman. Do you think I'd be justified in seizing and
torturing* her because she wronged me?
> Certainly, the fathers within my social circle
> don't take too kindly to adult men hanging
> around their young pre-teen and teenage
> daughters.
Which is OK (and reasonable), so long as they do not resort to
violence to accomplish it.
> >> From discussions I had with these
> >> fathers, you'd be in serious trouble. They came
> >> up with all sorts of inventive tortures to inflict
> >> on you.
>
> > Andrew wrote:
> > Both you and they are sick people, then.
>
> No, Andrew, it's not us who are sick.
I would say someone that thinks of actually carrying out such
unnecessary violence is sick. You can't deflect attention this way.
> Adult men hankering for sex with children are the sick ones.
It is a completely ludicrous premiss that any adult that finds himself
or herself in a sexual relationship with an adolescent is or was
'hankering for sex with children'. That would be paedophilia, and it's
not for nothing that the standard definition of that disorder is
restricted to prepubescent children.
I notice you specifically said 'adult men'. Do you ignore that adult
women have sex with teenage boys? Or do you think that they are
excusable because they're women?
> A friend of ours was in Guatamala not that
> long ago. He cut his trip short because he
> could not stand to see all these men of
> the Catholic faith pawning off their 12-year
> old girls to the tourists.
This is prostitution, an entirely different thing. And as you ought to
know, it's usually the mother that is responsible for this, not the
father.
> His anger rose
> such hights he was darn near close to
> committing murder. However, he didn't particularly
> relish the thought of languishing away in a Guatamalan
> prison.
Well, that's what prison is for - deterrence. It seems that it worked
here to prevent unacceptable violence.
> So, he came home thoroughly disgusted
> at what he saw fathers do to their children!
> It sickened him to see this kind of child abuse.
I would also be disgusted, though not to that degree.
Why did you snip the end of my message, which expresses my point in
the most salient form? Could it be that you don't have a good counter
to that argument?
Here it is again -
--------
> I think you're going to have a tough
> time trying to convince these fathers to give
> up their daughters at such a young age.
'Give up'? That's the fundamental problem here, you think fathers
ought to have control over their daughters' sexuality and that them
sleeping with anyone is the father 'giving up' something.
Well that's not how it works. I would guess almost all people nowadays
have their first sexual experience with someone their parents did not
approve of, and that that's not really a bad thing. Besides, fathers
that feel this way are likely to still do so once their daughters turn
18, should they still have the right to torture any man sleeping with
her then, Heidi? Really?
--------
Andrew Usher
* But not raping. As I've said before, I would refrain from rape, not
because I believe that it's very wrong, but because it would show my
lack of self-control.
PolishKnight
Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <marek1965-8EB2A...@news.giganews.com>,
> mare...@comcast.net says...
[edit]
> > > > It's funny that when the market STARTED to slide in winter of 2006 or
> > > > so, real estate bulls claimed: "That's just SEASONAL losses! The
> > > > market
> > > > will come back in the spring!"
> > >
> > > A lot of the big losses have been confined to major metro
> > > areas and their exurbs. People who decided that living outside
> > > those areas are now looking smart for a whole new reason.
> >
> > Oh for Pete's sake. Listen: How can the logic work that a region
> > enjoyed price increases because it was financially competitive compared
> > to a big city with higher prices NOT be inpacted if suddently those same
> > city slickers can now afford properties closer to home?
>
> What does this mean? Which region enjoyed price increases? My region
> certainly didn't have price increases like those around many major
> metro areas.
Did your region enjoy price increases? Put 2 and 2 together.
I never said your region enjoyed price increases like those around many
major metro areas. Non-sequitur.
> Which city slicker can afford properties closer to home? Where is
> their home? Do you mean that people in the far-out suburbs can
> now afford homes closer to work?
I was talking about situations such as California where people cashed
out their real estate to move to lower priced regions and also
businesses that located to rural/mid-west regions to deal with the high
cost of real estate/labor in major metro regions during the boom.
Naturally, when high prices for residential and commercial real estate
in those regions no longer apply, then money that helped push up prices
(and jobs) in the alternative regions also decrease.
This applies to suburbs, exoburbs, rural regions, etc. What pumps up
all balloons also deflates them.
> > > > Now that the market showed a slight bump in summer, the pundits are
> > > > failing to notice that most of that bump is seasonal (didja know that
> > > > church attendance was higher last Sunday than the whole week before?
> > > > It
> > > > must mean more people are going to church!)
> > >
> > > The real estate bump may be tied to a bump in consumer confidence---
> > > which may also be related to a seasonal drop in unemployment. The
> > > real test will come in the next 6 months.
> >
> > And a massive shopping binge in December may be tied to the Christian
> > holiday of Christmas. Stay tuned!
>
> Or there may be a less massive shopping season that will leave retailers
> disappointed. ;-)
My point being that the fundamentals for the December shopping season
are quite clear. It shouldn't surprise pundits when the numbers go up
during that time period.
Yet... the talking heads on CNBC (which I'm forced to endure during my
coffee break, sadly) seem totally clueless about these matters and seem
to think that they're being witty and smart by conjecturing about the
obvious. *sigh*
> > Seriously, of COURSE it is! No need to make a real test to see if
> > prices, and sales, go down in the fall. It's only been doing that for
> > the past couple of decades or so.
>
> Good. So we have data against which to measure the magnitude of
> the change so we can see if this year is significantly different.
Absolutely. And when that's done, prices are STILL _down_ Year to Year.
You read it here first.
> > > > Rights, especially the right to vote, are still protected almost
> > > > entirely by men. Plenty of soldiers fight to protect rights, for
> > > > example, without necessarily EXERCISING them.
> > >
> > > Plenty of US soldiers seem to be fighting to allow other nations' people
> > > the right to vote. Not too many are fighting for our right to vote.
> > > In recent history, absent a few National Guard actions, that's been
> > > the job of the courts. Granted, the courts are mostly men.
> >
> > My point is that rights aren't "natural" or at least in the context that
> > Heidi and many others seem to think they are. The founding fathers used
> > the term for a specific reason in that the _moral_ support for rights
> > were based upon God rather than arbitrarily dictated by a King or
> > government. If they were natural in the sense that once squeezed out
> > like toothpaste, then we wouldn't have a military to begin with or even
> > police for that matter.
> >
> > It's funny that Heidi seems to think that women won't give up their
> > rights for a Prada bag or Versaci shoes yet that's primarily what the
> > women's vote has been all along: Voting for political bad-boys who
> > promise them what they want to hear and then getting let down, blaming
> > their opponents, and then coming back for more. "Yeah baby. It will be
> > better next time. Promise. It's that other guy whose the jerk." "Oh...
> > Rex!"
>
> Of course men have been voting for those same people all along. What is
> their reason for doing so?
Well, some are as short sighted, egotistical and naive as the women, of
course. Also, in modern times many men have become effeminate in their
thinking. Overall, however, men have tended to vote for more
economically responsible candidates (not necessarily perfect, but more
responsible) and less racist and self serving towards special interest
groups.
It's hilarious, for example, that Heidi griped that evil corporations in
Canada were offshoring high paying jobs, etc. Gee, the great guys she
voted into office to rob from Peter to pay Paula backstabbed her. Isn't
that a shocker?
Perhaps, Andre, your experiences at a few French restaurants and opinion
of what "French restaurants are known for" is _not_ a definitive proof
of the portion sizes at such places? Just a thought. This might apply
to other things as well, such as real estate trends. More in a minute.
[...]
> > > > Don't worry Mark! They'll be burning much more electricity to build
> > > > those windmills. They should get the power back to you in 50 years or
> > > > so. :-)
> > >
> > > Got a cite for that? It's moe than twice the time I've seen in some
> > > studies of the payoff time for wind farms.
> > >
> > > http://www.sei.ie/Renewables/Wind_Energy/Wind_Farm_Development/Financing_w
> > > ind_
> > > farms/
> >
> > *sigh* Are you serious? Like a factor of 2 really matters that much in
> > deciding the feasibility of these ideas?
>
> Are YOU serious?? A factor of two in the time for return on investment
> is a major factor in deciding whether an investment is worthwhile.
Not really. The ecokooks don't care that atomic power is several times
that more efficient than wind power. It's all about feeling good, baby.
Same thing with real estate. Or eating TV dinners and watching
commercials for exercise equipment. :-)
> > Ok then, 25 years. Fine. Do you think the same guys that build our
> > roads are capable of making something that will last that long to begin
> > with? :-)
>
> Absolutely---but then I spent my summers working on freeways for the
> California Department of Transportation in the 70's. The roads I
> worked on are still there. Sure, they require maintenance---but
> what heavily used article does not.
Er, not quite.
The "road" you worked on probably is not still there in it's original
form. It's probably been rebuilt several times. Saying that's just
"maintenance" is like calling a tear down foreclosure a "fixer upper."
> The Projected lifetimes of many of the new wind turbines
> are about 20 years. I suspect that they will pay off the capital
> investment in about 5-10 years if power rates don't.
Er, you missed the point again. Spectacularly, I might add.
If the projected energy return cost is 25 years, and the turbines only
last 20, how are they somehow saving energy and the Earth (much less
producing net energy?)
[...]
> > Indeed. In many ways, that is the success of the Clinton
> > administration: Bill's health care agenda flopped (You know, health
> > care? Suggested by Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign,
> > grabbed by Obama, and now floundering around?)
> >
> > I asked Clinton supporters for the SPECIFIC reason they thought
> > Clinton's economic policies were so great and they usually fluster out:
> > "He did what Greenspan told him to do". Yeah, great. A presidential
> > waterboy. And also, he pushed along with Congress to make lots of loans
> > to lesser qualified minorities for political reasons such as racism and
> > pushing up the real estate market because, you know, real estate never
> > goes down! :-)
>
> So who gets the credit or blame for the economic problems in the Bush
> administration? Unlike Clinton, Bush even had a friendly Congress for
> much of the time.
I'll be the first to say that much of Bush's economic problems are his
own including signing off on RINO Republican bills and "No child left
behind" in addition to the drugs for seniors bill. However, the real
estate market bubble excesses are not one of them:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fanni
e-mae.html
** 2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by
the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required
capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The
Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators
of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their
responsibilities, and therefore�should be replaced with a new
strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
> > > > Obama's popularity figures are now lower than GW's figures at this
> > > > time.
> > > > I guess that is change we can believe in. With real estate, a 5
> > > > percent
> > > > bump is change we can believe in for another month or two...
> > > >
> > >
> > > That comparison isn't clear. Are you comparing the two right now, or
> > > at the end of their first six months in office?
> >
> > Latter.
> >
> > > If the latter, you should remember that Clinton left GW with a
> > > much smaller deficit and an economy that was in much better shape than
> > > was the case this January.
> >
> > Yes, but Clinton's economy was in some ways worse for GW since it was
> > pitched as being better than it really was. The dot.com crash happened
> > just before he left (I know, I was personally impacted by it) and the
> > press only started to ramp up complaints about it as GW was swearing in.
> > Additionally, Clinton entered office just as Bush I's recession was
> > turning around.
>
> Hmmm---two Bush administrations and two recessions. Nice to see they're
> batting 1000! ;-)
I see you ignored my point about Clinton's economy entering a recession
as he left office and just restated your point. That's ok. I take
denial as a sign of a subconscious recognition. In some ways, it sinks
in better.
> > Despite those advantages, he still wound up being a patsy for Greenspan
> > and the Republicans. What an irony, eh?
>
> In what way was he a patsy?
My bad. A patsy is a dupe who witlessly takes someone else's blame.
He's more like a pawn.
"The era of big government is over" -- Bill Clinton
It's amazing that Clinton said something like that, isn't it? That's
the action of someone desperate to survive, politically. There's NO way
he would have said something like that if he hadn't broken the left's
own laws about sexual harassment.
> > Just as Obama's best accomplishments so far is sending more money to
> > rich white male bankers and investors and blowing all the money before
> > trying to pass his extreme leftist agenda. I couldn't have planned it
> > any better myself.
>
> I agree. You've shown no evidence of any economic planning skills.
Amazing. Yeah, other than me calling out the biggest economic bubble in
our lifetime, what have I shown here? And showing the obvious
inpracticality of windmills as an energy source OR national economic
strategy using your figure of 25 years, why that didn't take any
economic planning skills at all...
(that's sarcasm.)
> The country as a whole has done better than you in that it hasn't
> had to declare bankruptcy--yet ;-)
I don't have the option of printing up trillion dollar Obama bills,
either. A person, and nation, can only declare bankruptcy so often or
print up lots of debt. To MY credit, it took me a few years to generate
the debt. Obama's blown his wad in just a few months.
> > > I think a better comparison will be the Presidential job approval
> > > rating at the end of the administration. GW ended up at about 30%.
> > > Only Nixon and Truman have ended up lower in the last 50 years.
> > > Of all the Presidents in the last 50 years, only Clinton has
> > > ended with higher ratings than he started with.
> > >
> > > http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-
> > > 31.html
> >
> > Imagine if you had wanted to win an award for a great business idea or
> > something else you're proud of but, instead, you got on the news because
> > of a hilarious gaff you had with your fly being open during a press
> > conference.
> >
> > If all Clinton cared about was popularity polls, then good for him. But
> > in terms of a leftist legacy and what he claimed to want to do when he
> > got into office, he's a spectacular failure. Send in... the clowns!
> >
>
> It's not about any Clinton agenda. It's about how the people feel
> about the President. Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea bring
> Presidential job approval into this discussion.
If you go back to the ORIGINAL point, it was you declaring that the
Republicans were self destructing. The Republicans got Bill Clinton to
co-own THEIR agenda on welfare reform and limited government spending.
Obama's popularity rating, NOW, is an impediment to his agenda both now
and in the foreseeable future (considering the direction the market is
taking assuming that real estate doesn't always go up.)
> > > There's a good argument that Clinton's record was due as much to
> > > pointless Republican attacks as the good economic record.
> >
> > Yeah, look at how much those pointless Republican attacks helped Al Gore
> > become president... Oh, wait... :-)
> DOH! If they were effective, then, by definition, they weren't
> pointless! The republicans used their political capital to
> good effect. Too bad Bush couldn't follow through. That investment
> of political capital was a short-term success and a long-term
> failure.
I don't think it was a matter of Bush failing to follow through. Bush
is a moderate and in his own way, he _did_ follow through. He got
medicaid drug plans passed by both houses, right? He got Obama and
McCain to sign off on the bailout, yes? And the no child left behind
act.
The problem was a failure in his principles, not his political saavy or
determination.
> > It's liberal PR spin that the Republican attacks had a reverse effect.
> > It reminds me of what a narrator said on the History channel: "WWII USA
> > propogandists said that the Kamikazi's had little effect on naval
> > effectiveness. The Japanese... knew better."
>
> AAARGH! You're depending on the history channel for historical
> perspective....
I don't take it as gospel, no. I hate the way they use the PC "BCE" and
"ACE" terms for dates and their silly global warming religion. Praise
Science!
> > Clinton is popular, but as a dishonest, slimy, but likeable clown.
>
> That may be your opinion. I'm sure that there are a couple of
> families that feel differently this week.
You mean the families of the people rotting in prison that Clinton
_didn't_ get out and their fate (and beliefs) have been undermined by
his visit legitimizing the regime?
It's a fantastic example you've alluded to because it's a perfect
allegory for his administration: He showed up and was used as a
puppethead for someone else's agenda. We could have sent Jesse Jackson
there and Kim Jong would have let them go.
> > Ironically, it helped to destroy the cherished myth/image that the left
> > had built up over the years: The professor scholar, whose so smart (and
> > you can be too if you agree with him) with his facts and figures and,
> > therefore, right.
>
> Was Clinton ever a professor? I know he was a Rhodes Scholar. That
> alone, is enough to separate him from GWB.
Indeed, that kind of remark is a perfect example of leftist need to
associate themselves with smart people and calling their opponents
stupid. Only smart people know how to do that.
> > The public is still confused. Consider that McCain (I call him
> > McTraitor) didn't lose by THAT big of a margin and he did nutty things
> > such as voting for the bailout bill, suspending his campaign, and
> > basically trying to out liberal Obama and attend LaRaza functions.
>
> When your home state is Arizona, it is foolish to offend the
> hispanic population.
So maybe Senator Byrd should rejoin the KKK to avoid offending the white
population...
> > > If
> > > that's true, pointless attacks on Obama may be helping him!
> >
> > Yeah, the numbers don't lie. His popularity is up. Oh, wait... Don't
> > people like blowing trillions on boondoggle pork (literally) purchases
> > for 6 bucks a pound when Harris Teeters sells it for 79 cents? :-)
>
> What kind of pork do you get for 79 cents?
Probably a BETTER QUALITY that the feds are getting for 6 bucks. :-)
> > > (pointless attacks are the expenditure of political capital
> > > with no measurable result)
> > >
> > > Mark Borgerson
> >
> > By the same token, Mark, blowing a wad on one stimulus after another,
> > without anything to show for it, and then trying to pass everything at
> > once doesn't help either.
>
> What do you mean 'nothing to show for it'? My retirement account,
> based on the S&P 500, is up 20% since Obama was innaugurated!
True, if we credit Obama's stimulus for that full growth rather than
just a natural rebound that would have happened anyway.
Remember your snarky remark about the families of the journalists in
North Korea though? For the average American schlub, unemployment rose
beyond what Obama promised if he got the stimulus passed, they got
saddled with $36K per capita debt, gas prices are going up (apparently,
it takes time to burn 25 years of energy to build 20 year term
windmills) and real estate is still going down.
And THAT may explain why Obama's popularity rating is sinking like a
rock.
> > Maybe Obama will get lucky and be a lame duck for a year or so until
> > Republicans take over the house and senate and give him bills to sign.
> > I'm sure he'll just love that when he's popular. All hail the King!
>
> Better take your meds---you seem to be getting delusional.
Wow, a juvenile ad-hom. As I said, I take such remarks as a positive
sign that the subconscious mind is grasping hold. (That's the maturity
level that most people develop it.)
> I don't
> think there is any way that the Republicans are going to take over the
> house and senate in a year or so.
I was referring to the 2010 elections. I guess it's something like a
little more than a year? Time flies when someone is blowing political
and economic capital...
> It's the Republicans who are
> resigning in droves.
You got a point there. It takes a federal indictment and conviction to
get a Democrat to resign like Dem Congressman William Jefferson.
Obama, on the other hand, has really showed a lot of principles in
office. hahahahaha! yeah, only kidding. Transparency by not releasing
secret bills, not reading them, and then getting upset when executives
get bonuses. It's the "stupid" Republicans fault! :-)
> Even when a governor appoints another republican,
> I think the newbie loses all seniority.
Like turncoat Arlen Specter. I think they have him on the Siberian
waste management committee. :-) Good going "one bullet" Arlen!
> In addition, there just aren't
> enough seats up for election in that time frame.
Now THAT'S a valid point. I don't think it takes many to swing the
Senate in 2010. But Congress would be another matter. But if enough
people lost their homes...
Did you know Deutschebank estimates that 48% of people will be upside
down in their mortgage? But don't worry, the S&P is up 20%! Oh, and
more homes sold this summer than in the winter! It's all easy train
from here for Obama! :-)
> Whatever the problems
> Obama and the Democrats have, the Republicans have shown no hint of a
> positive plan for the economy or anything else.
Nonsense. They got Bill Clinton to sign off on their legislation. It
worked great for the economy back then, didn't it? :-)
> Mark Borgerson
>
regards,
PolishKnight
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>> >> Heidi wrote:
>> >> If you had a 12-year old daughter, would you make her
>> >> available for an adult man to use according to his will?
>>
>> >Andrew wrote:
>> > Fallacy of a complex question !
>> Heidi wrote:
>> There's nothing complex about my question.
>> It's very straight forward and direct.
> Andrew wrote:
> Like hell it is. Just like the classic 'Have you stopped beating your
> wife?', it contains prejudicial hidden premisses.
Alright. Let me rephrase that:
If you had a 12-year old daughter and she came home one
day all excited and she proudly pronounced, "Hey, Daddy.
I want you to meet my new boyfriend," and you see
a 35-year old man standing next to her holding her
hand, what would be your reaction?
Heidi
.
PolishKnight
"Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote:
> >"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> No, Andrew, it's not us who are sick. Adult
> men hankering for sex with children are the
> sick ones. The perp would do well to hope
> the cops catch him first.
>
> A friend of ours was in Guatamala not that
> long ago. He cut his trip short because he
> could not stand to see all these men of
> the Catholic faith pawning off their 12-year
> old girls to the tourists. His anger rose
> such hights he was darn near close to
> committing murder. However, he didn't particularly
> relish the thought of languishing away in a Guatamalan
> prison. So, he came home thoroughly disgusted
> at what he saw fathers do to their children!
> It sickened him to see this kind of child abuse.
>
> Heidi
Heidi, I agree with you on the issue in that Andrew's age of consent is
too low. But your way of trying to make the point in many ways only
undermines your own moral case and raises interesting questions.
You've been appealing to patriarchal chivalrous brutality for some time
now. I've always said that feminist equality is just a function of
patriarchal chivalous patronage: The men protect the women so they can
pretend to be equal. It's all about as real as a child's "lemonaid
stand" business.
Men beating up other men for conduct that society finds loathsome is
nothing new. Beating up gays was the norm just a short time ago. And a
young black boy was lynched for whistling at a white woman. You can
say: "Well, that's different! I don't think there's anything wrong with
that!" Yeah, try telling Iranians or even many cultures around the
world. Oh, wait, they're also emigrating to the West...
I was going to say something about referring to patri-poppas beating up
Andrew if he looked at their daughters as a sign that these men are just
insecure about their own masculinity and find pleasure in beating up
other men to try to puff themselves up. Typical mauchismo behavior.
But... you did my work for me with this story. Thanks bunches!
So Mr. Tough Guy just sucked it up and walked on because he didn't want
to risk going to jail. Yeah, he's a real HERO. When he thinks he's
impressing women and society will give me carde blache to feel good
about brutalizing someone, then he's a tough guy. But take a real risk?
Yeah, I thought so.
Fact of the matter is, Heidi, if your friend had grown up in that
culture then his herd mentality switch would have HIM selling the
children and having his buddies beat up men who dared to challenge the
status quo. Because it's how people react most of the time without
thinking. Going along.
You may now return to your tough grrl moral posturing. Don't forget to
bring Daddy.
regards,
PolishKnight
(Sheesh! My 17 year old cat has more balls (figuratively speaking, of
course.)
PolishKnight
"Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote:
I'm cool with it Heidi. On the contrary, I love how you phrased the
question!
Provided there was no fraud/force/etc on the part of the man to get my
daughter into bed and he wasn't a biker gang type, I would respect the
fact that the guy had the guts to at least show up at the door. (In
many ways, such guts puts him ahead of the pack of so many wussified
pseudo-hero western men...)
Irregardless of what the daughter is 12 or even 18, I would hold it
against the man if he had already slept with her without first having
met the family. Sleeping with a girl, even of the age of consent, so
quickly is a sign of a sleazoid. I wouldn't go crazy. If the daughter
wanted sex and had it, I wouldn't freak out. In many ways, that makes
the situation worse (she would feel like a victim/despoiled) Hell, even
NORMAL (if we can use the term) women in our society, even when they
have sex at the age of consent, seem to have this messed up mentality
that men "get" sex from them and that they've been "used."
Similar to other situations where a child may be in way over their head
(trying to drink, drugs, etc.) I would take her aside and discuss the
importance of being ready for things, even as an adult, and emotionally
prepared. That the man is probably too old for her, the problems with
wide age gaps, etc. and to just take it slow. Having established a
position of trust with being level headed previously, I wouldn't overly
worry.
I knew a lot of girls from ultra-protective fathers and they usually
were the wildest of the bunch. They slept with older guys but the key
here, Heidi, is they didn't bring them home. They snuck out at night
and if daddy caught them, they'd pout and blink their eyes and say:
"Daddy! I'm sorry! You're my protector! I love you!" and he'd let
them get away with it.
I wouldn't. And that's the key difference between a reasoned, thinking
response and a sentimentalistic, emotional one.
Ok, all that said, from what I read on the forum, Heidi, it appears that
you've thrown your boys to the wolvettes, in a manner of speaking
putting your gender concerns ahead of your maternal instincts. I'd be
horrified if a young man went to "ladies" night and threw money around
just for the sake of begging for feminine attention. I'd tell him I
could give him the same experience at home and just starve him for a day
and tell him that if he begged, I could throw meat on the floor. You
didn't care that your sons were treated as second class citizens in many
cases. Fine. As a parent you're entitled to your opinion and I'm
entitled to mine.
It doesn't matter much in the long run, anyway, since "tolerance" in the
modern era is the way to go. Same sex marriage and maybe ultimately
beastiality, necrophilia, incest. Whose to judge? Oh, wait, YOUR
cultural standards as YOU define them are perfect. Just like Iran.
regards,
PolishKnight
Andrew Usher
> If you had a 12-year old daughter and she came home one
> day all excited and she proudly pronounced, "Hey, Daddy.
> I want you to meet my new boyfriend," and you see
> a 35-year old man standing next to her holding her
> hand, what would be your reaction?
That's better. But why don't you answer my own tough question, that I
asked first, before demanding one of me? Here it is again:
Andrew Usher
> Heidi, I agree with you on the issue in that Andrew's age of consent is
> too low.
Why? And perhaps you're asking the wrong question. The question is not
whether adults _should_ be having sex with teenagers. The question is
whether they should be sent to jail and have their lives ruined
because of it.
> Men beating up other men for conduct that society finds loathsome is
> nothing new. Beating up gays was the norm just a short time ago. And a
> young black boy was lynched for whistling at a white woman. You can
> say: "Well, that's different! I don't think there's anything wrong with
> that!" Yeah, try telling Iranians or even many cultures around the
> world. Oh, wait, they're also emigrating to the West...
Yes, and that's the problem I identified. This violence can't be
limited to only cases where you think it appropriate. It gets
inflicted wherever society justifies it, and on what basis do you
think that our society's judgement is perfect ever when all others
aren't? The only reasonable conclusion is to completely reject it in
any case. I allow only one situation where first use of violence is
justified: betrayal.
> I was going to say something about referring to patri-poppas beating up
> Andrew if he looked at their daughters as a sign that these men are just
> insecure about their own masculinity and find pleasure in beating up
> other men to try to puff themselves up. Typical mauchismo behavior.
They have nothing to fear from me. The only way I could ever have sex
with an underage girl is if she basically fell into my lap.
> So Mr. Tough Guy just sucked it up and walked on because he didn't want
> to risk going to jail. Yeah, he's a real HERO. When he thinks he's
> impressing women and society will give me carde blache to feel good
> about brutalizing someone, then he's a tough guy. But take a real risk?
> Yeah, I thought so.
It's interesting that I just mentioned (in another thread) Robert
Altemeyer's 'The Authoritarians' (http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/
~altemey/) - which everyone should read. The men you're talking about
are exactly the 'high RWAs' he discusses.
> Fact of the matter is, Heidi, if your friend had grown up in that
> culture then his herd mentality switch would have HIM selling the
> children and having his buddies beat up men who dared to challenge the
> status quo. Because it's how people react most of the time without
> thinking. Going along.
Indeed; that's the 'high RWA' behavior - they just want to submit to
social authority, it doesn't really matter _what_ that authority is
telling them.
You certainly did an excellent job of destroying her claims.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> In article <4jafm.38162$Db2.26886@edtnps83>,
> "Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > If you had a 12-year old daughter and she came home one
> > day all excited and she proudly pronounced, "Hey, Daddy.
> > I want you to meet my new boyfriend," and you see
> > a 35-year old man standing next to her holding her
> > hand, what would be your reaction?
>
> question!
I hope you mean her revised question, not the original one.
> Provided there was no fraud/force/etc on the part of the man to get my
> daughter into bed and he wasn't a biker gang type, I would respect the
> fact that the guy had the guts to at least show up at the door. (In
> many ways, such guts puts him ahead of the pack of so many wussified
> pseudo-hero western men...)
OK, this is what I wanted to hear. And let me say that anyone's
teenage daughter would certainly be better off with a guy like me or
you than with one of the macho types Heidi is admiring.
> Irregardless of what the daughter is 12 or even 18, I would hold it
> against the man if he had already slept with her without first having
> met the family. Sleeping with a girl, even of the age of consent, so
> quickly is a sign of a sleazoid.
Isn't she just as much to blame?
> I wouldn't go crazy. If the daughter
> wanted sex and had it, I wouldn't freak out. In many ways, that makes
> the situation worse (she would feel like a victim/despoiled).
Right.
> Hell, even
> NORMAL (if we can use the term) women in our society, even when they
> have sex at the age of consent, seem to have this messed up mentality
> that men "get" sex from them and that they've been "used."
Yes, it has nothing to do with age, really. People that pretend it
does just want to believe in the 'innocence' of their daughters and
other girls of that age.
> I knew a lot of girls from ultra-protective fathers and they usually
> were the wildest of the bunch. They slept with older guys but the key
> here, Heidi, is they didn't bring them home. They snuck out at night
> and if daddy caught them, they'd pout and blink their eyes and say:
> "Daddy! I'm sorry! You're my protector! I love you!" and he'd let
> them get away with it.
>
> I wouldn't. And that's the key difference between a reasoned, thinking
> response and a sentimentalistic, emotional one.
That's one difference between (real) MRAs/masculists and most men. We
not only are more rational than other men but want to impose rational
standards on women also.
> Ok, all that said, from what I read on the forum, Heidi,
What forum?
> it appears that
> you've thrown your boys to the wolvettes, in a manner of speaking
> putting your gender concerns ahead of your maternal instincts. I'd be
> horrified if a young man went to "ladies" night and threw money around
> just for the sake of begging for feminine attention.
Yes, that's a fucking waste of money!
Andrew Usher
Mark Borgerson
mare...@comcast.net says...
> In article <MPG.24e66168a...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <marek1965-8EB2A...@news.giganews.com>,
> > mare...@comcast.net says...
> [edit]
> > > > > It's funny that when the market STARTED to slide in winter of 2006 or
> > > > > so, real estate bulls claimed: "That's just SEASONAL losses! The
> > > > > market
> > > > > will come back in the spring!"
> > > >
> > > > A lot of the big losses have been confined to major metro
> > > > areas and their exurbs. People who decided that living outside
> > > > those areas are now looking smart for a whole new reason.
> > >
> > > Oh for Pete's sake. Listen: How can the logic work that a region
> > > enjoyed price increases because it was financially competitive compared
> > > to a big city with higher prices NOT be inpacted if suddently those same
> > > city slickers can now afford properties closer to home?
> >
> > What does this mean? Which region enjoyed price increases? My region
> > certainly didn't have price increases like those around many major
> > metro areas.
>
> Did your region enjoy price increases? Put 2 and 2 together.
Well, we had price increases---at about the same rate at the
stock market rose over the last 30 years. I suspect that there
are mixed reviews on whether we enjoyed them. For me, the price
increases simply meant an increase in my property taxes---not
particularly enjoyable. For people who moved in and out of
the region, the increases may have been enjoyable---providing
that they weren't moving to an area with even greater increases.
>
> I never said your region enjoyed price increases like those around many
> major metro areas. Non-sequitur.
No, it is a valid point---as I pointed out, moving from here to one
of the major metro regions probably meant the increases were not
enjoyable.
>
> > Which city slicker can afford properties closer to home? Where is
> > their home? Do you mean that people in the far-out suburbs can
> > now afford homes closer to work?
>
> I was talking about situations such as California where people cashed
> out their real estate to move to lower priced regions and also
> businesses that located to rural/mid-west regions to deal with the high
> cost of real estate/labor in major metro regions during the boom.
>
> Naturally, when high prices for residential and commercial real estate
> in those regions no longer apply, then money that helped push up prices
> (and jobs) in the alternative regions also decrease.
By 'those regions' do you mean California in the example above?
>
> This applies to suburbs, exoburbs, rural regions, etc. What pumps up
> all balloons also deflates them.
That's a horrible analogy! When was the last time you pumped air out
of a balloon! Balloons are, by nature, self-deflating. No pumping
required.
>
> > > > > Now that the market showed a slight bump in summer, the pundits are
> > > > > failing to notice that most of that bump is seasonal (didja know that
> > > > > church attendance was higher last Sunday than the whole week before?
> > > > > It
> > > > > must mean more people are going to church!)
> > > >
> > > > The real estate bump may be tied to a bump in consumer confidence---
> > > > which may also be related to a seasonal drop in unemployment. The
> > > > real test will come in the next 6 months.
> > >
> > > And a massive shopping binge in December may be tied to the Christian
> > > holiday of Christmas. Stay tuned!
> >
> > Or there may be a less massive shopping season that will leave retailers
> > disappointed. ;-)
>
> My point being that the fundamentals for the December shopping season
> are quite clear. It shouldn't surprise pundits when the numbers go up
> during that time period.
So why do you think any of the pundits are surprised.
>
> Yet... the talking heads on CNBC (which I'm forced to endure during my
> coffee break, sadly) seem totally clueless about these matters and seem
> to think that they're being witty and smart by conjecturing about the
> obvious. *sigh*
If they have data that shows changes significantly different from
historical data, then they may have something to speculate about.
Otherwise, they're simply avoiding that anathema of the broadcaster---
dead air.
>
> > > Seriously, of COURSE it is! No need to make a real test to see if
> > > prices, and sales, go down in the fall. It's only been doing that for
> > > the past couple of decades or so.
> >
> > Good. So we have data against which to measure the magnitude of
> > the change so we can see if this year is significantly different.
>
> Absolutely. And when that's done, prices are STILL _down_ Year to Year.
> You read it here first.
Are you talking about the housing market or the Christmas shopping
season? Or perhaps the Christmas Housing Shopping Season? ;-)
Okay, now prove that hypothesis by showing some data on the significant
differences in voting patterns between men and women.
>
> It's hilarious, for example, that Heidi griped that evil corporations in
> Canada were offshoring high paying jobs, etc. Gee, the great guys she
> voted into office to rob from Peter to pay Paula backstabbed her. Isn't
> that a shocker?
"she voted into office"-----I think you give her way too much credit.
It might also pay to remember that the Canadians are happier with
their health care system than we are in the US---to the extent that
more than half of the responses in a recent poll indicated a preference
for the Canadian system. If that's what they were voting for, then
I guess it worked out OK.
Who do you think you're responding to?? Did you intentionally mix me
up with Andre, or are our writing styles and viewpoints so similar?
;-)
How much experience do you have with French restaurants? I've probably
eaten in 50 or 60 restaurants in Canada and the US that billed
themselves as serving French or continental cuisine. I've also eaten
in about 20 different restaurants in France itself. None that I recall
had portion sizes comparable to Denny's or Applebees.
>
> [...]
> > > > > Don't worry Mark! They'll be burning much more electricity to build
> > > > > those windmills. They should get the power back to you in 50 years or
> > > > > so. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Got a cite for that? It's moe than twice the time I've seen in some
> > > > studies of the payoff time for wind farms.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sei.ie/Renewables/Wind_Energy/Wind_Farm_Development/Financing_w
> > > > ind_
> > > > farms/
> > >
> > > *sigh* Are you serious? Like a factor of 2 really matters that much in
> > > deciding the feasibility of these ideas?
> >
> > Are YOU serious?? A factor of two in the time for return on investment
> > is a major factor in deciding whether an investment is worthwhile.
>
> Not really. The ecokooks don't care that atomic power is several times
> that more efficient than wind power. It's all about feeling good, baby.
> Same thing with real estate. Or eating TV dinners and watching
> commercials for exercise equipment. :-)
I agree that nuclear power is more efficient---through the construction
and operation phases. However getting a permit for a new nuclear
plant anywhere close to a major population center takes years or
decades of work. The problem is that everyone, liberal and
conservative wants power to magically come out of the wall plug.
They don't want new plants in their neighborhood or new powerlines
across their property.
>
> > > Ok then, 25 years. Fine. Do you think the same guys that build our
> > > roads are capable of making something that will last that long to begin
> > > with? :-)
> >
> > Absolutely---but then I spent my summers working on freeways for the
> > California Department of Transportation in the 70's. The roads I
> > worked on are still there. Sure, they require maintenance---but
> > what heavily used article does not.
>
> Er, not quite.
>
> The "road" you worked on probably is not still there in it's original
> form. It's probably been rebuilt several times. Saying that's just
> "maintenance" is like calling a tear down foreclosure a "fixer upper."
Yes, it was still there in essentially its original form as of
18 months ago when I drove on it. It had the same bridges
and overpasses and the same alignment. It has probably had
the pavement ground off and replaced 3 times in the last
30 years. The highways in question are US 101 between
Garberville and Arcata in Northern California, and US 1
between Fort Bragg and Mendocino.
More parts of 101 have been upgraded to the 4-lane freeway status
that was built in the late 60s, but the parts built back then
are still there. They haven't abandoned any long stretches or
taken the roadway down below the existing cement-treated
base material. The maintenance is the equivalent of putting
a new roof on a house. 95% of the original infrastructure is
untouched during the maintenance.
Perhaps other states don't build their interurban highways to
the same standards as California did in the 60s.
Now please recite your experience with highway engineering
and maintenance schedules and processes. Or were you
just blowing off steam?
>
> > The Projected lifetimes of many of the new wind turbines
> > are about 20 years. I suspect that they will pay off the capital
> > investment in about 5-10 years if power rates don't.
>
> Er, you missed the point again. Spectacularly, I might add.
>
> If the projected energy return cost is 25 years, and the turbines only
> last 20, how are they somehow saving energy and the Earth (much less
> producing net energy?)
I wasn't talking about the energy return cost. That's part of the
ecological life cycle calculations, not the investment calculation.
The energy return time for many new wind farms is about 5 years.
That's how long it takes them to generate more energy than it
took to build them.
Even if a particular turbine has parts that require replacement
in 20 years, the facility itself may have a longer life, as you
won't need new towers, transmission lines or site preparation.
> responsibilities, and thereforeŠshould be replaced with a new
> strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
Gee, since the Republicans had a majority in Congress from 2000 to
2006, why couldn't Bush get this passed? It must not have been
a high enough priority for him to expend his political capital.
Another pointless political execise---worth talking about, but
not worth getting done.
>
> > > > > Obama's popularity figures are now lower than GW's figures at this
> > > > > time.
> > > > > I guess that is change we can believe in. With real estate, a 5
> > > > > percent
> > > > > bump is change we can believe in for another month or two...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That comparison isn't clear. Are you comparing the two right now, or
> > > > at the end of their first six months in office?
> > >
> > > Latter.
> > >
> > > > If the latter, you should remember that Clinton left GW with a
> > > > much smaller deficit and an economy that was in much better shape than
> > > > was the case this January.
> > >
> > > Yes, but Clinton's economy was in some ways worse for GW since it was
> > > pitched as being better than it really was. The dot.com crash happened
> > > just before he left (I know, I was personally impacted by it) and the
> > > press only started to ramp up complaints about it as GW was swearing in.
> > > Additionally, Clinton entered office just as Bush I's recession was
> > > turning around.
> >
> > Hmmm---two Bush administrations and two recessions. Nice to see they're
> > batting 1000! ;-)
>
> I see you ignored my point about Clinton's economy entering a recession
> as he left office and just restated your point. That's ok. I take
> denial as a sign of a subconscious recognition. In some ways, it sinks
> in better.
I said nothing about recessions in the Clinton administration. They
occurred. I was simply pointing out that, as you said a few pargraphs
above, there was a recession at the end of Bush I and there was
a recession at the end of Bush II.
>
> > > Despite those advantages, he still wound up being a patsy for Greenspan
> > > and the Republicans. What an irony, eh?
> >
> > In what way was he a patsy?
>
> My bad. A patsy is a dupe who witlessly takes someone else's blame.
> He's more like a pawn.
>
> "The era of big government is over" -- Bill Clinton
>
> It's amazing that Clinton said something like that, isn't it? That's
> the action of someone desperate to survive, politically. There's NO way
> he would have said something like that if he hadn't broken the left's
> own laws about sexual harassment.
It's also ironic that government continued to increase under Bush
and the Republican Congress. At least they kept quiet or complained
about the increases that happened on their watch.
>
> > > Just as Obama's best accomplishments so far is sending more money to
> > > rich white male bankers and investors and blowing all the money before
> > > trying to pass his extreme leftist agenda. I couldn't have planned it
> > > any better myself.
> >
> > I agree. You've shown no evidence of any economic planning skills.
>
> Amazing. Yeah, other than me calling out the biggest economic bubble in
> our lifetime, what have I shown here? And showing the obvious
> inpracticality of windmills as an energy source OR national economic
> strategy using your figure of 25 years, why that didn't take any
> economic planning skills at all...
None of that is planning. It is all reaction to events over which
you had no control. If you have economic planning skills, contact
your local Republican Party office. They need those skills.
>
> (that's sarcasm.)
But true, nonetheless.
>
> > The country as a whole has done better than you in that it hasn't
> > had to declare bankruptcy--yet ;-)
>
> I don't have the option of printing up trillion dollar Obama bills,
> either. A person, and nation, can only declare bankruptcy so often or
> print up lots of debt. To MY credit, it took me a few years to generate
> the debt. Obama's blown his wad in just a few months.
But he hasn't had to declare bankruptcy. Let's see... Bush cut taxes
and signed a $700B economic recovery bill late in his term when
he wouldn't have to worry about the political fallout. Obama
signed a $787B bill in his first month, when he has to worry
about the consequences for another 7-1/2 years. I don't see
any big difference---other than Bush didn't enter office with
a problem of the same magnitude.
>
> > > > I think a better comparison will be the Presidential job approval
> > > > rating at the end of the administration. GW ended up at about 30%.
> > > > Only Nixon and Truman have ended up lower in the last 50 years.
> > > > Of all the Presidents in the last 50 years, only Clinton has
> > > > ended with higher ratings than he started with.
> > > >
> > > > http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-
> > > > 31.html
> > >
> > > Imagine if you had wanted to win an award for a great business idea or
> > > something else you're proud of but, instead, you got on the news because
> > > of a hilarious gaff you had with your fly being open during a press
> > > conference.
> > >
> > > If all Clinton cared about was popularity polls, then good for him. But
> > > in terms of a leftist legacy and what he claimed to want to do when he
> > > got into office, he's a spectacular failure. Send in... the clowns!
> > >
> >
> > It's not about any Clinton agenda. It's about how the people feel
> > about the President. Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea bring
> > Presidential job approval into this discussion.
>
> If you go back to the ORIGINAL point, it was you declaring that the
> Republicans were self destructing. The Republicans got Bill Clinton to
> co-own THEIR agenda on welfare reform and limited government spending.
> Obama's popularity rating, NOW, is an impediment to his agenda both now
> and in the foreseeable future (considering the direction the market is
> taking assuming that real estate doesn't always go up.)
Umm, the market is going up now. Real estate may well be higher at
the end of the Obama administration than it is now. What is your
point here?
>
> > > > There's a good argument that Clinton's record was due as much to
> > > > pointless Republican attacks as the good economic record.
> > >
> > > Yeah, look at how much those pointless Republican attacks helped Al Gore
> > > become president... Oh, wait... :-)
> > DOH! If they were effective, then, by definition, they weren't
> > pointless! The republicans used their political capital to
> > good effect. Too bad Bush couldn't follow through. That investment
> > of political capital was a short-term success and a long-term
> > failure.
>
> I don't think it was a matter of Bush failing to follow through. Bush
> is a moderate and in his own way, he _did_ follow through. He got
> medicaid drug plans passed by both houses, right? He got Obama and
> McCain to sign off on the bailout, yes? And the no child left behind
> act.
>
> The problem was a failure in his principles, not his political saavy or
> determination.
And possibly a fixation on a war in Iraq that cost upwards of $915B....
With a little luck Obama can save $400B or $500B on defense costs---
which were spent outside the normal budget process---over the next
7 years.
>
> > > It's liberal PR spin that the Republican attacks had a reverse effect.
> > > It reminds me of what a narrator said on the History channel: "WWII USA
> > > propogandists said that the Kamikazi's had little effect on naval
> > > effectiveness. The Japanese... knew better."
> >
> > AAARGH! You're depending on the history channel for historical
> > perspective....
>
> I don't take it as gospel, no. I hate the way they use the PC "BCE" and
> "ACE" terms for dates and their silly global warming religion. Praise
> Science!
The BCE and ACE terminology is popping up in a lot of real history and
science books. I guess it mostly reflects some of the uncertainties
in dates for events for which the standard European calendar was
not in use.
>
> > > Clinton is popular, but as a dishonest, slimy, but likeable clown.
> >
> > That may be your opinion. I'm sure that there are a couple of
> > families that feel differently this week.
>
> You mean the families of the people rotting in prison that Clinton
> _didn't_ get out and their fate (and beliefs) have been undermined by
> his visit legitimizing the regime?
For sure. No good deed goes unpunished.
>
> It's a fantastic example you've alluded to because it's a perfect
> allegory for his administration: He showed up and was used as a
> puppethead for someone else's agenda. We could have sent Jesse Jackson
> there and Kim Jong would have let them go.
Are you sure of that? IIRC, the NK government specifically asked for
Clinton.
>
> > > Ironically, it helped to destroy the cherished myth/image that the left
> > > had built up over the years: The professor scholar, whose so smart (and
> > > you can be too if you agree with him) with his facts and figures and,
> > > therefore, right.
> >
> > Was Clinton ever a professor? I know he was a Rhodes Scholar. That
> > alone, is enough to separate him from GWB.
>
> Indeed, that kind of remark is a perfect example of leftist need to
> associate themselves with smart people and calling their opponents
> stupid. Only smart people know how to do that.
In addition to not answering the question, that statement made no
sense at all. Are you assuming that conservativea have no need
to associate themselves with smart people? I thought it was a
given that politicians of all sorts used intelligence as a primary
criteria when selecting associates.
As for only the left calling people stupid---you must not have listened
to Rush lately! ;-)
>
> > > The public is still confused. Consider that McCain (I call him
> > > McTraitor) didn't lose by THAT big of a margin and he did nutty things
> > > such as voting for the bailout bill, suspending his campaign, and
> > > basically trying to out liberal Obama and attend LaRaza functions.
> >
> > When your home state is Arizona, it is foolish to offend the
> > hispanic population.
>
> So maybe Senator Byrd should rejoin the KKK to avoid offending the white
> population...
That's news to me. I had no idea he was ever a member of the KKK---but
then I haven't followed his career closely---I've never lived within
500 miles of West Virginia. Do you think the majority of the
voters in West Virginia consider KKK membership a positive asset?
In any case, rejoining the KKK might be problematic after his
endorsement of Obama.
>
> > > > If
> > > > that's true, pointless attacks on Obama may be helping him!
> > >
> > > Yeah, the numbers don't lie. His popularity is up. Oh, wait... Don't
> > > people like blowing trillions on boondoggle pork (literally) purchases
> > > for 6 bucks a pound when Harris Teeters sells it for 79 cents? :-)
> >
> > What kind of pork do you get for 79 cents?
>
> Probably a BETTER QUALITY that the feds are getting for 6 bucks. :-)
>
> > > > (pointless attacks are the expenditure of political capital
> > > > with no measurable result)
> > > >
> > > > Mark Borgerson
> > >
> > > By the same token, Mark, blowing a wad on one stimulus after another,
> > > without anything to show for it, and then trying to pass everything at
> > > once doesn't help either.
> >
> > What do you mean 'nothing to show for it'? My retirement account,
> > based on the S&P 500, is up 20% since Obama was innaugurated!
>
> True, if we credit Obama's stimulus for that full growth rather than
> just a natural rebound that would have happened anyway.
>
> Remember your snarky remark about the families of the journalists in
> North Korea though? For the average American schlub, unemployment rose
> beyond what Obama promised if he got the stimulus passed, they got
> saddled with $36K per capita debt, gas prices are going up (apparently,
> it takes time to burn 25 years of energy to build 20 year term
> windmills) and real estate is still going down.
You're mixing up energy and investment again.
This study shows that there is great variability in the economic payback
time for wind farms:
http://www.lcacenter.org/InLCA2006/Lapuma1-presentation.pdf
They predict that 63% of sites would pay back costs in less than
15 years. That's the investment side of the equation.
For the energy payback side, here's one from a site you should love:
"The life cycle assessment of a 3.0 MW wind turbine indicates that it
would have to generate electricity for only 6.8 months , of their
assumed 20 year useful life, before it produces as much energy as is
used during the manufacturing phase."
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/wind_turbine_lca.php
But they're quoting data from a Danish turbine manufacturer.
If you're really interested in wind energy capital costs, you
can look at:
http://www.nationalwind.org/publications/wes/wes11.htm
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/index.htm
>
> And THAT may explain why Obama's popularity rating is sinking like a
> rock.
WOW! He's 'sunk like a rock' to 50% approval. Bush didn't get above
50% any time in his last 3-1/2 years. Let's see how they compare
at the midpoints of their administrations. (Not that we have a choice--
we all have to live through the next 4 years.)
>
> > > Maybe Obama will get lucky and be a lame duck for a year or so until
> > > Republicans take over the house and senate and give him bills to sign.
> > > I'm sure he'll just love that when he's popular. All hail the King!
> >
> > Better take your meds---you seem to be getting delusional.
>
> Wow, a juvenile ad-hom. As I said, I take such remarks as a positive
> sign that the subconscious mind is grasping hold. (That's the maturity
> level that most people develop it.)
Nothing juvenile about it! And it's hardly worse than:
"average American schlub"
"I call him McTraitor"
>
> > I don't
> > think there is any way that the Republicans are going to take over the
> > house and senate in a year or so.
>
> I was referring to the 2010 elections. I guess it's something like a
> little more than a year? Time flies when someone is blowing political
> and economic capital...
Well, I guess we can revisit the issue of Congressional party
balance in about 15 months. I figure that there is only
about a 20% probability that there will be Republican
majorities in the house and senate after the 2010 election.
Never underestimate the power of incumbency---it's not
something easily overcome in a single election cycle---
especially when it means a loss of seniority and committee
assignments.
What is your guess on that probability?
>
> > It's the Republicans who are
> > resigning in droves.
>
> You got a point there. It takes a federal indictment and conviction to
> get a Democrat to resign like Dem Congressman William Jefferson.
Yeah. Some of the Republicans don't wait for the trial and verdict.
>
> Obama, on the other hand, has really showed a lot of principles in
> office. hahahahaha! yeah, only kidding. Transparency by not releasing
> secret bills, not reading them, and then getting upset when executives
> get bonuses. It's the "stupid" Republicans fault! :-)
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to hope for the release of a 'secret bill'?
If you release it, it's no longer a secret!
You're the one associating "stupid" and Republicans. I just think
they haven't expressed a clear vision of how they would change
the economy for the better.
>
> > Even when a governor appoints another republican,
> > I think the newbie loses all seniority.
>
> Like turncoat Arlen Specter. I think they have him on the Siberian
> waste management committee. :-) Good going "one bullet" Arlen!
Is that a reference to his membership on the Committee on Environment
and Public Works? He's also on the appropriations and judiciary
committees.
In any case, the Dems got another senator----a critical thing when
you consider that they now have the magic number of 60.
Actually, there have been hundreds of such 'turncoats'---although
it's much more common at the state politics level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_States
>
> > In addition, there just aren't
> > enough seats up for election in that time frame.
>
> Now THAT'S a valid point. I don't think it takes many to swing the
> Senate in 2010. But Congress would be another matter. But if enough
> people lost their homes...
Well, actually, all the congressional seats are up in 2010---but I don't
think there will be enough change. The Dems have a 256 to 179 lead, and
I can't see the Republicans gaining 78 seats unless things get a LOT
worse in the next year.
>
> Did you know Deutschebank estimates that 48% of people will be upside
> down in their mortgage? But don't worry, the S&P is up 20%! Oh, and
> more homes sold this summer than in the winter! It's all easy train
> from here for Obama! :-)
Oh, yes. We all know how good the large banks are at predicting the
housing market! Let's agree to check that statistic in 2011---the
time frame of the DB estimate. Then let's subtract the number of
homeowners who don't really give a hoot, because they don't expect
to sell the house in 2011.
>
> > Whatever the problems
> > Obama and the Democrats have, the Republicans have shown no hint of a
> > positive plan for the economy or anything else.
>
> Nonsense. They got Bill Clinton to sign off on their legislation. It
> worked great for the economy back then, didn't it? :-)
Is "delusional" more an ad-hom than "nonsense"? ;-)
That was 10 years ago , this is now. If you think the Republicans have
a plan, let's hear it!
Mark Borgerson
Heidi Graw
>"PolishKnight" <mare...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:marek1965-76D36...@news.giganews.com...
(snip)
>PK wrote:
> You claim leaders fear the impovershed masses even as they are the ones
> putting them in.
Yep, happens all the time. Read some European history and you'll
catch on.
>It's called tossing (or leading) someone into a pit,
> throwing them a carrot, and they worship you forever.
..only in so far that carrots are continuously being
thrown. Toss 'em cake and they'll hate you for it.
>Why do you think
> they were so gung ho to get women voters? Who puts these GUYS into
> office?
If you only have a selection of men to choose from, then that's all
one can elect, isn't that so?
As it is, the few women in politics still have a lot to learn. And even
if women elect men despite a variety of females put forth, maybe...
just maybe...these women voters are looking at the platform and the
skill-sets instead of just staring at what's between a politician's
legs.
>> Heidi wrote:
>> As yet, guaranteed income is based on an "as needed"
>> basis. It hasn't extended to those who have sufficient
>> means to get by.
>>
>> But, what do you think about a scheme which does
>> not tax income, but rather, consumption? Those who
>> consume the most, pay the most. Don't tax production,
>> which in effect punishes those who work hard to get
>> ahead, but tax what they buy and use.
>
>PK wrote:
> Define consumption.
>
> Do babies "consume" milk and nutritional formula? Do people "consume"
> houses? Even worse, what happens when people "consume" a vacation in
> Florida or Cuba rather than in Vancouver?
>
>> For example: a corporation requires materials to operate.
>> Tax the materials and supplies, but not the profit. An individual
>> could earn tax-free money, but pays taxes on materials and
>> goods that he/she wants.
>
> This is called VAT and the problem with this is the government enforcing
> and tracking that all the materials are consumed in the process of them
> being made into something else. What if my brother-in-law's furniture
> business has a few 2x4's fall of the truck and wind up on my deck?
Scap the VAT and introduce an EL...environmental levy. Everything
you buy in the way of material goods to eat or use in some way impacts
the environment. The more you buy, the more you impact the environment,
the more one should be taxed. Those who consume/buy the most, should
pay the most. However, do not tax any income earned from your labours,
but ramp up the EL instead.
As for those EL taxes collected, those can go towards environmental
restoration efforts, research and development into new technologies,
infrastructure, public administration/governing expenses, public
programs, etc.
An example: A person who is a millionare won't get taxed on
his/her income. Yet, a millionare will spend more on goods.
Those goods would be taxed an EL. A person who only
earns very little won't be taxed on his/her income, and since
these low income earners can afford to buy only very little,
thus that much less EL they'd be paying. What this means
is that the very rich cannot get away with tax-loopholes.
The rich can also not get away with subsidies that are
currently supported by mid and low income earners.
Everyone will just end up paying for what they actually
use, and be taxed on the amount of the environmental
impact that such consumption has.
It's simple, straightforward, and fair, imho.
Heidi
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>PK wrote:
> Ok, all that said, from what I read on the forum, Heidi, it appears that
> you've thrown your boys to the wolvettes, in a manner of speaking
> putting your gender concerns ahead of your maternal instincts. I'd be
> horrified if a young man went to "ladies" night and threw money around
> just for the sake of begging for feminine attention.
LOL...my, oh my, PK, you sure do love to gabble, don't you?
Just because you had to go around begging for feminine attention,
doesn't mean my own sons do that. Neither one of them ever
had to beg. They draw attention merely by showing up! Feminine
heads turn to gaze at these handsome sights.
I think if I were to ever catch my boys begging, I'd clobber them!
<just kidding>. Really, though, I think I would remind them that
they are not to debase themselves by begging. I consider that
unseemly and totally inappropriate for *anyone.* The only men
I've ever seen begging for feminine attention were Americans
and Germans. And believe me, that was not a handsome sight.
I was so disgusted by that show of desperation...I was almost moved
to pity, but I caught myself in time! ;-)
> could give him the same experience at home and just starve him for a day
> and tell him that if he begged, I could throw meat on the floor. You
> didn't care that your sons were treated as second class citizens in many
> cases. Fine. As a parent you're entitled to your opinion and I'm
> entitled to mine.
Well...there's one thing you've got going for you...you've got a vivid
imagination. The draw-back...you imagine wrongly.
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>> Heidi Graw wrote:
>
>> If you had a 12-year old daughter and she came home one
>> day all excited and she proudly pronounced, "Hey, Daddy.
>> I want you to meet my new boyfriend," and you see
>> a 35-year old man standing next to her holding her
>> hand, what would be your reaction?
> Andrew wrote:
> That's better. But why don't you answer my own tough question, that I
> asked first, before demanding one of me? Here it is again:
>
> --------
>
>> I think you're going to have a tough
>> time trying to convince these fathers to give
>> up their daughters at such a young age.
>
> 'Give up'? That's the fundamental problem here, you think fathers
> ought to have control over their daughters' sexuality and that them
> sleeping with anyone is the father 'giving up' something.
We are talking about *underage* children. These ones have
not yet reached the age of consent, nor the age of majority.
Until that time, parents have a duty and an obligation to
look after the wellbeing of their children. 12 to 15-year olds
have not yet reached the age of consent. You claim this
age group should be looked at on a case by case basis.
So, now I'm asking you:
If you had a 12-year old daughter and she came home one
day all excited and she proudly pronounced, "Hey, Daddy.
I want you to meet my new boyfriend," and you see
a 35-year old man standing next to her holding her
hand, what would be your reaction?
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ec8299f5-3c8f-4eed...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
>Andrew wrote:
> I allow only one situation where first use of violence is
> justified: betrayal.
I see. So, if you were caught betraying your wife, you
would allow her to smash your skull with that cast
iron frying pan?
Heidi
Andrew Usher
> >> I think you're going to have a tough
> >> time trying to convince these fathers to give
> >> up their daughters at such a young age.
> >
> > 'Give up'? That's the fundamental problem here, you think fathers
> > ought to have control over their daughters' sexuality and that them
> > sleeping with anyone is the father 'giving up' something.
>
> We are talking about *underage* children. These ones have
> not yet reached the age of consent, nor the age of majority.
> Until that time, parents have a duty and an obligation to
> look after the wellbeing of their children.
That doesn't justify using the concept 'give up', does it? Anyway, how
does a duty of _parents_ translate into a need for _law_ ?
> 12 to 15-year olds
> have not yet reached the age of consent. You claim this
> age group should be looked at on a case by case basis.
Yes. And saying that 'they have not reached the age of consent' is
begging the question, given that the argument is about what the age of
consent should be.
AND YOU ARE STILL EVADING as you snipped the second paragraph which
contained the actual question. WHY can't you answer it?
> So, now I'm asking you:
>
> If you had a 12-year old daughter and she came home one
> day all excited and she proudly pronounced, "Hey, Daddy.
> I want you to meet my new boyfriend," and you see
> a 35-year old man standing next to her holding her
> hand, what would be your reaction?
I don't know. That's my honest answer. I might well order them to not
see each other, but I know that I should not enforce that by violent
means.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> >Andrew wrote:
> > I allow only one situation where first use of violence is
> > justified: betrayal.
>
> I see. So, if you were caught betraying your wife, you
> would allow her to smash your skull with that cast
> iron frying pan?
That (adultery) is not betrayal by my definition as it involves no
actual damages.
The kinds of betrayal that might be sufficiently serious are those
which involve oneself or someone close going to jail, losing his job,
or suffering a serious loss in money or reputation, and perhaps other
similar examples.
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
>> Heidi Graw wrote:
>
>> >Andrew wrote:
>> > I allow only one situation where first use of violence is
>> > justified: betrayal.
>>
>> I see. So, if you were caught betraying your wife, you
>> would allow her to smash your skull with that cast
>> iron frying pan?
> Andrew wrote:
> That (adultery) is not betrayal by my definition as it involves no
> actual damages.
Oh really? What if you caught AIDS from another woman and
then passed it along to your wife? Adultery is the kind of
betrayal which *may* result in premature death. I would
think a premature death inflicted by a wayward husband
qualifies as having caused *actual* damage.
Heidi
PolishKnight
"Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote:
> >"PolishKnight" <mare...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:marek1965-76D36...@news.giganews.com...
>
> (snip)
>
> >PK wrote:
> > You claim leaders fear the impovershed masses even as they are the ones
> > putting them in.
>
> Yep, happens all the time. Read some European history and you'll
> catch on.
Meow! I must have touched a nerve (or stepped on the cat's tail!) A
leftist style condescending put down to shore up a shallow response
"[it] happens all the time". Yeah, sure, if something happens all the
time then it must be ok.
> >It's called tossing (or leading) someone into a pit,
> > throwing them a carrot, and they worship you forever.
>
> ..only in so far that carrots are continuously being
> thrown. Toss 'em cake and they'll hate you for it.
In some ways, I agree with much of that point but I disagree with your
clarifiers of "only" and "continuously".
The welfare state hands out "carrots" intermittently precisely to keep
their backers uncertain and insecure. Of course, they blame these
insecurities on their political opponents to drum up even more support.
(Read 1984 sometime and you'll catch on :-)
And the state gives out "cake", once again, intermittantly such as Bread
and Circuses (read about Roman history sometime and you'll catch on.)
> >Why do you think
> > they were so gung ho to get women voters? Who puts these GUYS into
> > office?
>
> If you only have a selection of men to choose from, then that's all
> one can elect, isn't that so?
I notice you didn't answer my question. That's ok since both of us know
you don't like the answer and would prefer to ignore it.
In answer to question, it isn't so. There is the option of putting up
your own candidates but I don't think it really matters since leftist
patriarchal sugar daddies suit the "equal" girls just fine, don't you
agree? Note that women didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the states.
_I_ did.
And you've touched upon a point I often make: That voting rights aren't
really that big a deal. It's like going to a football game and cheering
for a team, having them win, and thinking you accomplished something.
It's more an exercise in ego and pseudo teamwork than productive.
Hence, my observation that most women when posed with a real question of
giving up voting rights in exchange for stuff that's TANGIBLE and THEY
REALLY WANT will go for the latter.
> As it is, the few women in politics still have a lot to learn. And even
> if women elect men despite a variety of females put forth, maybe...
> just maybe...these women voters are looking at the platform and the
> skill-sets instead of just staring at what's between a politician's
> legs.
Hahahaha! If that was the case then Sotomayer would not be on the
Supreme Court. :-) Hahahaha! Indeed, Heidi, all this "equality via
handouts" stuff doesn't cut it when you talk about _women's_ best
interests. Then you want the BEST QUALIFIED candidate, not a quota
hire.
The primary purpose of taxation, Heidi, is to collect funds to support
government programs. This is the primary reason why socialism doesn't
work outside of a few hippy communities of mostly white people: It's
very difficult to make a government PROFITABLE, hence, the need for
taxes.
In some ways, we already have "environmental" taxes such as people
paying higher taxes on liquor and tobacco to offset their negative
social impacts.
If you're so concerned about the environment, just have a tax on
children and that should fix the problem pretty quickly but in most
socialist European countries they don't seem to need it.
> The more you buy, the more you impact the environment,
> the more one should be taxed. Those who consume/buy the most, should
> pay the most. However, do not tax any income earned from your labours,
> but ramp up the EL instead.
Ironically, the same thing is already in place but in reverse: Most of
the environmental laws are directed towards production and corporations
causing them to offshore and pollute China and India and other places.
So you can thank them for offshoring all of those high paying jobs. Oh,
wait, it's ALL their fault. You just voted for them so it's not your
fault.
Sheesh, and you still haven't figured out why I think your vote is a
waste.
> As for those EL taxes collected, those can go towards environmental
> restoration efforts, research and development into new technologies,
> infrastructure, public administration/governing expenses, public
> programs, etc.
I'm sure the money will go for public administration/government expenses
and public programs (which suit the politician's interests). But good
luck on getting those magic windmills that generate more energy than
goes into their manufacturing. :-)
What you're described, Heidi, is just the same old Marxism of the 19th
century with a new rationalization.
Here's a question for you: Why don't we have all these great
technologies NOW?!?! Haven't billions been already spent in Canada and
Europe for these things? Surely, America isn't the only innovator in
the world, is it?
We already have a technology to solve the myth of Global Warming, er,
"Climate Change". It's called Atomic Power. Oh, wait, the tree huggers
don't like. Did anyone tell you that there's an "environmental impact"
in making and putting up windmills and melting down silicon for solar
cells with harsh chemicals? Looks like there are more jobs going to
India and China!
> An example: A person who is a millionare won't get taxed on
> his/her income. Yet, a millionare will spend more on goods.
> Those goods would be taxed an EL. A person who only
> earns very little won't be taxed on his/her income, and since
> these low income earners can afford to buy only very little,
> thus that much less EL they'd be paying. What this means
> is that the very rich cannot get away with tax-loopholes.
> The rich can also not get away with subsidies that are
> currently supported by mid and low income earners.
> Everyone will just end up paying for what they actually
> use, and be taxed on the amount of the environmental
> impact that such consumption has.
You REALLY haven't thought this through AT ALL.
The wealthy ALREADY use up less than their earn otherwise they wouldn't
be rich, duh. (As I figured out in my bankruptcy case :-)
Taxing their spending rather than their saving would only get them MORE
money, not less.
I'll be constructive and make my own suggestion for tax reform:
A reasonable upper limit on personal wealth, INCOME and spending and
inheritances and using a rational metric such as 10,000/1000 times the
average income In the states, that would come out to something like 60
million dollars absolute income per year and a top limit of 600 million
dollars. This would also be the absolute limit set on inheritance for
ALL heirs. In other words, the death tax but I think it should be more
strict BUT also more liberalized to increase it's popularity. For
income below that, abolish it.
Even so, abolishing "loopholes" is a lot more difficult than you
suggest. In theory, the ultrawealthy should be paying more taxes but
they find ways to launder the money and your consumption tax would be
boon for them. It would basically offshore nearly everything that
people could get, well, offshore. I chuckle that's already largely
happening in western nations as Europeans travel to Croatia because
their own countries are so horrifically expensive or Canadians go to
Cuba and don't tip.
> It's simple, straightforward, and fair, imho.
>
> Heidi
An arbitrary definition of fairness based upon what suits you doesn't
take a lot of imagination. Who ever suggests something they don't
publically declare is fair for them? :-)
regards,
PolishKnight
PolishKnight
Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
It's an interesting parallel because, as you noted later, your S&P
portfolio has recovered somewhat but is still down from the peak.
Here's something to wrap one's head around: Markets aren't a total zero
sum game, of course, (they produce wealth), but inflation in one market
has to come from another. exoburbs, rural regions, etc. experienced
price gains partly because of pressure from people moving away from
higher prices areas. Yes? And they also deflate when the primary or
more pressurized market, deflates.
But this also works inter-market. Just as bonds and gold rise when
stocks fall, then what does that mean about the real estate's market
rise and how it was ballyhooed as this great thing? Didn't people
spending more money on mortgage and taxes (and rent) mean less money for
such things as investment money for R&D, technologies, etc? Many people
disparage a "service only" based economy where there are few factories
but lots of Wal Marts and Starbucks. By the same token, isn't an
economy where people work on each other's homes doomed for failure?
Just a thought...
> > I never said your region enjoyed price increases like those around many
> > major metro areas. Non-sequitur.
>
> No, it is a valid point---as I pointed out, moving from here to one
> of the major metro regions probably meant the increases were not
> enjoyable.
You'll need to elaborate on that. If, say, an exoburb of a major city
offers more jobs than your region and the cost of living is more or the
less the same, how is that not more enjoyable to someone?
Affordable exoburbs offer one advantage to companies looking to locate
(or more away) than rural regions (or whatever you classify your region
as): They don't require a plane flight for business execs and workers to
go to the home office.
We refer to our computer data center located in the exoburbs away from
the home office as "The Outhouse." :-)
> > > Which city slicker can afford properties closer to home? Where is
> > > their home? Do you mean that people in the far-out suburbs can
> > > now afford homes closer to work?
> >
> > I was talking about situations such as California where people cashed
> > out their real estate to move to lower priced regions and also
> > businesses that located to rural/mid-west regions to deal with the high
> > cost of real estate/labor in major metro regions during the boom.
> >
> > Naturally, when high prices for residential and commercial real estate
> > in those regions no longer apply, then money that helped push up prices
> > (and jobs) in the alternative regions also decrease.
>
> By 'those regions' do you mean California in the example above?
As you know, California is more than just Los Angeles, San Diego, and
San Franscisco. That's just _1/2_ of the state. :-)
I'm talking largely about major metro regions such as the greater Los
Angeles region, the Bay Area, but I guess as it applies to you maybe
also Seattle and Las Vegas?
A business looking to expand or relocate would consider Las Vegas, for
example, a bargain right now.
> > This applies to suburbs, exoburbs, rural regions, etc. What pumps up
> > all balloons also deflates them.
> That's a horrible analogy! When was the last time you pumped air out
> of a balloon! Balloons are, by nature, self-deflating. No pumping
> required.
By that token, then, "bubbles" are a bad example for some markets that
are self-inflating such as metro regions that experience price increases
that make their own "air."
But your point actually can be used against your claim that your region
is somehow special and immune from price deflation because it will "self
deflate" without too much help. Come now, Mark, don't you know that
young people generally tend to move AWAY from rural regions to the big
city?
> > > > > > Now that the market showed a slight bump in summer, the pundits are
> > > > > > failing to notice that most of that bump is seasonal (didja know
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > church attendance was higher last Sunday than the whole week
> > > > > > before?
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > must mean more people are going to church!)
> > > > >
> > > > > The real estate bump may be tied to a bump in consumer confidence---
> > > > > which may also be related to a seasonal drop in unemployment. The
> > > > > real test will come in the next 6 months.
> > > >
> > > > And a massive shopping binge in December may be tied to the Christian
> > > > holiday of Christmas. Stay tuned!
> > >
> > > Or there may be a less massive shopping season that will leave retailers
> > > disappointed. ;-)
> >
> > My point being that the fundamentals for the December shopping season
> > are quite clear. It shouldn't surprise pundits when the numbers go up
> > during that time period.
>
> So why do you think any of the pundits are surprised.
As I said, it shouldn't. In theory, the pundits should be people who
should know better than the average joe and jane six pack.
But... in answer to your question, I will conjecture that the pundits
are people who are paid to not rock the boat with "extreme" positions
that will overly anger their audience whom a majority own their homes
and don't want to hear that their reward for paying higher property
taxes for the past 10 years is to lose their retirement nest egg or be
underwater in their mortgage. They simply couldn't give their patients
the bad news.
And besides... most of them (the people) didn't want to hear it anyway.
I was called MAD, MAD I tell you! (where did that line come from? :-)
when I proclaimed an impending housing bust back in 2004.
Hmmm, also, probably bubble thinking works that as they inflate and grow
larger it's ever harder even for pundits to imagine they could burst.
Didn't you know in 1980 that the USSR would last forever? Or that gay
marriage could never occur back in 1970? Or that women would always
have the vote? (to go back to the original point I joined in.)
Taking a contrarian, unpopular view by definition is unpopular. It's
also the definition of pioneering. Plenty of pioneers are the founders
of what we take for granted today. And then there are plenty buried in
the desert that didn't find any gold. It's not something to be done
lightly.
> > Yet... the talking heads on CNBC (which I'm forced to endure during my
> > coffee break, sadly) seem totally clueless about these matters and seem
> > to think that they're being witty and smart by conjecturing about the
> > obvious. *sigh*
>
> If they have data that shows changes significantly different from
> historical data, then they may have something to speculate about.
> Otherwise, they're simply avoiding that anathema of the broadcaster---
> dead air.
I don't think it's just due to chatter. They simply know that a lot of
people WANT to believe that a dead cat bounce means that the kitty is
better. (Sorry kitty (petting cat))
Even now, a lot of people still want to believe that the "real estate
always goes up" paradigm is alive and well. People don't give up their
cherished notions easily. It's the foundation of religion.
> > > > Seriously, of COURSE it is! No need to make a real test to see if
> > > > prices, and sales, go down in the fall. It's only been doing that for
> > > > the past couple of decades or so.
> > >
> > > Good. So we have data against which to measure the magnitude of
> > > the change so we can see if this year is significantly different.
> >
> > Absolutely. And when that's done, prices are STILL down Year to Year.
> > You read it here first.
>
> Are you talking about the housing market or the Christmas shopping
> season? Or perhaps the Christmas Housing Shopping Season? ;-)
Er, no. I'm talking about housing. Are you being obtuse to play with
me?
> > > > > > Rights, especially the right to vote, are still protected almost
> > > > > > entirely by men. Plenty of soldiers fight to protect rights, for
> > > > > > example, without necessarily EXERCISING them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Plenty of US soldiers seem to be fighting to allow other nations'
> > > > > people
> > > > > the right to vote. Not too many are fighting for our right to vote.
> > > > > In recent history, absent a few National Guard actions, that's been
> > > > > the job of the courts. Granted, the courts are mostly men.
> > > >
> > > > My point is that rights aren't "natural" or at least in the context
> > > > that
> > > > Heidi and many others seem to think they are. The founding fathers
> > > > used
> > > > the term for a specific reason in that the moral support for rights
Non-sequitur. I pointed out that Heidi's defense of the women's vote
needs to be reconciled with her criticisms of that government.
And happiness, while useful, can be deceiving and meaningless. If
someone who is rich less happy than a poor person who makes better with
what they have, does that mean it's better for someone to give you money
than take it away from you?
For happiness, please send $1 to happy guy at:
Happy Guy
mare...@comcast.net (paypal)
Remember, Mark, the more "happiness" you send me the more you get!
Credit for this idea goes to the "Happy Guy" episode of The Simpson's
where Homer gets a hold of an automated telemarketing machine and calls
every home in the city asking them to send $1 to him for happiness.
Anyways, this article is long enough without you starting a sub-sub
healthcare thread. Moving on:
> > of what "French restaurants are known for" is not a definitive proof
> > of the portion sizes at such places? Just a thought. This might apply
> > to other things as well, such as real estate trends. More in a minute.
>
> Who do you think you're responding to??
Oops! :-)
> Did you intentionally mix me
> up with Andre, or are our writing styles and viewpoints so similar?
> ;-)
I honestly don't know. I suppose that only makes it worse.
> How much experience do you have with French restaurants? I've probably
> eaten in 50 or 60 restaurants in Canada and the US that billed
> themselves as serving French or continental cuisine. I've also eaten
> in about 20 different restaurants in France itself. None that I recall
> had portion sizes comparable to Denny's or Applebees.
In answer to your question, not too many quite frankly. Moving on:
> > [...]
> > > > > > Don't worry Mark! They'll be burning much more electricity to
> > > > > > build
> > > > > > those windmills. They should get the power back to you in 50 years
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > so. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Got a cite for that? It's moe than twice the time I've seen in some
> > > > > studies of the payoff time for wind farms.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.sei.ie/Renewables/Wind Energy/Wind Farm
> > > > > Development/Financing w
> > > > > ind
> > > > > farms/
> > > >
> > > > *sigh* Are you serious? Like a factor of 2 really matters that much
> > > > in
> > > > deciding the feasibility of these ideas?
> > >
> > > Are YOU serious?? A factor of two in the time for return on investment
> > > is a major factor in deciding whether an investment is worthwhile.
> >
> > Not really. The ecokooks don't care that atomic power is several times
> > that more efficient than wind power. It's all about feeling good, baby.
> > Same thing with real estate. Or eating TV dinners and watching
> > commercials for exercise equipment. :-)
>
> I agree that nuclear power is more efficient---through the construction
> and operation phases. However getting a permit for a new nuclear
> plant anywhere close to a major population center takes years or
> decades of work. The problem is that everyone, liberal and
> conservative wants power to magically come out of the wall plug.
There's so much wrong with the above paragraph...
For one thing, I don't think ANY new power plant has been built in years
in the USA so your point about the difficulty of getting permits is
totally moot. It's like arguing over how hard it is for a normal
citizen to get a permit for a howitzer. :-)
Next, it's a non-sequitur because the cost of the permits is due to the
government itself. If the government stopped looking the other way when
windmills ground up bald eagles and started charging more for permits,
then they wouldn't be feasible either :-) (Don't quibble over whether
they really grind up bald eagles, please MarkB. Just chuckle if you can
over the joke and get the point, ok?)
> They don't want new plants in their neighborhood or new powerlines
> across their property.
I concede this, but this is just one aspect of the liberal opposition to
eeeeevil technology. It comes across as you obfuscating the issue.
Are you a windmill construction engineer? What were you doing daring to
talk about any of that? Hell, for that matter, what makes Heidi think
she's qualified to vote for officials to decide on anything other than
child rearing and living in 30 year old rural shacks? :-)
In any case, your little condescending lecture and red herring doesn't
disprove my point that just because the highway stands in the same place
and has the same direction that it wasn't rebuilt/worked on enough to
offset the original cost. A tear down home that's rebuilt is still
pointing in the same direction too.
I'll take your red herring/appeal to authority as an indication that you
don't have any other effective response. Moving on:
> > > The Projected lifetimes of many of the new wind turbines
> > > are about 20 years. I suspect that they will pay off the capital
> > > investment in about 5-10 years if power rates don't.
> >
> > Er, you missed the point again. Spectacularly, I might add.
> >
> > If the projected energy return cost is 25 years, and the turbines only
> > last 20, how are they somehow saving energy and the Earth (much less
> > producing net energy?)
>
> I wasn't talking about the energy return cost. That's part of the
> ecological life cycle calculations, not the investment calculation.
> The energy return time for many new wind farms is about 5 years.
> That's how long it takes them to generate more energy than it
> took to build them.
And there are many ex-cons who are fine examples of society upon their
release. Would you want a bunch of them to move next door to you?
Without digressing into the fundamentals of prison road construction and
paving and prison food portion sizes, consider what's fundamentally
wrong with the logic of the above sentence and how it relates to your
own claims of energy return for wind farms.
> Even if a particular turbine has parts that require replacement
> in 20 years, the facility itself may have a longer life, as you
> won't need new towers, transmission lines or site preparation.
Why THANKS for opening up that can of worms! Yummy!
Indeed, one of the main things killing the tree hugger back-to-the-13th
century windmill farm idea is that the transmission lines and power
moderation costs would be tremendous. How much STEEL (or is it
aluminium? Oh, crap, now we're going to have to get into that!) Ok, how
much METAL goes into a power transmission line and how much energy cost
goes into that?
Ok, pet peeve here. I don't know if I called you Andre because of his
snarkiness (he's more like a rabid yapper dog when he gets annoyed) but
you seem to love to get into a quibble over some tiny thing and then a
sub quibble. I'm reminded of this routine in Monty Python:
BRIAN: Uh, well, the birds, then.
EDDIE: What birds?
BRIAN: Any birds.
EDDIE: Why?
BRIAN: Well, have they got jobs?
ARTHUR: Who?
BRIAN: The birds.
EDDIE: Have the birds got jobs?!
FRANK: What's the matter with him?
ARTHUR: He says the birds are scrounging.
BRIAN: Oh, uhh, no, the point is the birds. They do all right. Don't
they?
FRANK: Well, good luck to 'em.
EDDIE: Yeah. They're very pretty.
BRIAN: Okay, and you're much more important than they are, right? So,
what are you worrying about? There you are. See?
EDDIE: I'm worrying about what you have got against birds.
BRIAN: I haven't got anything against the birds. Consider the lilies.
ARTHUR: He's having a go at the flowers now.
> > responsibilities, and thereforeS�should be replaced with a new
> > strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
>
> Gee, since the Republicans had a majority in Congress from 2000 to
> 2006, why couldn't Bush get this passed? It must not have been
> a high enough priority for him to expend his political capital.
> Another pointless political execise---worth talking about, but
> not worth getting done.
Consider that Obama is having a hard time getting his Cap and Tax and
CommieCare bills passed due to bluedog Democrats and strong political
and public opposition.
That said, you have a point that Bush probably did have other priorities
and that is one of the many contentions I have with his administration.
He sold out and conceded a variety of worthwhile causes often for
unnecessary reasons including allowing marshalls to confiscate law
abiding gunowners firearms during Hurricaine Katrina (these were people
who were keeping ORDER in their communities and a net social asset),
lawsuits against affirmative action, etc.
In some ways, also, political realities do sometimes require letting one
bone go to save another one. A lesson that Obama clearly is slow to
learn based upon him letting go terrorists on US soil. Hmmm, that
analogy about an ex con moving next to you might have some usefulness...
Er, ignoring something is the same as saying nothing. Just thought you
ought to know.
> > > > Despite those advantages, he still wound up being a patsy for Greenspan
> > > > and the Republicans. What an irony, eh?
> > >
> > > In what way was he a patsy?
> >
> > My bad. A patsy is a dupe who witlessly takes someone else's blame.
> > He's more like a pawn.
> >
> > "The era of big government is over" -- Bill Clinton
> >
> > It's amazing that Clinton said something like that, isn't it? That's
> > the action of someone desperate to survive, politically. There's NO way
> > he would have said something like that if he hadn't broken the left's
> > own laws about sexual harassment.
>
> It's also ironic that government continued to increase under Bush
> and the Republican Congress. At least they kept quiet or complained
> about the increases that happened on their watch.
I don't deny that. As I said, I was at best a lukewarm supporter of
Bush and voted against him in the primaries along with against McCain.
But since you didn't response directly to my point about Clinton (you
just made an attack against the Bushes), I'll take your non response as
a sign of agreement that Clinton was a dupe.
> > > > Just as Obama's best accomplishments so far is sending more money to
> > > > rich white male bankers and investors and blowing all the money before
> > > > trying to pass his extreme leftist agenda. I couldn't have planned it
> > > > any better myself.
> > >
> > > I agree. You've shown no evidence of any economic planning skills.
> >
> > Amazing. Yeah, other than me calling out the biggest economic bubble in
> > our lifetime, what have I shown here? And showing the obvious
> > inpracticality of windmills as an energy source OR national economic
> > strategy using your figure of 25 years, why that didn't take any
> > economic planning skills at all...
>
> None of that is planning. It is all reaction to events over which
> you had no control. If you have economic planning skills, contact
> your local Republican Party office. They need those skills.
Er, I wonder Mark, how many presidential campaigns have you served on?
Have you ever served in any mid to high level political office? Or any
political office that requires public campaigning?
And whether I have "control" over somether or not doesn't mean I can't
plan for it. I planned to buy a house later rather than be a herd
animal and hope for luck like some people.
> > (that's sarcasm.)
>
> But true, nonetheless.
I find it perpetually amusing how snarky and condescending white
liberals can be that they're so smart, blah blah blah, for being
leftists (I'm talking in general, not about you specifically) when the
reality is that most leftists, on average, are HS dropouts. It is,
after all, a marxist philosophy that requires the voting masses of the
poor and illterate to keep in power. In general, without us
poor-planning-joe-six-packs such as myself, you'd just be one of the few
middle class in a third world banana republic. That's the best that
Obama can hope to accomplish. It's a rather sad, futureless ideology
much like the poor saps buying homes in 2004....
> > > The country as a whole has done better than you in that it hasn't
> > > had to declare bankruptcy--yet ;-)
> >
> > I don't have the option of printing up trillion dollar Obama bills,
> > either. A person, and nation, can only declare bankruptcy so often or
> > print up lots of debt. To MY credit, it took me a few years to generate
> > the debt. Obama's blown his wad in just a few months.
>
> But he hasn't had to declare bankruptcy.
Er, I just said that. It's amazing how you can pick up on me calling
you Andre, or the quibbles of the size of French Restaurant portions,
but you can't seem to figure out that I just agreed with you and moved
on.
> Let's see... Bush cut taxes
> and signed a $700B economic recovery bill late in his term when
> he wouldn't have to worry about the political fallout. Obama
Oooh! Oooh! Let me finish that sentence.
Obama... voted for the economic recovery (bailout) bill along with John
McCain and was even proud of the fact.
This kind of reminds me of feminist thinking: When a woman has sex with
a man and then she gets pregnant later and bears the child it's... all
the man's fault since he chose to have sex with her. :-)
> signed a $787B bill in his first month, when he has to worry
> about the consequences for another 7-1/2 years.
Hahahahhaa!
Oh, MarkB, what a delightful act of self-denial. That's incredible.
Like Obama was so noble for blowing wad of money, mostly on pork for his
political buddies, because he was worried about the "consequences" for
the next 7.5 years?
He's already trying to spend more again. This is like a woman going on
a shopping spree at DeBeers for $10,0000 because she says the diamonds
will last her a lifetime and then asking you for another set for
Christmas.
I love the logic: Bush spending money, with Democrats (and even angering
Dems for not spending it fast enough) is reckless but Obama doing so
is... so noble.
> I don't see
> any big difference---other than Bush didn't enter office with
> a problem of the same magnitude.
True. Obama took a problem to a whole NEW magnitude!
Hmmm, that's a good argument for me to jiggle around my 401K again. The
market is going up because they believe a lasting and full recovery is
on the way. They will be disappointed in the fall when the summer
housing season "unexpectedly" doesn't last forever.
Yeah, MarkB, keep your money there. It's a sure bet like real estate!
> Real estate may well be higher at
> the end of the Obama administration than it is now. What is your
> point here?
You really believe that? You REALLY believe that real estate will come
back to 2006 levels in Obama's term? Even if he manages to stay in
office 8 years?
Here's some historicals for you: Japan, you know, the place where real
estate has to go up because there's so many people there, took a
nosedive by a factor of 66%. _20_ years after the height of the bubble,
it's only halfway to a recovery.
California had a real estate bubble in the 80's (Yeah, I know, so long
ago and a fact so many people don't like to think about, so it can't be
true...) It burst in the late 80's and the recovery took a full decade
later. And now it's burst again after a brief time.
In answer to your question (rather than just a redirect to save my own
point), my point is that Clinton's political agenda destructed and his
administration was saved by him being a dupe of the Republicans. If you
like, I'll explain it again if you like.
> > > > > There's a good argument that Clinton's record was due as much to
> > > > > pointless Republican attacks as the good economic record.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, look at how much those pointless Republican attacks helped Al
> > > > Gore
> > > > become president... Oh, wait... :-)
> > > DOH! If they were effective, then, by definition, they weren't
> > > pointless! The republicans used their political capital to
> > > good effect. Too bad Bush couldn't follow through. That investment
> > > of political capital was a short-term success and a long-term
> > > failure.
> >
> > I don't think it was a matter of Bush failing to follow through. Bush
> > is a moderate and in his own way, he did follow through. He got
> > medicaid drug plans passed by both houses, right? He got Obama and
> > McCain to sign off on the bailout, yes? And the no child left behind
> > act.
> >
> > The problem was a failure in his principles, not his political saavy or
> > determination.
>
> And possibly a fixation on a war in Iraq that cost upwards of $915B....
> With a little luck Obama can save $400B or $500B on defense costs---
> which were spent outside the normal budget process---over the next
> 7 years.
Yeah, and Clinton saved money in a similar way and didn't fret much
about that Al Quaida thing.
It's so NOT a good time to buy real estate in DC or NYC right now...
> > > > It's liberal PR spin that the Republican attacks had a reverse effect.
> > > > It reminds me of what a narrator said on the History channel: "WWII USA
> > > > propogandists said that the Kamikazi's had little effect on naval
> > > > effectiveness. The Japanese... knew better."
> > >
> > > AAARGH! You're depending on the history channel for historical
> > > perspective....
> >
> > I don't take it as gospel, no. I hate the way they use the PC "BCE" and
> > "ACE" terms for dates and their silly global warming religion. Praise
> > Science!
>
> The BCE and ACE terminology is popping up in a lot of real history and
> science books. I guess it mostly reflects some of the uncertainties
> in dates for events for which the standard European calendar was
> not in use.
(Versus unreal history or science books. More appeals to authority
again.)
Yeah, I guess the "common era" calendar was in use in ancient China back
in year 1000AD, er, 1000ACE, or, oh, wait, it wasn't! Is China a part
of the world? Could you check into that for me? (That's sarcasm, BTW)
So the term "common era" is just a useless and even misleading term.
But it's also politically correct. Which suits it's misleading and
useless nature just fine. I guess it mostly reflects the anti-Christian
tendencies of the people in authority who disliked the term and then
pretended otherwise and for some people to believe the shallow excuse
due to their gullability and ego.
> > > > Clinton is popular, but as a dishonest, slimy, but likeable clown.
> > >
> > > That may be your opinion. I'm sure that there are a couple of
> > > families that feel differently this week.
> >
> > You mean the families of the people rotting in prison that Clinton
> > didn't get out and their fate (and beliefs) have been undermined by
> > his visit legitimizing the regime?
>
> For sure. No good deed goes unpunished.
Ah, another arguement of moral equivalence in leau of addressing
criticism.
If I were in your shoes, I would have responded that maybe not
addressing the Jong regime directly was a mistake and that more openness
could work in our favor rather than trying to pretend the problem
doesn't exist. But your need to reflexively engage in denial sought a
redirect ploy. I'm helping you here! I guess it's boredom! I'm almost
at the end here.
> > It's a fantastic example you've alluded to because it's a perfect
> > allegory for his administration: He showed up and was used as a
> > puppethead for someone else's agenda. We could have sent Jesse Jackson
> > there and Kim Jong would have let them go.
>
> Are you sure of that? IIRC, the NK government specifically asked for
> Clinton.
Valid observation, but it actually shoots your argument in the foot that
Clinton did anything special. If all he had to do was show up to
satisfy Kim's demands, then he was effectively a puppet. Much like his
brilliant career in the states. :-)
"Sign this welfare reform bill, will you Bill?"
"Lower these interest rates like I asked, will you Bill?"
The best Democrat, ironically, is one porking fat interns in his office
and not doing anything. Maybe Obama should get one.
> > > > Ironically, it helped to destroy the cherished myth/image that the left
> > > > had built up over the years: The professor scholar, whose so smart (and
> > > > you can be too if you agree with him) with his facts and figures and,
> > > > therefore, right.
> > >
> > > Was Clinton ever a professor? I know he was a Rhodes Scholar. That
> > > alone, is enough to separate him from GWB.
> >
> > Indeed, that kind of remark is a perfect example of leftist need to
> > associate themselves with smart people and calling their opponents
> > stupid. Only smart people know how to do that.
>
> In addition to not answering the question, that statement made no
> sense at all.
And quibbling over whether Clinton was LITERALLY a professor when the
point was made rhetorically is also useful.
Very well, if it suits you I don't think he was a professor. Happy?
> Are you assuming that conservativea have no need
> to associate themselves with smart people? I thought it was a
> given that politicians of all sorts used intelligence as a primary
> criteria when selecting associates.
Hahaha! That reminds me of a great line from the film My Cousin Vinny:
Q: Out of work hairdresser? Now, in what way does that qualify you as an
expert in automobiles?
A: It doesn't.
Q: In what way are you qualified?
A: Well, my father was a mechanic, his father was a mechanic, my
mother's father was a mechanic, my three brothers are mechanics, four
uncles on my father's side are mechanics--
Question, again: Are you in politics, MarkB? I'm not but I would GUESS
that they choose their associates based upon USEFULNESS. As simple as
that. Stupid is as stupid does as the saying goes (I'm sure it wasn't
just from the movie.) There are lots of rich people SMARTER than GW,
for example. And GW got a hell of a lot farther in his life than you
did. But you're "smarter" than him. Ok...
> As for only the left calling people stupid---you must not have listened
> to Rush lately! ;-)
I listen to Rush on and off/on against basis and Rush usually doesn't
resort to using the S word unless he's flabbergasted by a particularly
foolish policy. The left uses the term on a regular basis even as they
like to claim the right wing are a bunch of haters. But then again,
what can one say about a religion/ideology that claims racism and hatred
is the most evil thing in the world and hates white males due to their
race?
> > > > The public is still confused. Consider that McCain (I call him
> > > > McTraitor) didn't lose by THAT big of a margin and he did nutty things
> > > > such as voting for the bailout bill, suspending his campaign, and
> > > > basically trying to out liberal Obama and attend LaRaza functions.
> > >
> > > When your home state is Arizona, it is foolish to offend the
> > > hispanic population.
> >
> > So maybe Senator Byrd should rejoin the KKK to avoid offending the white
> > population...
>
> That's news to me. I had no idea he was ever a member of the KKK---but
> then I haven't followed his career closely---I've never lived within
> 500 miles of West Virginia. Do you think the majority of the
> voters in West Virginia consider KKK membership a positive asset?
>>
> In any case, rejoining the KKK might be problematic after his
> endorsement of Obama.
Nonsense. You didn't even know he was a member of the KKK just as the
Democrats didn't think it was a big deal that Sotomayer thanks that
whites are less wise than Latinas.
I answer to your question, No. I don't think most whites think that
belonging to a racist organization is an asset. That makes them
different, apparently, from the typical leftist voter.
> > > > > If
> > > > > that's true, pointless attacks on Obama may be helping him!
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, the numbers don't lie. His popularity is up. Oh, wait... Don't
> > > > people like blowing trillions on boondoggle pork (literally) purchases
> > > > for 6 bucks a pound when Harris Teeters sells it for 79 cents? :-)
> > >
> > > What kind of pork do you get for 79 cents?
> >
> > Probably a BETTER QUALITY that the feds are getting for 6 bucks. :-)
> >
> > > > > (pointless attacks are the expenditure of political capital
> > > > > with no measurable result)
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark Borgerson
> > > >
> > > > By the same token, Mark, blowing a wad on one stimulus after another,
> > > > without anything to show for it, and then trying to pass everything at
> > > > once doesn't help either.
> > >
> > > What do you mean 'nothing to show for it'? My retirement account,
> > > based on the S&P 500, is up 20% since Obama was innaugurated!
> >
> > True, if we credit Obama's stimulus for that full growth rather than
> > just a natural rebound that would have happened anyway.
> >
> > Remember your snarky remark about the families of the journalists in
> > North Korea though? For the average American schlub, unemployment rose
> > beyond what Obama promised if he got the stimulus passed, they got
> > saddled with $36K per capita debt, gas prices are going up (apparently,
> > it takes time to burn 25 years of energy to build 20 year term
> > windmills) and real estate is still going down.
>
> You're mixing up energy and investment again.
Partly, I am well aware of the distinction, but it does matter since
energy AND finances are intertwined. Nobody would be having this
discussion if oil cost 10 cents a gallon, would they? Even the tree
hugging ecoloons would have a hard time getting their case heard.
The key benefit to oil, nuclear and coal and other silly forms of energy
that work is that they are ecoomically efficient.
> This study shows that there is great variability in the economic payback
> time for wind farms:
>
> http://www.lcacenter.org/InLCA2006/Lapuma1-presentation.pdf
>
> They predict that 63% of sites would pay back costs in less than
> 15 years. That's the investment side of the equation.
>
> For the energy payback side, here's one from a site you should love:
>
> "The life cycle assessment of a 3.0 MW wind turbine indicates that it
> would have to generate electricity for only 6.8 months , of their
> assumed 20 year useful life, before it produces as much energy as is
> used during the manufacturing phase."
>
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/wind turbine lca.php
>
> But they're quoting data from a Danish turbine manufacturer.
>
> If you're really interested in wind energy capital costs, you
> can look at:
>
> http://www.nationalwind.org/publications/wes/wes11.htm
>
> http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/index.htm
Hahahaha! For someone whose into "real" books as to whether BCE and ACE
are "real" terms, I love how you quote a URL "treehugger" to prove a
point that treehuggers prefer.
The treehugger URL failed, FYI, even after I took out the spaces. And
I'm not going on a paperchase to prove your points for you. If you
like, please go to the library of congress, read all the books there,
and then come back to me and tell me my points are wrong. That's
basically what a paperchase argument is.
Either use your authoratitive sources property (use a proper URL with
citations or at least quotes and the page number) or don't bother trying
to lean on them.
> > And THAT may explain why Obama's popularity rating is sinking like a
> > rock.
>
> WOW! He's 'sunk like a rock' to 50% approval. Bush didn't get above
> 50% any time in his last 3-1/2 years. Let's see how they compare
> at the midpoints of their administrations. (Not that we have a choice--
> we all have to live through the next 4 years.)]
Hmmm, thanks for bringing that up again. Indeed, Bush entered office
after a contentious period when the Democrats were angry over him
allegedly stealing the election because they didn't count enough illegal
immigrant votes :-)
Bush ENTERED office with lower approval ratings while Obama SQUANDERED
them. Big difference.
> > > > Maybe Obama will get lucky and be a lame duck for a year or so until
> > > > Republicans take over the house and senate and give him bills to sign.
> > > > I'm sure he'll just love that when he's popular. All hail the King!
> > >
> > > Better take your meds---you seem to be getting delusional.
> >
> > Wow, a juvenile ad-hom. As I said, I take such remarks as a positive
> > sign that the subconscious mind is grasping hold. (That's the maturity
> > level that most people develop it.)
>
> Nothing juvenile about it! And it's hardly worse than:
>
> "average American schlub"
> "I call him McTraitor"
How often did you hear the term schlub used in High School? And the
McTraitor term is a play on him being a RINO and a traitor to
conservatives, a valid political point.
On the other hand, MarkB, accusing me of being clinically mentally
unbalanced and using a sophmoric term to describe it (take your meds) is
a juvenile taunt appropriate for secondary school. Since
leftism/liberalism/etc. sentiements are generally formed while people
are young that tends to me their primary mental state when making knee
jerk reflexive remarks so it goes back to that.
For me, I started using the term schlub in my 20's so it reflects that
period of time in my life. Try it sometime and see how your language
reflects the time your learned things.
> > > I don't
> > > think there is any way that the Republicans are going to take over the
> > > house and senate in a year or so.
> >
> > I was referring to the 2010 elections. I guess it's something like a
> > little more than a year? Time flies when someone is blowing political
> > and economic capital...
>
> Well, I guess we can revisit the issue of Congressional party
> balance in about 15 months. I figure that there is only
> about a 20% probability that there will be Republican
> majorities in the house and senate after the 2010 election.
> Never underestimate the power of incumbency---it's not
> something easily overcome in a single election cycle---
> especially when it means a loss of seniority and committee
> assignments.
>
> What is your guess on that probability?
I would say it's the other way around.
Wait a minute here... Didn't you just try to make long term predictions
about the stock market and real estate based upon short term rallies
(especially in the latter) and now you're saying that long term trends
are hard to reverse?
I try to be careful about the predictions I make. Funny story: A
co-worker heard me say that Hillary Clinton would never be president.
And he dated and wrote down the quote and put it on his bulletin board
(sometime in 2006).
Then McTraitor was nominated and I voted for Hillary Clinton as the
Democrat spoiler candidate and he laughed his head off. Here I was,
someone who opposed Hillary, VOTING for her. He totally ragged on me
after that!
So who knows definitively what will happen? But that said, I would say
the odds of Obama's drunken-sailor pork (literally) spending policies
getting much more support are rather low. Healthcare is hard to reform
for EITHER party since there are so many special interests with a hand
in the pie. Care to tell seniors they can just go wait a few months in
a Canadian clinic for an MRI they could get in hours?
Many homeowners still like to believe their region is "special" (except
for YOURS, of course Mark, since yours REALLY is special and THEY are
just nuts :-) When that little pet belief is crushed, they won't be
happy.
> > > It's the Republicans who are
> > > resigning in droves.
> >
> > You got a point there. It takes a federal indictment and conviction to
> > get a Democrat to resign like Dem Congressman William Jefferson.
>
> Yeah. Some of the Republicans don't wait for the trial and verdict.
Indeed. But what's your point here, exactly? That Democrats are less
likely to resign even if they're guilty? I'll agree with you there.
> > Obama, on the other hand, has really showed a lot of principles in
> > office. hahahahaha! yeah, only kidding. Transparency by not releasing
> > secret bills, not reading them, and then getting upset when executives
> > get bonuses. It's the "stupid" Republicans fault! :-)
>
> Isn't it a bit of a stretch to hope for the release of a 'secret bill'?
> If you release it, it's no longer a secret!
Er, of course. ALL secrets are no longer secret when they're released.
But when they were secret, they were, secret (for that time frame).
Obama promised transparency in government. It's hilarious that his own
broken oath caused CEO's to get huge bonuses.
> You're the one associating "stupid" and Republicans. I just think
> they haven't expressed a clear vision of how they would change
> the economy for the better.
Straight from the Democrat strategic talking points.
You (and they) have a valid point in that the Republicans are made up of
a lot of moderates (including Bush and McCain) along with fiscal
conservatives and, of course, the religious right. These groups are
often in conflict with each other.
The left, to it's credit, has been a bit more homogenious or at least
cooperative: Hate white males and get free goodies from the government.
However... be careful what you wish for (a majority congress/Senate)
because the blue dog dems who ran as conservatives to dupe red state
districts now are under more scrutiny. In addition, all that money spent
by health care lobbyists is coming home to roost.
The republicans _do_ have an agenda that includes more choice in health
care (such as health care savings plans, limits on lawsuits (John
Edwards, hello?), etc.) Plus they have one option you haven't
considered: Just doing nothing. Yes, doing nothing doesn't sound like
much of a plan but, then again, just blowing money on pork to feel
better doesn't help much either in the long run.
> > > Even when a governor appoints another republican,
> > > I think the newbie loses all seniority.
> >
> > Like turncoat Arlen Specter. I think they have him on the Siberian
> > waste management committee. :-) Good going "one bullet" Arlen!
>
> Is that a reference to his membership on the Committee on Environment
> and Public Works? He's also on the appropriations and judiciary
> committees.
>
> In any case, the Dems got another senator----a critical thing when
> you consider that they now have the magic number of 60.
So they'll have no trouble passing all their bills, right? :-)
> Actually, there have been hundreds of such 'turncoats'---although
> it's much more common at the state politics level:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party switching in the United States
I never argued otherwise.
> > > In addition, there just aren't
> > > enough seats up for election in that time frame.
> >
> > Now THAT'S a valid point. I don't think it takes many to swing the
> > Senate in 2010. But Congress would be another matter. But if enough
> > people lost their homes...
>
> Well, actually, all the congressional seats are up in 2010---but I don't
> think there will be enough change. The Dems have a 256 to 179 lead, and
> I can't see the Republicans gaining 78 seats unless things get a LOT
> worse in the next year.
>
> > Did you know Deutschebank estimates that 48% of people will be upside
> > down in their mortgage? But don't worry, the S&P is up 20%! Oh, and
> > more homes sold this summer than in the winter! It's all easy train
> > from here for Obama! :-)
>
> Oh, yes. We all know how good the large banks are at predicting the
> housing market! Let's agree to check that statistic in 2011---the
> time frame of the DB estimate. Then let's subtract the number of
> homeowners who don't really give a hoot, because they don't expect
> to sell the house in 2011.
We all know how good you've been about predicting the housing market
price collapse compared to me. :-)
I called this market and Deutschebank's figures are reasonable and
already well on their way.
If you think homeowners don't give a hoot because they don't plan to
sell that their market costs more than they owe to the bank, I highly
suggest you don't go into politics or marketing for that matter.
> > > Whatever the problems
> > > Obama and the Democrats have, the Republicans have shown no hint of a
> > > positive plan for the economy or anything else.
> >
> > Nonsense. They got Bill Clinton to sign off on their legislation. It
> > worked great for the economy back then, didn't it? :-)
>
> Is "delusional" more an ad-hom than "nonsense"? ;-)
>
> That was 10 years ago , this is now. If you think the Republicans have
> a plan, let's hear it!
So all of a sudden history doesn't matter when it's, Church Lady tone,
INCONVENIENT! Ok.
Republican's plan, brutal as it is, is to cut losses, deal with the
fallout, and move on. Yes, it's simple but it is a plan and smarter
than what the administration is doing.
regards,
PolishKnight
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>> Heidi wrote:
>> We are talking about *underage* children. These ones have
>> not yet reached the age of consent, nor the age of majority.
>> Until that time, parents have a duty and an obligation to
>> look after the wellbeing of their children.
> Andrew wrote:
> That doesn't justify using the concept 'give up', does it?
Giving up as in handing over. A child is supposed to
enjoy the protection and guidance of parents. And if
a parent hands over or gives up a child to an adult
who wants to have a sexual relationship with this
child, I would consider that child-abuse...the parent
and perp I would consider both guilty parties for not
protecting the child from something he/she is not at
all ready for and mature enough to engage in.
>Anyway, how
> does a duty of _parents_ translate into a need for _law_ ?
If parents would do their duty, there would be no such
need for such a law. Given these child protection laws
do exist, indicates to me that all too many parents are
not doing their job.
>
>> 12 to 15-year olds
>> have not yet reached the age of consent. You claim this
>> age group should be looked at on a case by case basis.
> Andrew wrote:
> Yes. And saying that 'they have not reached the age of consent' is
> begging the question, given that the argument is about what the age of
> consent should be.
I say age of consent of 16 years is reasonable. Age of majority 19, too,
is reasonable.
You disagree: You believe age of consent should be set at 15, but
including allowances on a case by case basis for 12 to 14 year olds.
I'm not willing to move from my position and neither are you.
Fortunately,
though, I have the law on my side. You, however, do not!
>
> AND YOU ARE STILL EVADING as you snipped the second paragraph which
> contained the actual question. WHY can't you answer it?
You mean this one?
"I would guess almost all people nowadays
have their first sexual experience with someone their parents did not
approve of, and that that's not really a bad thing. Besides, fathers
that feel this way are likely to still do so once their daughters turn
18, should they still have the right to torture any man sleeping with
her then, Heidi? Really?"
What's to answer? If the age of consent is set at 16, the father
has to refrain from torturing his 18-year old daughter's boyfriend.
>>Heidi wrote:
>> So, now I'm asking you:
>>
>> If you had a 12-year old daughter and she came home one
>> day all excited and she proudly pronounced, "Hey, Daddy.
>> I want you to meet my new boyfriend," and you see
>> a 35-year old man standing next to her holding her
>> hand, what would be your reaction?
>Andrew wrote:
> I don't know. That's my honest answer. I might well order them to not
> see each other,
Why?
>but I know that I should not enforce that by violent
> means.
Well, other fathers feel differently. And if these fathers are
willing to accept the consequences, then who are you to tell
them not to beat the crap out of a pedophile?
Some fathers may even decide that jail time is worth it
if they managed to kill a pedophile in defence of their
own 12-year old daughters.
Heidi
PolishKnight
"Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote:
> >"PolishKnight" <mare...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:marek1965-AC87C...@news.giganews.com...
> (snip)
>
> >PK wrote:
> > Ok, all that said, from what I read on the forum, Heidi, it appears that
> > you've thrown your boys to the wolvettes, in a manner of speaking
> > putting your gender concerns ahead of your maternal instincts. I'd be
> > horrified if a young man went to "ladies" night and threw money around
> > just for the sake of begging for feminine attention.
>
> LOL...my, oh my, PK, you sure do love to gabble, don't you?
Only on Thanksgiving. :-)
> Just because you had to go around begging for feminine attention,
> doesn't mean my own sons do that. Neither one of them ever
> had to beg. They draw attention merely by showing up! Feminine
> heads turn to gaze at these handsome sights.
Yeah, they had to pay more for drinks (and possibly pay for the women's
drinks too) because the women find them so attractive. :-)
> I think if I were to ever catch my boys begging, I'd clobber them!
> <just kidding>. Really, though, I think I would remind them that
> they are not to debase themselves by begging. I consider that
> unseemly and totally inappropriate for *anyone.* The only men
> I've ever seen begging for feminine attention were Americans
> and Germans. And believe me, that was not a handsome sight.
> I was so disgusted by that show of desperation...I was almost moved
> to pity, but I caught myself in time! ;-)
>
> > could give him the same experience at home and just starve him for a day
> > and tell him that if he begged, I could throw meat on the floor. You
> > didn't care that your sons were treated as second class citizens in many
> > cases. Fine. As a parent you're entitled to your opinion and I'm
> > entitled to mine.
>
> Well...there's one thing you've got going for you...you've got a vivid
> imagination. The draw-back...you imagine wrongly.
>
> Heidi
Heidi, I never begged for sex. I paid for it. But I didn't beg.
Begging is when a man spends money to get some attention from women.
Your sons paid more for drinks and/or the women's drinks to get
attention from them. At least with the Germans, they don't pretend
they're NOT begging! :-)
regards,
PolishKnight
Andrew Usher
> > That doesn't justify using the concept 'give up', does it?
>
> Giving up as in handing over.
Why is a sexual relationship 'handing over'?
> A child is supposed to
> enjoy the protection and guidance of parents. And if
> a parent hands over or gives up a child to an adult
> who wants to have a sexual relationship with this
> child,
Of course in almost all cases the parent doesn't make the decision to
initiate the relationship. The minor and his or her adult partner do.
You are obfuscating by making it out to be the parent forcing their
child into sex.
> I would consider that child-abuse...the parent
> and perp I would consider both guilty parties for not
> protecting the child from something he/she is not at
> all ready for and mature enough to engage in.
How do you decide that? You should know that similar argument have
been used in the past respecting all unmarried women.
> >Anyway, how
> > does a duty of _parents_ translate into a need for _law_ ?
>
> If parents would do their duty, there would be no such
> need for such a law. Given these child protection laws
> do exist, indicates to me that all too many parents are
> not doing their job.
What do you think this 'duty' is? Does it include torture?
I'll keep a note of this belief ...
> > Yes. And saying that 'they have not reached the age of consent' is
> > begging the question, given that the argument is about what the age of
> > consent should be.
>
> I say age of consent of 16 years is reasonable. Age of majority 19, too,
> is reasonable.
And that's only an assertion, not an argumen.
> Fortunately,
> though, I have the law on my side. You, however, do not!
Well, I have reason on my side and you do not.
> > AND YOU ARE STILL EVADING as you snipped the second paragraph which
> > contained the actual question. WHY can't you answer it?
>
> You mean this one?
>
> "I would guess almost all people nowadays
> have their first sexual experience with someone their parents did not
> approve of, and that that's not really a bad thing. Besides, fathers
> that feel this way are likely to still do so once their daughters turn
> 18, should they still have the right to torture any man sleeping with
> her then, Heidi? Really?"
>
> What's to answer? If the age of consent is set at 16, the father
> has to refrain from torturing his 18-year old daughter's boyfriend.
But you said above that the law is only needed because parents don't
do 'their duty' (of course you mean fathers, we know you (representing
women) wouldn't do anything yourself, but simply order your
<s>husband</s>slave to do something.) But parents, if taking this
matter into their own hands, are certainly not going to use an
arbitrary fixed age limit. So where does it come from?
And if, as you say, violence is not justified with the minor (always a
daughter with you - why? Do no adult women sleep with teenage boys in
Heidiland, or do you just not care?) only when below the age of
consent, when the law would step in. It's pretty odd to advocate
vigilante justice exactly where the law _does_ apply!
By the way, I unlike you _can_ justify a fixed age limit. I don't
think the law is a substitute for or strengthening up private violence
(which is wrong anyway) or is intended to change any other private
behavior. The law to me is intended only to deter predatory
paedophilia, and for _that_ purpose a fixed age limit makes it more
just.
> >Andrew wrote:
> > I don't know. That's my honest answer. I might well order them to not
> > see each other,
>
> Why?
It shouldn't be necessary to answer that one.
> >but I know that I should not enforce that by violent
> > means.
>
> Well, other fathers feel differently. And if these fathers are
> willing to accept the consequences, then who are you to tell
> them not to beat the crap out of a pedophile?
The same reason I can tell them not to 'beat the crap our of' anyone
else that pisses them off. Besides, appealing to 'consequences' is
absurd as you think such violence is a good thing, therefore in your
ideal world there would be no consequences for it.
> Some fathers may even decide that jail time is worth it
> if they managed to kill a pedophile in defence of their
> own 12-year old daughters.
Very few do, fortunately.
And I note you use the word 'defence'. You continue to advocate the
model that a girl's virginity is something that needs 'defending' -
but most women of any age that are sexually active are because they
want to be, not because some evil man 'stole' their virginity. Maybe
you should read Mark's demolition of your worldview a few posts up.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> The primary purpose of taxation, Heidi, is to collect funds to support
> government programs. This is the primary reason why socialism doesn't
> work outside of a few hippy communities of mostly white people: It's
> very difficult to make a government PROFITABLE, hence, the need for
> taxes.
What's your definition of 'socialism'? Mine doesn't exclude any
particular means of taxation.
I agree, of course, that Heidi's 'environmental levy' could never
raise enough money, she clearly hasn't run any numbers or even a
sanity check. That's true, I'm afraid, of most political proposals
from women.
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
(snip)
> I agree, of course, that Heidi's 'environmental levy' could never
> raise enough money, she clearly hasn't run any numbers or even a
> sanity check. That's true, I'm afraid, of most political proposals
> from women.
Hehehehe...I deliberately withheld the information as to
who proposed the idea of no taxes on income, but
taxing consumer goods instead. The idea came from
a highly educated man, a real rocket scientist...an
expert in physics. Granted, his expertise is not
in high finance, but he knows his numbers. LOL..
I just wanted to see what your reaction would be.
You two proved true to form.
Thanks,
Heidi
Mark Borgerson
mare...@comcast.net says...
> In article <MPG.24e7873b7...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
<< Major snippage will occur below----this is getting too long >>
<<SNIP>>
There are other costs that many businesses consider. I think Google
located their data center along the Columbia river for the
cheap power.
>
> > > > Which city slicker can afford properties closer to home? Where is
> > > > their home? Do you mean that people in the far-out suburbs can
> > > > now afford homes closer to work?
> > >
> > > I was talking about situations such as California where people cashed
> > > out their real estate to move to lower priced regions and also
> > > businesses that located to rural/mid-west regions to deal with the high
> > > cost of real estate/labor in major metro regions during the boom.
> > >
> > > Naturally, when high prices for residential and commercial real estate
> > > in those regions no longer apply, then money that helped push up prices
> > > (and jobs) in the alternative regions also decrease.
> >
> > By 'those regions' do you mean California in the example above?
>
> As you know, California is more than just Los Angeles, San Diego, and
> San Franscisco. That's just _1/2_ of the state. :-)
>
> I'm talking largely about major metro regions such as the greater Los
> Angeles region, the Bay Area, but I guess as it applies to you maybe
> also Seattle and Las Vegas?
>
> A business looking to expand or relocate would consider Las Vegas, for
> example, a bargain right now.
Depends on the type of business. Energy costs are about 25% lower
in the Pacific Northwest.
>
> > > This applies to suburbs, exoburbs, rural regions, etc. What pumps up
> > > all balloons also deflates them.
> > That's a horrible analogy! When was the last time you pumped air out
> > of a balloon! Balloons are, by nature, self-deflating. No pumping
> > required.
>
> By that token, then, "bubbles" are a bad example for some markets that
> are self-inflating such as metro regions that experience price increases
> that make their own "air."
>
> But your point actually can be used against your claim that your region
> is somehow special and immune from price deflation because it will "self
> deflate" without too much help. Come now, Mark, don't you know that
> young people generally tend to move AWAY from rural regions to the big
> city?
Not necessarily to the big city---as in New York or LA. A lot of young
people end up in cities under 50,000 population---particularly if they
go to college in one and hang around afterwards. While my house is
considered a rural residential property, the city limits of a town
of 58,000 are across my back fence.
<<SNIP Pundits section-- I don't watch them often enough to have
an informed opinion>>
<<Snip section on French restaurants started with an anecdote and ended
with your confession of minimal personal experience>>
Look Again, Mark. A number of new power plants have been started or
completed in the last few years----There are more than 23 coal-fired
plants under construction as of June 2009.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf
A number of new nuclear generating facilities are either planned
or under construction:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html
There have also been a number of wind-energy plants completed in
the last few years.
>
> Next, it's a non-sequitur because the cost of the permits is due to the
> government itself. If the government stopped looking the other way when
> windmills ground up bald eagles and started charging more for permits,
> then they wouldn't be feasible either :-) (Don't quibble over whether
> they really grind up bald eagles, please MarkB. Just chuckle if you can
> over the joke and get the point, ok?)
Actually, There have been a lot of permitting delays for wind plants
due to environmenttal concerns.
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/10/69177
It's not the government that is primarily responsible for the
delays and problems---it's non-governmental organizations.
If you ever want to see the impact of that---try walking into
a bar in a small town west of the Rockies with a Sierra Club
baseball cap! ;-)
>
> > They don't want new plants in their neighborhood or new powerlines
> > across their property.
>
> I concede this, but this is just one aspect of the liberal opposition to
> eeeeevil technology. It comes across as you obfuscating the issue.
I thought liberals were in favor of wind energy---which is on the
forefront of technology. Perhaps you need to give us a better
definition of 'eeeevil technology'.
I provided lots of cites for my comments on wind power and windmill
technology. You provided none for your comment about roads.
>
> In any case, your little condescending lecture and red herring doesn't
> disprove my point that just because the highway stands in the same place
> and has the same direction that it wasn't rebuilt/worked on enough to
> offset the original cost. A tear down home that's rebuilt is still
> pointing in the same direction too.
Cite?
>
> I'll take your red herring/appeal to authority as an indication that you
> don't have any other effective response. Moving on:
You had no authority for your own claim in the first place---neither
citation nor personal experience. That sounds like a good reason
for moving on.
>
> > > > The Projected lifetimes of many of the new wind turbines
> > > > are about 20 years. I suspect that they will pay off the capital
> > > > investment in about 5-10 years if power rates don't.
> > >
> > > Er, you missed the point again. Spectacularly, I might add.
> > >
> > > If the projected energy return cost is 25 years, and the turbines only
> > > last 20, how are they somehow saving energy and the Earth (much less
> > > producing net energy?)
> >
> > I wasn't talking about the energy return cost. That's part of the
> > ecological life cycle calculations, not the investment calculation.
> > The energy return time for many new wind farms is about 5 years.
> > That's how long it takes them to generate more energy than it
> > took to build them.
>
> And there are many ex-cons who are fine examples of society upon their
> release. Would you want a bunch of them to move next door to you?
WOW! King of the non-sequiturs.....energy return to ex-cons.
>
> Without digressing into the fundamentals of prison road construction and
> paving and prison food portion sizes, consider what's fundamentally
> wrong with the logic of the above sentence and how it relates to your
> own claims of energy return for wind farms.
OK. what is wrong with the logic of your sentence: "Would you want a bunch
of them to move next door to you?"
>
> > Even if a particular turbine has parts that require replacement
> > in 20 years, the facility itself may have a longer life, as you
> > won't need new towers, transmission lines or site preparation.
>
> Why THANKS for opening up that can of worms! Yummy!
>
> Indeed, one of the main things killing the tree hugger back-to-the-13th
> century windmill farm idea is that the transmission lines and power
> moderation costs would be tremendous. How much STEEL (or is it
> aluminium? Oh, crap, now we're going to have to get into that!) Ok, how
> much METAL goes into a power transmission line and how much energy cost
> goes into that?
I would guess about the same amount that goes into power transmission
line for any other power source. If you look at the locations of
many current wind farms, you will see that they are often located
to existing high-capacity transmission lines. For example:
"The Shepherd's Flat project area is between highways 19 and 74 on
privately owned land, about five miles southeast of Arlington. The power
output of the facility would enter the Federal Columbia River
Transmission System through Bonneville Power Administration's Slatt
Substation."
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2008/07/28/daily1.html
> Ok, pet peeve here. I don't know if I called you Andre because of his
> snarkiness (he's more like a rabid yapper dog when he gets annoyed) but
> you seem to love to get into a quibble over some tiny thing and then a
> sub quibble. I'm reminded of this routine in Monty Python:
>
> BRIAN: Uh, well, the birds, then.
>
> EDDIE: What birds?
>
> BRIAN: Any birds.
>
> EDDIE: Why?
>
> BRIAN: Well, have they got jobs?
>
> ARTHUR: Who?
>
> BRIAN: The birds.
>
> EDDIE: Have the birds got jobs?!
>
> FRANK: What's the matter with him?
>
> ARTHUR: He says the birds are scrounging.
>
> BRIAN: Oh, uhh, no, the point is the birds. They do all right. Don't
> they?
>
> FRANK: Well, good luck to 'em.
>
> EDDIE: Yeah. They're very pretty.
>
> BRIAN: Okay, and you're much more important than they are, right? So,
> what are you worrying about? There you are. See?
>
> EDDIE: I'm worrying about what you have got against birds.
>
> BRIAN: I haven't got anything against the birds. Consider the lilies.
>
> ARTHUR: He's having a go at the flowers now.
>
I'll leave your Monty Python digression here for now-----
Ummm, IIRC, you're the one who brought French Restaurants road
construction and Christams shopping into the discussion! ;-) I
think both of those deserved some response as digressions---whether you
consider those responses to be quibbles or not.
>
<<SNIP>>
> > Gee, since the Republicans had a majority in Congress from 2000 to
> > 2006, why couldn't Bush get this passed? It must not have been
> > a high enough priority for him to expend his political capital.
> > Another pointless political execise---worth talking about, but
> > not worth getting done.
>
> Consider that Obama is having a hard time getting his Cap and Tax and
> CommieCare bills passed due to bluedog Democrats and strong political
> and public opposition.
>
> That said, you have a point that Bush probably did have other priorities
> and that is one of the many contentions I have with his administration.
> He sold out and conceded a variety of worthwhile causes often for
> unnecessary reasons including allowing marshalls to confiscate law
> abiding gunowners firearms during Hurricaine Katrina (these were people
> who were keeping ORDER in their communities and a net social asset),
> lawsuits against affirmative action, etc.
Let's leave gun ownership issues for another thread.
>
> In some ways, also, political realities do sometimes require letting one
> bone go to save another one. A lesson that Obama clearly is slow to
> learn based upon him letting go terrorists on US soil. Hmmm, that
> analogy about an ex con moving next to you might have some usefulness...
Ummm----who said he was going to let them go?? Last I heard there were
no plans except to transfer some unconvicted enemy combatants to US
supermax prisons---where we already have a number of convicted
terrorists.
You've got your logic backwards: I didn't ignore it, I just didn't
anything about it. I haven't said anything about an infinity of
subjects in this discussion---that doesn't mean I'm ignoring those
subjects.
>
> > > > > Despite those advantages, he still wound up being a patsy for Greenspan
> > > > > and the Republicans. What an irony, eh?
> > > >
> > > > In what way was he a patsy?
> > >
> > > My bad. A patsy is a dupe who witlessly takes someone else's blame.
> > > He's more like a pawn.
> > >
> > > "The era of big government is over" -- Bill Clinton
> > >
> > > It's amazing that Clinton said something like that, isn't it? That's
> > > the action of someone desperate to survive, politically. There's NO way
> > > he would have said something like that if he hadn't broken the left's
> > > own laws about sexual harassment.
> >
> > It's also ironic that government continued to increase under Bush
> > and the Republican Congress. At least they kept quiet or complained
> > about the increases that happened on their watch.
>
> I don't deny that. As I said, I was at best a lukewarm supporter of
> Bush and voted against him in the primaries along with against McCain.
>
> But since you didn't response directly to my point about Clinton (you
> just made an attack against the Bushes), I'll take your non response as
> a sign of agreement that Clinton was a dupe.
AHA! The old Lieven "Silence implies agreement" tactic.
>
> > > > > Just as Obama's best accomplishments so far is sending more money to
> > > > > rich white male bankers and investors and blowing all the money before
> > > > > trying to pass his extreme leftist agenda. I couldn't have planned it
> > > > > any better myself.
> > > >
> > > > I agree. You've shown no evidence of any economic planning skills.
> > >
> > > Amazing. Yeah, other than me calling out the biggest economic bubble in
> > > our lifetime, what have I shown here? And showing the obvious
> > > inpracticality of windmills as an energy source OR national economic
> > > strategy using your figure of 25 years, why that didn't take any
> > > economic planning skills at all...
> >
> > None of that is planning. It is all reaction to events over which
> > you had no control. If you have economic planning skills, contact
> > your local Republican Party office. They need those skills.
>
> Er, I wonder Mark, how many presidential campaigns have you served on?
> Have you ever served in any mid to high level political office? Or any
> political office that requires public campaigning?
I never said that I had done any of those things. If I had, would
you apply the same dismissing tactics you used when I cited my
experience with highway construction?
>
> And whether I have "control" over somether or not doesn't mean I can't
> plan for it. I planned to buy a house later rather than be a herd
> animal and hope for luck like some people.
Yes, but you had control of that issue---so a claim of "planning"
is valid.
>
> > > (that's sarcasm.)
> >
> > But true, nonetheless.
>
> I find it perpetually amusing how snarky and condescending white
> liberals can be that they're so smart, blah blah blah, for being
> leftists (I'm talking in general, not about you specifically) when the
> reality is that most leftists, on average, are HS dropouts.
That's good. Because I'm a fairly conservative person---certainly
not a leftist.
> It is,
> after all, a marxist philosophy that requires the voting masses of the
> poor and illterate to keep in power. In general, without us
> poor-planning-joe-six-packs such as myself, you'd just be one of the few
> middle class in a third world banana republic. That's the best that
> Obama can hope to accomplish. It's a rather sad, futureless ideology
> much like the poor saps buying homes in 2004....
>
Why do you think that you and I are so different? I get the impression
that you, like me are a college graduate working in a high-tech field.
I'm also a small business owner and a registered Republican.
As a side note: I recently got a GOP Census document from the
Republican National Committee with about twenty policy questions.
Almost all the questions are about how the party should resist
the current administration----very few questions indicate any
proactive approach to current problems.
You can see the document at:
http://iamthecarczar.blogspot.com/2009/06/five-census-document-
questions-for.html
if you didn't get one of your own.
The most interesting response was:
"Do you think sending out an official RNC Census Document Questionnaire
loaded with childishly inflammatory questions straight out of some
Fuller Brush salesman's porch-step persuasion playbook is going to
secure the loyalty of the last sane members of our Grand Old Party?"
> > > > The country as a whole has done better than you in that it hasn't
> > > > had to declare bankruptcy--yet ;-)
> > >
> > > I don't have the option of printing up trillion dollar Obama bills,
> > > either. A person, and nation, can only declare bankruptcy so often or
> > > print up lots of debt. To MY credit, it took me a few years to generate
> > > the debt. Obama's blown his wad in just a few months.
> >
> > But he hasn't had to declare bankruptcy.
>
> Er, I just said that. It's amazing how you can pick up on me calling
> you Andre, or the quibbles of the size of French Restaurant portions,
> but you can't seem to figure out that I just agreed with you and moved
> on.
>
> > Let's see... Bush cut taxes
> > and signed a $700B economic recovery bill late in his term when
> > he wouldn't have to worry about the political fallout. Obama
>
> Oooh! Oooh! Let me finish that sentence.
>
> Obama... voted for the economic recovery (bailout) bill along with John
> McCain and was even proud of the fact.
>
> This kind of reminds me of feminist thinking: When a woman has sex with
> a man and then she gets pregnant later and bears the child it's... all
> the man's fault since he chose to have sex with her. :-)
AAARGH! Perhaps we need a corrollary to Godwin's Law----Whenever
feminism is brought into the discussion, it has degraded to the
point of irrelevancy.
>
> > signed a $787B bill in his first month, when he has to worry
> > about the consequences for another 7-1/2 years.
>
> Hahahahhaa!
>
> Oh, MarkB, what a delightful act of self-denial. That's incredible.
> Like Obama was so noble for blowing wad of money, mostly on pork for his
> political buddies, because he was worried about the "consequences" for
> the next 7.5 years?
>
> He's already trying to spend more again. This is like a woman going on
> a shopping spree at DeBeers for $10,0000 because she says the diamonds
> will last her a lifetime and then asking you for another set for
> Christmas.
>
> I love the logic: Bush spending money, with Democrats (and even angering
> Dems for not spending it fast enough) is reckless but Obama doing so
> is... so noble.
You're the one who brought nobility into the discussion. I don't think
any politician acts from completely noble principles.
Obama is continuing with the economic activities started under Bush.
Nothing particularly noble about that----simply a reaction to the
same economic advice that started the whole bailout thing.
>
> > I don't see
> > any big difference---other than Bush didn't enter office with
> > a problem of the same magnitude.
>
> True. Obama took a problem to a whole NEW magnitude!
Of course---ANY action to allocate more money would be a new
magnitude.
If you feel the need to jiggle---feel free to do so. I've just left
my retirement funds in about the same allocation as they had for
the last 5 years.
>
> Yeah, MarkB, keep your money there. It's a sure bet like real estate!
Got any better advice? Perhaps I should buy gold and 30-06 ammunition!
>
> > Real estate may well be higher at
> > the end of the Obama administration than it is now. What is your
> > point here?
>
> You really believe that? You REALLY believe that real estate will come
> back to 2006 levels in Obama's term? Even if he manages to stay in
> office 8 years?
You didn't read my sentence very carefully, did you? Note that I
do not believe 'now' is 2006.
Tell us again about the close connection between Iraq and Al Queda....
>
> It's so NOT a good time to buy real estate in DC or NYC right now...
Wasn't in my plans anyway. I don't plan to buy or sell any real estate
in the next decade.
>
> > > > > It's liberal PR spin that the Republican attacks had a reverse effect.
> > > > > It reminds me of what a narrator said on the History channel: "WWII USA
> > > > > propogandists said that the Kamikazi's had little effect on naval
> > > > > effectiveness. The Japanese... knew better."
> > > >
> > > > AAARGH! You're depending on the history channel for historical
> > > > perspective....
> > >
> > > I don't take it as gospel, no. I hate the way they use the PC "BCE" and
> > > "ACE" terms for dates and their silly global warming religion. Praise
> > > Science!
> >
> > The BCE and ACE terminology is popping up in a lot of real history and
> > science books. I guess it mostly reflects some of the uncertainties
> > in dates for events for which the standard European calendar was
> > not in use.
>
> (Versus unreal history or science books. More appeals to authority
> again.)
I'm not appealing to authority---I'm explaining why the notation has
changed. The authorities won't listen to me in any case... ;-)
>
> Yeah, I guess the "common era" calendar was in use in ancient China back
> in year 1000AD, er, 1000ACE, or, oh, wait, it wasn't! Is China a part
> of the world? Could you check into that for me? (That's sarcasm, BTW)
Does it have a point? I don't see any particular point in tying a
dating system to the calendar of one particular religion. Are you
really concerned about changes in historical date notations? If not,
why did you bring it up in the first place?
> So the term "common era" is just a useless and even misleading term.
> But it's also politically correct. Which suits it's misleading and
> useless nature just fine. I guess it mostly reflects the anti-Christian
> tendencies of the people in authority who disliked the term and then
> pretended otherwise and for some people to believe the shallow excuse
> due to their gullability and ego.
Might it also have something to do with the fact that a minority of
the history described in the document is not the history of
Christians?
>
> > > > > Clinton is popular, but as a dishonest, slimy, but likeable clown.
> > > >
> > > > That may be your opinion. I'm sure that there are a couple of
> > > > families that feel differently this week.
> > >
> > > You mean the families of the people rotting in prison that Clinton
> > > didn't get out and their fate (and beliefs) have been undermined by
> > > his visit legitimizing the regime?
> >
> > For sure. No good deed goes unpunished.
>
> Ah, another arguement of moral equivalence in leau of addressing
> criticism.
I note that neither of us mentioned any specific names or cases other
than Clinton---so let's drop that one on lack of data.
>
> If I were in your shoes, I would have responded that maybe not
> addressing the Jong regime directly was a mistake and that more openness
> could work in our favor rather than trying to pretend the problem
> doesn't exist. But your need to reflexively engage in denial sought a
> redirect ploy. I'm helping you here! I guess it's boredom! I'm almost
> at the end here.
Is that the way you feel about North Korea, or the way you think I
should feel?
>
> > > It's a fantastic example you've alluded to because it's a perfect
> > > allegory for his administration: He showed up and was used as a
> > > puppethead for someone else's agenda. We could have sent Jesse Jackson
> > > there and Kim Jong would have let them go.
> >
> > Are you sure of that? IIRC, the NK government specifically asked for
> > Clinton.
>
> Valid observation, but it actually shoots your argument in the foot that
> Clinton did anything special. If all he had to do was show up to
> satisfy Kim's demands, then he was effectively a puppet. Much like his
> brilliant career in the states. :-)
Any government needs a few good puppets ;-) I guess Clinton has
taken over the job from Jimmy Carter.
>
> "Sign this welfare reform bill, will you Bill?"
> "Lower these interest rates like I asked, will you Bill?"
>
> The best Democrat, ironically, is one porking fat interns in his office
> and not doing anything. Maybe Obama should get one.
Just love to get in your Clinton digs, don't you. IIRC, there was
no actual 'porking' proven.....but maybe that's a distinction we
shouldn't be worried about.
>
> > > > > Ironically, it helped to destroy the cherished myth/image that the left
> > > > > had built up over the years: The professor scholar, whose so smart (and
> > > > > you can be too if you agree with him) with his facts and figures and,
> > > > > therefore, right.
> > > >
> > > > Was Clinton ever a professor? I know he was a Rhodes Scholar. That
> > > > alone, is enough to separate him from GWB.
> > >
> > > Indeed, that kind of remark is a perfect example of leftist need to
> > > associate themselves with smart people and calling their opponents
> > > stupid. Only smart people know how to do that.
> >
> > In addition to not answering the question, that statement made no
> > sense at all.
>
> And quibbling over whether Clinton was LITERALLY a professor when the
> point was made rhetorically is also useful.
>
> Very well, if it suits you I don't think he was a professor. Happy?
Thank you. If you're going to ask questions---don't get upset if
I answer them---or build on them.
>
> > Are you assuming that conservativea have no need
> > to associate themselves with smart people? I thought it was a
> > given that politicians of all sorts used intelligence as a primary
> > criteria when selecting associates.
>
> Hahaha! That reminds me of a great line from the film My Cousin Vinny:
>
> Q: Out of work hairdresser? Now, in what way does that qualify you as an
> expert in automobiles?
>
> A: It doesn't.
>
> Q: In what way are you qualified?
>
> A: Well, my father was a mechanic, his father was a mechanic, my
> mother's father was a mechanic, my three brothers are mechanics, four
> uncles on my father's side are mechanics--
>
> Question, again: Are you in politics, MarkB?
I'm not running for office or working for any candidates. If I were,
would you dismiss any statements as an appeal to authority?
> I'm not but I would GUESS
> that they choose their associates based upon USEFULNESS. As simple as
> that. Stupid is as stupid does as the saying goes (I'm sure it wasn't
> just from the movie.) There are lots of rich people SMARTER than GW,
> for example. And GW got a hell of a lot farther in his life than you
> did. But you're "smarter" than him. Ok...
Why do you assume that I'm "smarter" than him? Because I don't make
as many silly mistakes in grammar and diction?
In any case, GW started in life well ahead of me---if you measure
that start in economic or political terms. Has he gotten further
than me as an embedded computer engineer? I don't think so.
>
> > As for only the left calling people stupid---you must not have listened
> > to Rush lately! ;-)
>
> I listen to Rush on and off/on against basis and Rush usually doesn't
> resort to using the S word unless he's flabbergasted by a particularly
> foolish policy. The left uses the term on a regular basis even as they
> like to claim the right wing are a bunch of haters. But then again,
> what can one say about a religion/ideology that claims racism and hatred
> is the most evil thing in the world and hates white males due to their
> race?
You say the left uses the term on a regular basis, but you provide no
evidence. Why don't you start with your definition of "the left".
>
> > > > > The public is still confused. Consider that McCain (I call him
> > > > > McTraitor) didn't lose by THAT big of a margin and he did nutty things
> > > > > such as voting for the bailout bill, suspending his campaign, and
> > > > > basically trying to out liberal Obama and attend LaRaza functions.
> > > >
> > > > When your home state is Arizona, it is foolish to offend the
> > > > hispanic population.
> > >
> > > So maybe Senator Byrd should rejoin the KKK to avoid offending the white
> > > population...
> >
> > That's news to me. I had no idea he was ever a member of the KKK---but
> > then I haven't followed his career closely---I've never lived within
> > 500 miles of West Virginia. Do you think the majority of the
> > voters in West Virginia consider KKK membership a positive asset?
> >>
> > In any case, rejoining the KKK might be problematic after his
> > endorsement of Obama.
>
> Nonsense. You didn't even know he was a member of the KKK just as the
> Democrats didn't think it was a big deal that Sotomayer thanks that
> whites are less wise than Latinas.
That's totally unclear---how can you equate my personal knowledge
with your opinion of what the Democrats didn't think was a big
deal?
>
> I answer to your question, No. I don't think most whites think that
> belonging to a racist organization is an asset. That makes them
> different, apparently, from the typical leftist voter.
What is a typical leftist voter? If you can define that, perhaps
we can analyse your statement on the basis of set theory. "Most
whites" is pretty clear---but we might limit that set to white
americans of voting age.
I would agree with that only if you further posited that there
was an infinite supply of oil. With fuel cost very low and
supplies infinite, power companies could afford even better
pollution controls.
>
> The key benefit to oil, nuclear and coal and other silly forms of energy
> that work is that they are ecoomically efficient.
The economic efficiency of oil is tied to world prices. We're better
off with coal, since we have lots of reserves of our own. What
are 'silly' forms of energy. You lose your point when you slip in
undefined terms----even when it might be an attempt at humor.
>
> > This study shows that there is great variability in the economic payback
> > time for wind farms:
> >
> > http://www.lcacenter.org/InLCA2006/Lapuma1-presentation.pdf
> >
> > They predict that 63% of sites would pay back costs in less than
> > 15 years. That's the investment side of the equation.
> >
> > For the energy payback side, here's one from a site you should love:
> >
> > "The life cycle assessment of a 3.0 MW wind turbine indicates that it
> > would have to generate electricity for only 6.8 months , of their
> > assumed 20 year useful life, before it produces as much energy as is
> > used during the manufacturing phase."
> >
> > http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/wind turbine lca.php
> >
> > But they're quoting data from a Danish turbine manufacturer.
> >
> > If you're really interested in wind energy capital costs, you
> > can look at:
> >
> > http://www.nationalwind.org/publications/wes/wes11.htm
> >
> > http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/index.htm
>
> Hahahaha! For someone whose into "real" books as to whether BCE and ACE
> are "real" terms, I love how you quote a URL "treehugger" to prove a
> point that treehuggers prefer.
>
> The treehugger URL failed, FYI, even after I took out the spaces. And
> I'm not going on a paperchase to prove your points for you. If you
> like, please go to the library of congress, read all the books there,
> and then come back to me and tell me my points are wrong. That's
> basically what a paperchase argument is.
Is it any worse than an argument where one party provides no cites
at all?
>
> Either use your authoratitive sources property (use a proper URL with
> citations or at least quotes and the page number) or don't bother trying
> to lean on them.
>
Ah---then I would be taking your approach---humor, innuendo and opinion
only. I like to advance at least a step past that.
>
> > > And THAT may explain why Obama's popularity rating is sinking like a
> > > rock.
> >
> > WOW! He's 'sunk like a rock' to 50% approval. Bush didn't get above
> > 50% any time in his last 3-1/2 years. Let's see how they compare
> > at the midpoints of their administrations. (Not that we have a choice--
> > we all have to live through the next 4 years.)]
>
> Hmmm, thanks for bringing that up again. Indeed, Bush entered office
> after a contentious period when the Democrats were angry over him
> allegedly stealing the election because they didn't count enough illegal
> immigrant votes :-)
>
> Bush ENTERED office with lower approval ratings while Obama SQUANDERED
> them. Big difference.
>
> > > > > Maybe Obama will get lucky and be a lame duck for a year or so until
> > > > > Republicans take over the house and senate and give him bills to sign.
> > > > > I'm sure he'll just love that when he's popular. All hail the King!
> > > >
> > > > Better take your meds---you seem to be getting delusional.
> > >
> > > Wow, a juvenile ad-hom. As I said, I take such remarks as a positive
> > > sign that the subconscious mind is grasping hold. (That's the maturity
> > > level that most people develop it.)
> >
> > Nothing juvenile about it! And it's hardly worse than:
> >
> > "average American schlub"
> > "I call him McTraitor"
>
> How often did you hear the term schlub used in High School?
>
I don't even know if it was a term in use in the early 60's.
> McTraitor term is a play on him being a RINO and a traitor to
> conservatives, a valid political point.
>
> On the other hand, MarkB, accusing me of being clinically mentally
> unbalanced and using a sophmoric term to describe it (take your meds) is
> a juvenile taunt appropriate for secondary school.
OK. I guess I should have quoted Andre on that one rather than
just putting it in without attribution.
> Since
> leftism/liberalism/etc. sentiements are generally formed while people
> are young that tends to me their primary mental state when making knee
> jerk reflexive remarks so it goes back to that.
A reference to the origins of political thought without citation
or support---why am I not surprised.
>
> For me, I started using the term schlub in my 20's so it reflects that
> period of time in my life. Try it sometime and see how your language
> reflects the time your learned things.
I think your 20's are much more recent than my high school days.
>
> > > > I don't
> > > > think there is any way that the Republicans are going to take over the
> > > > house and senate in a year or so.
> > >
> > > I was referring to the 2010 elections. I guess it's something like a
> > > little more than a year? Time flies when someone is blowing political
> > > and economic capital...
> >
> > Well, I guess we can revisit the issue of Congressional party
> > balance in about 15 months. I figure that there is only
> > about a 20% probability that there will be Republican
> > majorities in the house and senate after the 2010 election.
> > Never underestimate the power of incumbency---it's not
> > something easily overcome in a single election cycle---
> > especially when it means a loss of seniority and committee
> > assignments.
> >
> > What is your guess on that probability?
>
> I would say it's the other way around.
OK. Are you willing to bet at 4:1 odds on that? I wonder if Las
Vegas has a line on the 2010 elections.
>
> Wait a minute here... Didn't you just try to make long term predictions
> about the stock market and real estate based upon short term rallies
I made no long-term predictions. I questioned whether current short-
term trends might continue. I have some hopes about the stock market---
but I'm not going to try to predict the S&P 500 over the next decade.
(Where do we draw the line between short-term and long-term???)
> (especially in the latter) and now you're saying that long term trends
> are hard to reverse?
I'm not saying that. Are you?
>
> I try to be careful about the predictions I make. Funny story: A
> co-worker heard me say that Hillary Clinton would never be president.
> And he dated and wrote down the quote and put it on his bulletin board
> (sometime in 2006).
>
You're a little early to win a bet based on "never". Given that Hillary
is ~62 and we've elected a 69-year-old, you may have to wait until
the 2016 elections to be really sure.
> Then McTraitor was nominated and I voted for Hillary Clinton as the
> Democrat spoiler candidate and he laughed his head off.
You got to vote for Clinton in a primary? Are you a registered
democrat, or does your state have open primaries?
> Here I was,
> someone who opposed Hillary, VOTING for her. He totally ragged on me
> after that!
>
> So who knows definitively what will happen? But that said, I would say
> the odds of Obama's drunken-sailor pork (literally) spending policies
> getting much more support are rather low. Healthcare is hard to reform
> for EITHER party since there are so many special interests with a hand
> in the pie. Care to tell seniors they can just go wait a few months in
> a Canadian clinic for an MRI they could get in hours?
WTF is 'drunken-sailor pork'. Pretty soon you're going to have to
add a glossary to your posts!
>
> Many homeowners still like to believe their region is "special" (except
> for YOURS, of course Mark, since yours REALLY is special and THEY are
> just nuts :-) When that little pet belief is crushed, they won't be
> happy.
Who is "they"???
I think you're confusing 'special' and 'different'. To some degree,
all regions are different and the same. Whether that makes Corvallis
any more 'special' than Phoenix is open to debate.
>
>
> > > > It's the Republicans who are
> > > > resigning in droves.
> > >
> > > You got a point there. It takes a federal indictment and conviction to
> > > get a Democrat to resign like Dem Congressman William Jefferson.
> >
> > Yeah. Some of the Republicans don't wait for the trial and verdict.
>
> Indeed. But what's your point here, exactly? That Democrats are less
> likely to resign even if they're guilty? I'll agree with you there.
Ah, so Democrats are persistent and Republicans are not?
>
> > > Obama, on the other hand, has really showed a lot of principles in
> > > office. hahahahaha! yeah, only kidding. Transparency by not releasing
> > > secret bills, not reading them, and then getting upset when executives
> > > get bonuses. It's the "stupid" Republicans fault! :-)
> >
> > Isn't it a bit of a stretch to hope for the release of a 'secret bill'?
> > If you release it, it's no longer a secret!
>
> Er, of course. ALL secrets are no longer secret when they're released.
> But when they were secret, they were, secret (for that time frame).
> Obama promised transparency in government. It's hilarious that his own
> broken oath caused CEO's to get huge bonuses.
Which oath was that? The only one I'm familiar with requires him
to preserve and protect the constitution to the best of his abilities.
I guess we can agree to disagree on the extent of his abilities! ;-)
>
> > You're the one associating "stupid" and Republicans. I just think
> > they haven't expressed a clear vision of how they would change
> > the economy for the better.
>
> Straight from the Democrat strategic talking points.
Where did you find those talking points---on Fox News? ;-)
>
> You (and they) have a valid point in that the Republicans are made up of
> a lot of moderates (including Bush and McCain) along with fiscal
> conservatives and, of course, the religious right. These groups are
> often in conflict with each other.
>
> The left, to it's credit, has been a bit more homogenious or at least
> cooperative: Hate white males and get free goodies from the government.
> However... be careful what you wish for (a majority congress/Senate)
> because the blue dog dems who ran as conservatives to dupe red state
> districts now are under more scrutiny. In addition, all that money spent
> by health care lobbyists is coming home to roost.
Those same blue dog dems seem a good argument against assumed democratic
homogeneity. But once again I am left wondering what you mean by
the 'left'. (Pun unintentional---but worth leaving in).
>
> The republicans _do_ have an agenda that includes more choice in health
> care (such as health care savings plans, limits on lawsuits (John
> Edwards, hello?), etc.) Plus they have one option you haven't
> considered: Just doing nothing. Yes, doing nothing doesn't sound like
> much of a plan but, then again, just blowing money on pork to feel
> better doesn't help much either in the long run.
Aha----so you're predicting "the long run". Just how long is that?
>
> > > > Even when a governor appoints another republican,
> > > > I think the newbie loses all seniority.
> > >
> > > Like turncoat Arlen Specter. I think they have him on the Siberian
> > > waste management committee. :-) Good going "one bullet" Arlen!
> >
> > Is that a reference to his membership on the Committee on Environment
> > and Public Works? He's also on the appropriations and judiciary
> > committees.
> >
> > In any case, the Dems got another senator----a critical thing when
> > you consider that they now have the magic number of 60.
>
> So they'll have no trouble passing all their bills, right? :-)
Not "no trouble", but probably less trouble.
>
> > Actually, there have been hundreds of such 'turncoats'---although
> > it's much more common at the state politics level:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party switching in the United States
>
> I never argued otherwise.
>
> > > > In addition, there just aren't
> > > > enough seats up for election in that time frame.
> > >
> > > Now THAT'S a valid point. I don't think it takes many to swing the
> > > Senate in 2010. But Congress would be another matter. But if enough
> > > people lost their homes...
> >
> > Well, actually, all the congressional seats are up in 2010---but I don't
> > think there will be enough change. The Dems have a 256 to 179 lead, and
> > I can't see the Republicans gaining 78 seats unless things get a LOT
> > worse in the next year.
> >
> > > Did you know Deutschebank estimates that 48% of people will be upside
> > > down in their mortgage? But don't worry, the S&P is up 20%! Oh, and
> > > more homes sold this summer than in the winter! It's all easy train
> > > from here for Obama! :-)
> >
> > Oh, yes. We all know how good the large banks are at predicting the
> > housing market! Let's agree to check that statistic in 2011---the
> > time frame of the DB estimate. Then let's subtract the number of
> > homeowners who don't really give a hoot, because they don't expect
> > to sell the house in 2011.
>
> We all know how good you've been about predicting the housing market
> price collapse compared to me. :-)
Since the collapse has been less than uniformly catastrophic, I'm
glad I never got into that prediction game.
>
> I called this market and Deutschebank's figures are reasonable and
> already well on their way.
>
> If you think homeowners don't give a hoot because they don't plan to
> sell that their market costs more than they owe to the bank, I highly
> suggest you don't go into politics or marketing for that matter.
At 63, I'm unlikely to ever be anything other than an embedded
computer designer. I've had enough career changes already.
>
> > > > Whatever the problems
> > > > Obama and the Democrats have, the Republicans have shown no hint of a
> > > > positive plan for the economy or anything else.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. They got Bill Clinton to sign off on their legislation. It
> > > worked great for the economy back then, didn't it? :-)
> >
> > Is "delusional" more an ad-hom than "nonsense"? ;-)
> >
> > That was 10 years ago , this is now. If you think the Republicans have
> > a plan, let's hear it!
>
> So all of a sudden history doesn't matter when it's, Church Lady tone,
> INCONVENIENT! Ok.
>
Clue: Plans from 10 years ago really don't count in 2009. Things
have changed--in case you haven't noticed that, take a look at
housing market stats! ;-)
> Republican's plan, brutal as it is, is to cut losses, deal with the
> fallout, and move on. Yes, it's simple but it is a plan and smarter
> than what the administration is doing.
As far as I can see from the RNC census, the Republican plan is
to both criticize Obama and hope he gets us out of the economic
mess. What do you mean by cutting losses, and what is 'moving on'
Of course the old adage may well apply to the Republicans "When
you don't know where you're going, any path will do."
Mark Borgerson
Mark Borgerson
mare...@comcast.net says...
Ummm---didn't you just say you spent money to get (sexual) attention
from women? ;-)
> Your sons paid more for drinks and/or the women's drinks to get
> attention from them. At least with the Germans, they don't pretend
> they're NOT begging! :-)
>
I always thought of begging as requesting something with no
expectation of having to provide a service in return---i.e.
street beggars.
The example seems more like women begging for drinks---with
no expectation of providing a service. The men were spending
with some (although small) expectation of a return on
investment. I don't think of that as begging---just foolish
spending.
Mark Borgerson
Andrew Usher
> Hehehehe...I deliberately withheld the information as to
> who proposed the idea of no taxes on income, but
> taxing consumer goods instead. The idea came from
> a highly educated man, a real rocket scientist...an
> expert in physics. Granted, his expertise is not
> in high finance, but he knows his numbers. LOL..
Smart men can have really dumb ideas. Anyway, if you have any numbers,
you haven't shown them, so it means nothing.
> I just wanted to see what your reaction would be.
> You two proved true to form.
Yeah, whatever.
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>Andrew wrote:
> But you said above that the law is only needed because parents don't
> do 'their duty' (of course you mean fathers, we know you (representing
> women) wouldn't do anything yourself, but simply order your
> <s>husband</s>slave to do something.)
Andrew, in the exchange we've had between each other, I've
only ever represented myself. I've also related to you some
of the comments I came across in my dealings with men.
>But parents, if taking this
> matter into their own hands, are certainly not going to use an
> arbitrary fixed age limit. So where does it come from?
Well...let's see. Enough people became concerned about
the prevalency of sex-abuse of children. They lobbied for
laws, gained support from their political representatives,
who debated the issues, those representatives voted and
adopted that law. As for those lobbyist, I happen to
agree with them. Raising the age of consent from 14
to 16 was the right thing to do.
Now, you do have a choice. You, too, can lobby
for a change in legislation. Find enough supporters
and go for it. Thus far, you have not given me sufficient
reasons as to why there should not be an age of
consent, or why it should be set down to age 12.
>Andrew wrote:
> And if, as you say, violence is not justified with the minor (always a
> daughter with you - why?
You were the one to introduce sex with underage girls. I kept
our discussion on that particular topic.
>Do no adult women sleep with teenage boys in
> Heidiland, or do you just not care?) only when below the age of
> consent, when the law would step in.
In Heidiland young teenage boys are also protected from
sexual predators, be those adult males or females. Had
an adult female dallied around with my 12-year old son,
she would have had to face the consequences. She, too,
would rather hope the cops got to her before *I* or my
husband would.
>It's pretty odd to advocate
> vigilante justice exactly where the law _does_ apply!
Well...ya...here in the wild west of BC cops are quite
busy in their race with vigilantes. Who gets to the perps
first? And then, of course, we also have cops who
think nothing of committing vigilanteism of their own.
This kind of activity actually keeps cops on their toes and
the public involved in criminal justice issues.
>
> By the way, I unlike you _can_ justify a fixed age limit.
You have not provided a good enough justification.
> The law to me is intended only to deter predatory
> paedophilia, and for _that_ purpose a fixed age limit
> makes it more just.
Even if a 12-year old initiates sex with an adult,
it behooves an adult to decline the offer.
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>> Heidi Graw wrote:
>
>> Hehehehe...I deliberately withheld the information as to
>> who proposed the idea of no taxes on income, but
>> taxing consumer goods instead. The idea came from
>> a highly educated man, a real rocket scientist...an
>> expert in physics. Granted, his expertise is not
>> in high finance, but he knows his numbers. LOL..
>Andrew wrote:
> Smart men can have really dumb ideas. Anyway, if you have any numbers,
> you haven't shown them, so it means nothing.
Well, think about it for a moment:
Reduce current income tax rates to 0.
Scrap any current consumer taxes,
Replace with an environmental levy.
We know government requires X amount of dollars
to function.
Currently those X dollars come from income taxes
and consumer taxes. In Canada those consumer
taxes are PST, GST, import duties, tolls, and assorted
other levies collected for various programs and projects.
Toss out all those.
Replace all those income taxes and consumer taxes
with an environmental level that is equal to the current
amound needed by government to function.
What this does is shift the burden of taxation to
the people who consume/buy the most. It also
allows individuals to decide how much in the
way of taxes they wish to pay...buy less, pay
less taxes. Buy more, get dinged.
The rate of the environmenal level can be
adjusted up or down as needed, but then
applies equally across the board.
Heidi
Andrew Usher
> > Smart men can have really dumb ideas. Anyway, if you have any numbers,
> > you haven't shown them, so it means nothing.
>
> Well, think about it for a moment:
Why don't you just reveal your source?
> Reduce current income tax rates to 0.
> Scrap any current consumer taxes,
> Replace with an environmental levy.
>
> We know government requires X amount of dollars
> to function.
No, it requires X amount of wealth, not dollars. And if this plan
you're touting ruins the economy, there won't be X amount of wealth to
collect.
> Replace all those income taxes and consumer taxes
> with an environmental level that is equal to the current
> amound needed by government to function.
And a miracle happens here!
Why do you think NO modern government relies exclusively on a single
form of taxation? It's because attempting to collect the full amount
in one area would result in a tax so high it would cripple commerce if
it were enforced. You are also assuming that it would not cost more to
enforce than the current system.
Try to prove that!
> What this does is shift the burden of taxation to
> the people who consume/buy the most. It also
> allows individuals to decide how much in the
> way of taxes they wish to pay...buy less, pay
> less taxes. Buy more, get dinged.
You completely ignored the criticism Mark posted before me, didn't
you? Is arguing with you any more than trying to nail jelly to the
wall? Like a goddamn Creationist you completely deflect attention from
any opposing arguments while continuing to spout off.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > But you said above that the law is only needed because parents don't
> > do 'their duty' (of course you mean fathers, we know you (representing
> > women) wouldn't do anything yourself, but simply order your
> > <s>husband</s>slave to do something.)
>
> Andrew, in the exchange we've had between each other, I've
> only ever represented myself. I've also related to you some
> of the comments I came across in my dealings with men.
What is the relevance of this?
> > But parents, if taking this
> > matter into their own hands, are certainly not going to use an
> > arbitrary fixed age limit. So where does it come from?
>
> Well...let's see. Enough people became concerned about
> the prevalency of sex-abuse of children. They lobbied for
> laws, gained support from their political representatives,
> who debated the issues, those representatives voted and
> adopted that law. As for those lobbyist, I happen to
> agree with them. Raising the age of consent from 14
> to 16 was the right thing to do.
Because Ms. Know-it-all says so.
> Now, you do have a choice. You, too, can lobby
> for a change in legislation. Find enough supporters
> and go for it. Thus far, you have not given me sufficient
> reasons as to why there should not be an age of
> consent, or why it should be set down to age 12.
Non-responsive. The question was: how can you believe a fixed age
limit is justified, given what you believe the purpose of the law to
be?
> > And if, as you say, violence is not justified with the minor (always a
> > daughter with you - why?
>
> You were the one to introduce sex with underage girls. I kept
> our discussion on that particular topic.
You started this thread, and inquired about my beliefs on the age of
consent. NOWHERE have I stated a personal desire for underage girls.
That's a figment of your imagination.
> >It's pretty odd to advocate
> > vigilante justice exactly where the law _does_ apply!
>
> Well...ya...here in the wild west of BC cops are quite
> busy in their race with vigilantes. Who gets to the perps
> first? And then, of course, we also have cops who
> think nothing of committing vigilanteism of their own.
I live in a civilised part of America. I don't believe that the law
ought to be any sort of game, as you seem to be asserting.
> > By the way, I unlike you _can_ justify a fixed age limit.
>
> You have not provided a good enough justification.
You haven't provided any!
> Even if a 12-year old initiates sex with an adult,
> it behooves an adult to decline the offer.
This is hardly probative. It is not and should not be the purpose of
criminal law to punish all wrong. The law does not, or should not,
punish people for being bad but for violating the law. As it is
impossible to maintain that a fixed age limit can accurately reflect
the wrongness of any particular sexual relationship, you have again
shown the you do not have a justification for a fixed age of consent.
And I do not agree anyway; if a 12-year-old did initiate sexual
contact in a mature fashion, there is no particular reason the adult
should not accept. It seems to me that it is the same as if the minor
approached someone the same age. I am not saying, of course, that that
is common.
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>> Heidi wrote:
>> We know government requires X amount of dollars
>> to function.
> Andrew wrote:
> No, it requires X amount of wealth, not dollars. And if this plan
> you're touting ruins the economy, there won't be X amount of wealth to
> collect.
Alright, Andrew. Let me explain this another way.
From the Enclyclopedia Britannica Yearbook 2009.
It states that the Canadian government 2005-6 Revenue
was comprised of
62.9% collected from income taxes
15.4% collected from sales taxes
9.6% collected for social security programs.
12.1% from other taxes.
Those total 100% of government revenue.
So, now reduce income taxes to 0.
This means 62.9% has to be made up
from somewhere else.
Shift it over to the newly created Environmental Levy
which replaces the sales taxes. The Environmental
Levy would be collected by the cashier of
any business that sells stuff. Whether that
cashier collects 15.4% or 50% makes no difference.
It creates no added work for him/her.
Money currently collected for social security
can also be shifted to the Environmental Levy.
Whether the name CPP or Environmental Levy
appears on the form that the payroll clerk
calculates makes no difference. The
9.6% can remain the same. It's a designated
revenue that is earmarked for s.s. programs.
The 12.1% collected currently from "other" taxes,
can all be shifted to the Environmental Levy.
Changing the name of the form is no big
deal.
So, here's my proposal.
0 revenue from income taxes
9.6% environmental levy designated for social security programs.
90.4% environmental levy (formerly sales and other taxes)
So, yes, products purchased will be much higher in
price. However, with 0 % income taxes, you would
still be able to feed, clothe, house, travel and entertain
yourself.
Heidi
Andrew Usher
> > Andrew wrote:
> > No, it requires X amount of wealth, not dollars. And if this plan
> > you're touting ruins the economy, there won't be X amount of wealth to
> > collect.
>
> Alright, Andrew. Let me explain this another way.
Note that you do not explain why the EL will not hurt the economy.
> Shift it over to the newly created Environmental Levy
> which replaces the sales taxes. The Environmental
> Levy would be collected by the cashier of
> any business that sells stuff. Whether that
> cashier collects 15.4% or 50% makes no difference.
> It creates no added work for him/her.
It does make a difference because the incentive for fraud is vastly
higher at 50%. Even if it were enforced perfectly at physical stores,
what about sales over the internet? All countries have chosen a VAT
over a very high sales tax for precisely this reason.
Also, the fact that the EL is not a fixed percentage but is likely to
be calculated by a system as complex as the income tax code is another
big area for fraud.
> Money currently collected for social security
> can also be shifted to the Environmental Levy.
> Whether the name CPP or Environmental Levy
> appears on the form that the payroll clerk
> calculates makes no difference. The
> 9.6% can remain the same. It's a designated
> revenue that is earmarked for s.s. programs.
Isn't this just relabeling it?
> The 12.1% collected currently from "other" taxes,
> can all be shifted to the Environmental Levy.
> Changing the name of the form is no big
> deal.
How, other than just changing the name of the taxes? How can this
really be a single tax as you claimed?
> So, yes, products purchased will be much higher in
> price. However, with 0 % income taxes, you would
> still be able to feed, clothe, house, travel and entertain
> yourself.
That depends only on total production and the distribution of wealth.
As to the first, you haven't shown that the EL won't affect the
economy negatively (it could hardly be positive). As to the second,
the EL is blatantly regressive and will certainly make the rich richer
and the poor poorer, if not compensated in some way. Read this:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/1ee99bb5d51d3130/05d1abb3340ad0fc?lnk=gst&q=Basic+economics
if you don't understand the economic concepts.
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
(snip)
> Andrew wrote:
> How, other than just changing the name of the taxes? How can this
> really be a single tax as you claimed?
...by rolling all the differently named taxes into one tax
called EL.
>> Heidi wrote:
>> So, yes, products purchased will be much higher in
>> price. However, with 0 % income taxes, you would
>> still be able to feed, clothe, house, travel and entertain
>> yourself.
> Andrew wrote:
> That depends only on total production and the distribution of wealth.
Yes...and I'm going to give you a very simple example for
clarity's sake.
We are concerning ourselves with taxation and wealth
distribution. In order to function, government needs
revenue. This revenue is collected through a system
of taxation.
I, personally, object to having my income, my labour,
taxed. Production should not be taxed at all. Taxing
production is an impediment to the very thing which
we rely on in order to create wealth.
What we should be doing is taxing consumption.
Consumption is what impacts and degrades our
environment.
So, now, let's look at a very simplified version
of what I'm proposing.
Let's suppose government needs $1,000,000
in revenue to administer and operate the various
governmental programs.
Let's suppose the country this government
oversees produces 100,000 units. In order
to achieve its revenue goals, an Environmental
Levy of 10% per unit is required. When
all 100,000 units are sold, the government
has the amount it needs.
A wealthy person may choose to purchase
10 units, while a poor person may only afford
1 unit. The wealthy person's tax contribution
is then 10 times more than that of the poor
person's.
However, let's suppose that the 1 unit the
poor person bought is not sufficient for his/her
needs. In order to eke out a meagre living,
one needs 3 units. The government may
then choose to give the poor person 2 units.
These units are then paid for by the tax
collected from the rich person's purchases.
Clear as mud? ;-)
Heidi
Andrew Usher
> > How, other than just changing the name of the taxes? How can this
> > really be a single tax as you claimed?
>
> ...by rolling all the differently named taxes into one tax
> called EL.
You haven't explained what this means.
> >> Heidi wrote:
> >> So, yes, products purchased will be much higher in
> >> price. However, with 0 % income taxes, you would
> >> still be able to feed, clothe, house, travel and entertain
> >> yourself.
>
> > Andrew wrote:
> > That depends only on total production and the distribution of wealth.
>
> Yes...and I'm going to give you a very simple example for
> clarity's sake.
<snip>
It is quite obvious that you are copying these arguments from
somewhere else. Quit playing your stupid games and just give the
source.
Finally, your last paragraph seems to advocate a guaranteed income. I,
of course, think one is justified independent of the tax system, and
note that even with one the poor would be still worse off under your
system than mine.
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
>> Heidi wrote:
>> Yes...and I'm going to give you a very simple example for
>> clarity's sake.
>
> <snip>
>
> It is quite obvious that you are copying these arguments from
> somewhere else. Quit playing your stupid games and just give the
> source.
LOL...No, Andrew, the example I gave you is my own creation.
All that my physicist friend suggested was that income should
not be taxed, but what one buys, the consumer goods should
be taxed. I instantly understood what he meant by that.
What I've done, for the sake of argument, is demonstrate
to you how this system might work. I've kept it simple
for the sake of clarity.
>
> Finally, your last paragraph seems to advocate a guaranteed income. I,
> of course, think one is justified independent of the tax system,
Explain what you mean by that..."independent of the tax system?"
Are you saying that tax revenues should not be used for guaranteed
incomes? Or that guaranteed incomes ought not be taxed?
Here in Canada we do have guaranteed minimum incomes which
are paid out of general tax revenues collected from all kinds of
sources. None of the recepients of this income are taxed on it.
However, whatever a minimum earner buys, is taxed at the point
of sale.
>and
> note that even with one the poor would be still worse off under your
> system than mine.
There will always be a debate as to what is considered adequate
minimum income. Much depends on the area, where one lives,
and the costs of living.
Anyway, I'll leave this for you to mull over. It's an idea
which I think is brilliant. It is something that can also be
done on an easy enough transition...as consumer taxes
rise, lower the income taxes accordingly. It may take a few
years to transition. Do this until there exists no more income
taxes, but only taxes on consumer goods...anything that is
purchased.
Heidi
Mark Borgerson
Is college tuition taxed?
Are payments to the City for water and to the utility for power taxed?
Are mortgage payments taxed?
Rich people may not spend 20 times what I do on clothes and food, but
they may spend 20 times as much on their mortgage, air travel, etc,
etc.
If a rich person hires a gardener, is there a tax on the
gardener's wages? Is there a tax on the food that the
gardener might bring into the kitchen?
My feeling is that the very rich will not pay taxes in proportion
to their income----else they wouldn't have accumulated enough
assets to be very rich. You don't get rich if your expenditures
exceed your income.
Corporate income taxes are a large part of revenues for many
governments. How do you define 'consumer spending' for a
corporation? How do you replace the income taxes they pay?
Mark Borgerson
Heidi Graw
>"Mark Borgerson" <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.24ea02d82...@news.eternal-september.org...
(snip)
> Are health care costs taxed? (We have lots of those here in the US).
Apply the EL only on the materials and supplies that the health
care system requires. For example: a nurse applies a bandage.
The nurse gets paid his/her wage (which is not taxed). The bandage,
however, is taxable...it is a consumer "good"...a thing, an item,
the making of which created an environmental impact.
> Is college tuition taxed?
Teaching is a service. The wages of teachers are not subject to
tax. However, any materials...books, paper, pens, computers are
subject to the EL tax.
> Are payments to the City for water and to the utility for power taxed?
The materials needed to deliver and maintain access to water and
power are subject to tax. However, the wages of the people involved
in its delivery earn a non-taxable income. So, your bill from the utility
companies will include wages paid to the employees and materials
used for delivery. The taxable portion is only tacked on the material
costs, not the employee labour.
> Are mortgage payments taxed?
The house upon initial sale is subject to tax. But, not the monthly
mortgage payments. However, the bank may still charge you banking
fees to cover the costs of employees and materials used to provide
you with those banking services. Only the material costs again
are subject to the EL.
>
> Rich people may not spend 20 times what I do on clothes and food, but
> they may spend 20 times as much on their mortgage, air travel, etc,
> etc.
Yes, so you buy one house and pay EL for that one house.
The rich person, however, might choose to buy 20 houses.
Those 20 houses incur an EL. In this case, the rich
person contributed 20 times more than you to the government's
revenue account.
>
> If a rich person hires a gardener, is there a tax on the
> gardener's wages?
No. However, the shovel or rake the gardner buys will
be subject to an EL tax. If you buy him a lawnmower,
then you would be paying the EL.
> Is there a tax on the food that the
> gardener might bring into the kitchen?
If he's your home gardner, then he/she or you will be
buying seeds. The seeds are subject to an EL.
Commercial growers will pay EL on any and all materials
and supplies needed to nurture those taxed seeds until
the product is ready for the market. The costs of growing
those vegetables are passed along to the consumer, who
will pay EL on the finished product.
>
> My feeling is that the very rich will not pay taxes in proportion
> to their income----else they wouldn't have accumulated enough
> assets to be very rich. You don't get rich if your expenditures
> exceed your income.
The EL rate doesn't have to be raised so high as to create
a situation where expenditures exceed income. You must
remember that income isn't taxed...but only the material
goods.
> Corporate income taxes are a large part of revenues for many
> governments. How do you define 'consumer spending' for a
> corporation? How do you replace the income taxes they pay?
You treat corporations the same way as individual wage earners.
Zero income taxes. But, whatever the corporation uses in the
way of supplies and materials is subject to tax.
As for setting the EL rate, one might start off with looking
at what currents incomes are and how much is being
produced? How much tax is currently applied?
How can income taxes be reduced in such a way that
it corrolates with increased taxation on the products
to ensure govenment gets what it needs to function?
Those who consume the most, contribute the most
EL. Those who consume the least, contribute the least.
Yet, government can assist the more vulnerable members
in our society by using the EL it collected.
Heidi
Andrew Usher
> As for setting the EL rate, one might start off with looking
> at what currents incomes are and how much is being
> produced? How much tax is currently applied?
Once again, you can't assume that a tax change of this magnitude will
not change the current economy.
> Those who consume the most, contribute the most
> EL. Those who consume the least, contribute the least.
> Yet, government can assist the more vulnerable members
> in our society by using the EL it collected.
Nonetheless, the poor would be relatively worse off under ANY SYSTEM
of consumption taxes than they are with income taxes (which they don't
pay).
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > It is quite obvious that you are copying these arguments from
> > somewhere else. Quit playing your stupid games and just give the
> > source.
>
> LOL...No, Andrew, the example I gave you is my own creation.
> All that my physicist friend suggested was that income should
> not be taxed, but what one buys, the consumer goods should
> be taxed. I instantly understood what he meant by that.
Bullshit.
> What I've done, for the sake of argument, is demonstrate
> to you how this system might work. I've kept it simple
> for the sake of clarity.
No, you've kept it simple because that's all you can understand.
> > Finally, your last paragraph seems to advocate a guaranteed income. I,
> > of course, think one is justified independent of the tax system,
>
> Explain what you mean by that..."independent of the tax system?"
> Are you saying that tax revenues should not be used for guaranteed
> incomes?
No, I meant that whether we should have a basic income is independent
of how we tax.
> Or that guaranteed incomes ought not be taxed?
Yes, they should not be.
> >and
> > note that even with one the poor would be still worse off under your
> > system than mine.
>
> There will always be a debate as to what is considered adequate
> minimum income. Much depends on the area, where one lives,
> and the costs of living.
Irrelevant and obviously so. You are dodging the fact that your
proposal would hurt the poor.
> Do this until there exists no more income
> taxes, but only taxes on consumer goods...anything that is
> purchased.
What's 'anything that is purchased'? Finished goods only (which has
the fraud problem you ignore) or all levels of good (which is the
principle of the VAT)?
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > Andrew wrote:
> > That (adultery) is not betrayal by my definition as it involves no
> > actual damages.
>
> Oh really? What if you caught AIDS from another woman and
> then passed it along to your wife?
Extremely unlikely.
> Adultery is the kind of
> betrayal which *may* result in premature death. I would
> think a premature death inflicted by a wayward husband
> qualifies as having caused *actual* damage.
No, you don't. You only think 'adultery is bad, waaaaaahhhhh!'.
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
(snip)
> Andrew wrote:
> Nonetheless, the poor would be relatively worse off under ANY SYSTEM
> of consumption taxes than they are with income taxes (which they don't
> pay).
All it requires is to bump up the non-taxable income for poor people.
So, let's look at the needs of poor people. I'll use my area as
an example: People with disabilities presently get $906.00 per month.
$350.00 of that is considered a housing allowance. In my town,
one cannot find a suite, nor a room to rent for that little amount.
The average rent for a modest suite is about $750.00. Our
government is aware of this. So, to make up for the $400.00
needed for housing, government will pay that out as a
"housing subsidy."
People with disabilities also do not have to pay medical
premiums. Most of the medication they may need is also
covered by our government's Pharmacare program.
A person with disabilities can also buy an annual bus
pass for a mere $48.00.
Persons with disabilities are also allowed to earn
$500.00 per month in wages without risking having
their pensions clawed-back. If they earn $600.00,
instead of receiving $906, they get $806.
So, basically, a person with disabilities who has
managed to find some little job to do, has to try
to cope living off about $1400.00 per month. It's
doable, but awfully tight.
Personally, for my area, I would prefer to see people
with disabilities receive $2,000 per month. Now, if
current sales taxes are ramped up, then the pensions
for the disabled will have to be increased to allow
for the higher consumer tax rate.
Heidi
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>> Heidi wrote:
>> There will always be a debate as to what is considered adequate
>> minimum income. Much depends on the area, where one lives,
>> and the costs of living.
> Andrew wrote:
> Irrelevant and obviously so. You are dodging the fact that your
> proposal would hurt the poor.
See my other post.
>>
>> Do this until there exists no more income
>> taxes, but only taxes on consumer goods...anything that is
>> purchased.
>Andrew wrote:
> What's 'anything that is purchased'? Finished goods only (which has
> the fraud problem you ignore) or all levels of good (which is the
> principle of the VAT)?
...on all level of goods...what the miner sells to the manufacturer,
to the wholesaler, to the retailer, to the consumer.
Heidi
PolishKnight
"Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote:
Ahhhh! So the beast is revealed! :-)
Heidi, at this point why bother with the pretense of "environmental"
taxes and subsidies, social good, blah blah blah, and come out and say
it: You want the government to control how much people have based upon
their status in the hierarchy.
Eastern Europe had a similar system: Families got sugar and meat rations
based upon their status or connections and you obeyed the government so
you could get a luxury 40 square meter apartment for a family of 4.
regards,
PolishKnight
PolishKnight
<9d15420f-d277-44a7...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Andrew Usher <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 9, 1:01 am, "Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > Andrew wrote:
> > > That (adultery) is not betrayal by my definition as it involves no
> > > actual damages.
> >
> > Oh really? What if you caught AIDS from another woman and
> > then passed it along to your wife?
>
> Extremely unlikely.
Punishments for adultery in the past were usually reserved for the woman
since there was a significant chance of her having a child with another
man that the husband would be expected to support.
I guess one could say that female adultery can lead to a premature,
unwanted LIFE. :-)
It's ironic that the inability of men to predict a woman's fertile
period resulted in societies that led to certain aspects of patriarchal
societies. If a man could predict a woman's fertile period, he probably
would care less about her cheating if unwanted progeny wouldn't occur
and wouldn't feel a need to control her as much. Monogamy, as you know,
is generally something that men engage in to benefit and protect "women
and children". Without a motivation for men to protect their wives from
cheating, wife swaps would be more common and our society would look
very different.
> > Adultery is the kind of
> > betrayal which *may* result in premature death. I would
> > think a premature death inflicted by a wayward husband
> > qualifies as having caused *actual* damage.
>
> No, you don't. You only think 'adultery is bad, waaaaaahhhhh!'.
>
> Andrew Usher
Hello you two. Heidi, does your husband know you're flirting with
Andrew? :-)
Ok, seriously: Adultery is one of the most serious acts of betrayal most
people can imagine. It ranks up there with spousal abuse. Some people
can even forgive physical abuse over an affair.
regards,
PolishKnight
Andrew Usher
> Punishments for adultery in the past were usually reserved for the woman
> since there was a significant chance of her having a child with another
> man that the husband would be expected to support.
Indeed.
> It's ironic that the inability of men to predict a woman's fertile
> period resulted in societies that led to certain aspects of patriarchal
> societies. If a man could predict a woman's fertile period, he probably
> would care less about her cheating if unwanted progeny wouldn't occur
> and wouldn't feel a need to control her as much.
Huh? Even if the husband knew this (he can, of course, come close
nowadays), what is he supposed to do about it - lock up his wife
during that time?
> Monogamy, as you know,
> is generally something that men engage in to benefit and protect "women
> and children".
Could you explain? Do you mean monogamy on his part or his wife's
part? As I said before, historically men did NOT avoid sex with other
women on principle unless they were unusually religious. That was
brought in with feminism.
> Ok, seriously: Adultery is one of the most serious acts of betrayal most
> people can imagine.
They're not very imaginative, then.
> It ranks up there with spousal abuse. Some people
> can even forgive physical abuse over an affair.
Of course, I can often forgive physical abuse of the wife - but never
the other way around.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> >>
> >> Do this until there exists no more income
> >> taxes, but only taxes on consumer goods...anything that is
> >> purchased.
>
> >Andrew wrote:
> > What's 'anything that is purchased'? Finished goods only (which has
> > the fraud problem you ignore) or all levels of good (which is the
> > principle of the VAT)?
>
> ...on all level of goods...what the miner sells to the manufacturer,
> to the wholesaler, to the retailer, to the consumer.
Then you want a VAT. But the term 'environmental levy' suggest that
different goods will be charged based on their environmental impact
(as determined by who?); this removes one of the major benefits of a
VAT, its relative simplicity.
But no country has ever funded its entire government with a VAT or
sales tax, and if you want to add a high guaranteed income gov't will
require even more than it does now.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > Nonetheless, the poor would be relatively worse off under ANY SYSTEM
> > of consumption taxes than they are with income taxes (which they don't
> > pay).
>
> All it requires is to bump up the non-taxable income for poor people.
<snip irrelevant analysis>
The point is that paying more money to poor people is logically
unrelated to changing the tax system. With all other things fixed, a
consumption tax always does effect reverse redistribution.
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
>> Heidi Graw wrote:
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> > Nonetheless, the poor would be relatively worse off under ANY
SYSTEM
>> > of consumption taxes than they are with income taxes (which they
don't
>> > pay).
>> Heidi wrote:
>> All it requires is to bump up the non-taxable income for poor people.
>Andrew wrote:
> The point is that paying more money to poor people is logically
> unrelated to changing the tax system. With all other things fixed, a
> consumption tax always does effect reverse redistribution.
Then tell us what means you would use to pay money to the poor.
You've mentioned a guaranteed income. Fine. What figure have
you in mind that you believe will meet the needs of the poor?
You also mentioned wealth creation. We know productive
people create wealth. We also know that unproductive people
do not create wealth. What mechanism would you use to
transfer the wealth from the productive to those who are
unproductive? Who should be responsible for this transfer?
And more importantly, what incentives would you offer
to the productive wealth creators to keep on being
productive?
Heidi
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>Andrew wrote:
> Then you want a VAT. But the term 'environmental levy' suggest that
> different goods will be charged based on their environmental impact
> (as determined by who?);
Isn't it obvious? If you mine, you disturb the soil. This impacts
the environment. If you cut down trees, this, too, impacts the
environment. If you build dams and/or divert water systems,
you've affected the environment. That cotton t-shirt required
a cleared field upon which to grow the cotton. It required
space for buildings so that the t-shirt could be manufactured
and sold. Roads were necessary so that that t-shirt could
be "grown" in one area, manufactured elsewhere, and sold
yet in some other building. All of these things impact
the environment.
>this removes one of the major benefits of a
> VAT, its relative simplicity.
...and the EL is as simple.
>
> But no country has ever funded its entire government with a VAT or
> sales tax,
Yes, I know. But, one of the greatest impediments to wealth
creation is the taxing of income/earnings. Why be productive
if it's just going to be taken from you without you even having
a choice or a say about the matter?
When you only tax at the point of sale/purchase, individuals
have a choice as to how much tax they wish to pay. The
more they buy, the more accumulates in the tax pot which
can be used to fund all sorts of supports and services for
those in need.
And just think: No more annual tax returns to file!
And the payroll clerk's job will be much easier and
less time-consuming!
>and if you want to add a high guaranteed income gov't will
> require even more than it does now.
Then let those who consume/buy the most pay for it!
Heidi
Andrew Usher
> > The point is that paying more money to poor people is logically
> > unrelated to changing the tax system. With all other things fixed, a
> > consumption tax always does effect reverse redistribution.
>
> Then tell us what means you would use to pay money to the poor.
> You've mentioned a guaranteed income. Fine. What figure have
> you in mind that you believe will meet the needs of the poor?
http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income
> You also mentioned wealth creation. We know productive
> people create wealth. We also know that unproductive people
> do not create wealth. What mechanism would you use to
> transfer the wealth from the productive to those who are
> unproductive? Who should be responsible for this transfer?
Answered in the same essay and
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/1ee99bb5d51d3130/05d1abb3340ad0fc?lnk=gst&q=basic+economics
.
> And more importantly, what incentives would you offer
> to the productive wealth creators to keep on being
> productive?
They don't need any additional incentives. Their situation with the
basic income would not be significantly different from now.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > Then you want a VAT. But the term 'environmental levy' suggest that
> > different goods will be charged based on their environmental impact
> > (as determined by who?);
>
> Isn't it obvious? If you mine, you disturb the soil. This impacts
> the environment. If you cut down trees, this, too, impacts the
> environment. If you build dams and/or divert water systems,
> you've affected the environment. That cotton t-shirt required
> a cleared field upon which to grow the cotton. It required
> space for buildings so that the t-shirt could be manufactured
> and sold. Roads were necessary so that that t-shirt could
> be "grown" in one area, manufactured elsewhere, and sold
> yet in some other building. All of these things impact
> the environment.
Yeah, it's fucking obvious (???) If you think it would be trivial to
determine how much environmental impact should be assigned to
everything, you really don't understand the problem - or politics.
> >this removes one of the major benefits of a
> > VAT, its relative simplicity.
>
> ...and the EL is as simple.
No it isn't, since it's not a flat rate.
> > But no country has ever funded its entire government with a VAT or
> > sales tax,
>
> Yes, I know. But, one of the greatest impediments to wealth
> creation is the taxing of income/earnings. Why be productive
> if it's just going to be taken from you without you even having
> a choice or a say about the matter?
That's a no-brainer. Taxation takes only part of the profits, so it
removes only part of the incentive (even granting all your
assumptions).
> When you only tax at the point of sale/purchase, individuals
> have a choice as to how much tax they wish to pay.
People don't make purchases based on 'how much tax they wish to pay'.
> And just think: No more annual tax returns to file!
Also true under my proposal.
> And the payroll clerk's job will be much easier and
> less time-consuming!
Also true under my proposal.
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
>> Heidi Graw wrote:
>> >Andrew wrote:
>> > Then you want a VAT. But the term 'environmental levy' suggest that
>> > different goods will be charged based on their environmental impact
>> > (as determined by who?);
>> Heidi wrote:
>> Isn't it obvious? If you mine, you disturb the soil. This impacts
>> the environment. If you cut down trees, this, too, impacts the
>> environment. If you build dams and/or divert water systems,
>> you've affected the environment. That cotton t-shirt required
>> a cleared field upon which to grow the cotton. It required
>> space for buildings so that the t-shirt could be manufactured
>> and sold. Roads were necessary so that that t-shirt could
>> be "grown" in one area, manufactured elsewhere, and sold
>> yet in some other building. All of these things impact
>> the environment.
> Andrew wrote:
> Yeah, it's fucking obvious (???) If you think it would be trivial to
> determine how much environmental impact should be assigned to
> everything, you really don't understand the problem - or politics.
Andrew, everything you do has an environmental impact.
Step on a blade of grass, you've impacted the environment.
Exhale and you've done it, too. Wave your arms in the
air and you've impacted the windflow. Fart and you've
impacted the environment. There is not a thing a man,
alive or dead, does that does not impact the environment
in some way, large or small. Any kind of human activity
taxes the environment. And I believe it's high time to
pay up those Environmental Levies. They are far overdue!
As for your other comments, I'll address those in another
post.
Heidi
Andrew Usher
> > Yeah, it's fucking obvious (???) If you think it would be trivial to
> > determine how much environmental impact should be assigned to
> > everything, you really don't understand the problem - or politics.
>
> Andrew, everything you do has an environmental impact.
> Step on a blade of grass, you've impacted the environment.
> Exhale and you've done it, too. Wave your arms in the
> air and you've impacted the windflow. Fart and you've
> impacted the environment. There is not a thing a man,
> alive or dead, does that does not impact the environment
> in some way, large or small. Any kind of human activity
> taxes the environment. And I believe it's high time to
> pay up those Environmental Levies. They are far overdue!
COMPLETELY non-responsive (as it only acknowledges the obvious and
avoids the point of contention). This kind of crap may work with your
husband and other sissy men, but not with me who understands logic and
isn't afraid to criticise women.
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
> Heidi Graw wrote:
>> >Andrew wrote:
>> > The point is that paying more money to poor people is logically
>> > unrelated to changing the tax system. With all other things fixed,
a
>> > consumption tax always does effect reverse redistribution.
Yet, if the consumption tax is raised in *corrolation to* decreasing
income taxes, it would not result in causing inflation, plus it
wouldn't reduce the current tax dollars that government presently
collects.
What it does do, however, is that 0 % income taxes does not tax a
person's labour. It doesn't tax productivity. The focus, however,
is shifted to consumption. One gets taxed on consumption. This
may induce people to look twice before buying anything. They may
question themselves: "Do I really need this or not?" It may promp people
to conserve on their consumption leaving more resources to be shared
with others who currently do not have access to those resources.
>> Heidi wrote:
>> Then tell us what means you would use to pay money to the poor.
>> You've mentioned a guaranteed income. Fine. What figure have
>> you in mind that you believe will meet the needs of the poor?
> Andrew wrote:
> http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income
...relevant quotes:
"This entails that every person would receive a fixed payment
from the government, which is enough to maintain oneself
without working."
"I propose a present value of $1,500 per month, plus $200 for
each dependent child."
O.k...so, you're thinking tax-dollars are to pay for this idea.
And everyone, even the middle income and the wealthy,
are to get this guaranteed income. A couple with two
children will end up with $3,400.00 /mo....just for sitting
around in front of the TV, playing on the computer or their Wii and
whatnots.
>> Heidi wrote:
>> You also mentioned wealth creation. We know productive
>> people create wealth. We also know that unproductive people
>> do not create wealth. What mechanism would you use to
>> transfer the wealth from the productive to those who are
>> unproductive? Who should be responsible for this transfer?
>Andrew wrote:
> Answered in the same essay and
>
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/1ee99bb5d51d3130/05d1abb3340ad0fc?lnk=gst&q=basic+economics
"My tax would have no exceptions, and go from 30% up to 70%,
with most ordinary people in the 30% bracket and the very
rich in the 70%. This would apply only to earned income
(wages, salaries, and other compensation for work performed).
Investment income would be capped at 30% to avoid disadvantaging
investing or punishing people that live on investment income.
Likewise, the corporate income tax, though it can not be made exactly
flat,
would be made far more so, at 30 or 40%, greatly increasing revenue."
Well, Andrew...I hope you realize that corporate income taxes are a
cost of doing business which is passed along to the consumer.
Personally, I don't see the sense in taxing corporations. The only
reason corporations are paying income taxes is purely for public
relations to give the public the *illusion* that the corp. is contributing
to the tax-pot. The reality, however, is that whatever tax you tack onto
the corporations is a tax that the consumers end up paying anyway.
If you need help figuring out how this could be, let me know
and I'll explain it to you.
>> Heidi wrote:
>> And more importantly, what incentives would you offer
>> to the productive wealth creators to keep on being
>> productive?
> Andrew wrote:
> They don't need any additional incentives. Their situation with the
> basic income would not be significantly different from now.
What you propose will result in rampant inflation. If you were
to implement your program, there would be a mass exodus
away from the labour market. Corporations would be
scrambling to come up with all sorts of ways and means
to keep their employees. Production would plummet to
depths that have never been seen before. There would be
a scarcity of products making everything far more
expensive. The economic upheaval would be unbelievably
severe. If corporations had to compete with that government
benefit, they'll have to offer higher wages, which means
higher costs of production, add to that those mega-corporate
incomes taxes, and they'd end up bankrupt. Even if this
sort of program were to be discussed in political circles,
corporations would pack up and leave to points elsewhere
on the globe before such a thing as what you propose
could be implemented.
What you propose is insane!
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> > Yeah, it's fucking obvious (???) If you think it would be trivial
to
>> > determine how much environmental impact should be assigned to
>> > everything, you really don't understand the problem - or politics.
>> Heidi wrote:
>> Andrew, everything you do has an environmental impact.
>> Step on a blade of grass, you've impacted the environment.
>> Exhale and you've done it, too. Wave your arms in the
>> air and you've impacted the windflow. Fart and you've
>> impacted the environment. There is not a thing a man,
>> alive or dead, does that does not impact the environment
>> in some way, large or small. Any kind of human activity
>> taxes the environment. And I believe it's high time to
>> pay up those Environmental Levies. They are far overdue!
> Andrew wrote:
> COMPLETELY non-responsive (as it only acknowledges the obvious and
> avoids the point of contention). This kind of crap may work with your
> husband and other sissy men, but not with me who understands logic and
> isn't afraid to criticise women.
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate your understanding of logic.
Thus far, you've only shown yourself to possess an IQ level
equivalent in value as your age.
Heidi
Andrew Usher
I'm still waiting for you to respond to my point.
> Thus far, you've only shown yourself to possess an IQ level
> equivalent in value as your age.
I have taken 3 IQ tests in my adult life. Each time, I have scored too
high for accurate measurement. How about you?
Some of my essays may contain error, but the fact that I even think
about those things proves my intelligence. You've done nothing
similar, have you?
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > The point is that paying more money to poor people is logically
> > unrelated to changing the tax system. With all other things fixed, a
> > consumption tax always does effect reverse redistribution.
>
> Yet, if the consumption tax is raised in *corrolation to* decreasing
> income taxes, it would not result in causing inflation, plus it
> wouldn't reduce the current tax dollars that government presently
> collects.
The regressive effect of consumption taxes has nothing to do with
inflation; so, this does not address my point above.
> What it does do, however, is that 0 % income taxes does not tax a
> person's labour. It doesn't tax productivity. The focus, however,
> is shifted to consumption. One gets taxed on consumption. This
> may induce people to look twice before buying anything. They may
> question themselves: "Do I really need this or not?"
I do not believe they would change qualitatively. Goods already cost
something, after all, and raising prices 50% (the minimum your plan
would have to do) would not really change this.
> It may promp people
> to conserve on their consumption leaving more resources to be shared
> with others who currently do not have access to those resources.
By definition, this makes them worse off.
> > http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income
>
> ...relevant quotes:
>
> "This entails that every person would receive a fixed payment
> from the government, which is enough to maintain oneself
> without working."
>
> "I propose a present value of $1,500 per month, plus $200 for
> each dependent child."
>
> O.k...so, you're thinking tax-dollars are to pay for this idea.
> And everyone, even the middle income and the wealthy,
> are to get this guaranteed income. A couple with two
> children will end up with $3,400.00 /mo....just for sitting
> around in front of the TV, playing on the computer or their Wii and
> whatnots.
That's correct. I deliberately suggested the highest reasonable
figure, and it turns out to be possible at our present level of
economic developement. This is a good thing!
> "My tax would have no exceptions, and go from 30% up to 70%,
> with most ordinary people in the 30% bracket and the very
> rich in the 70%. This would apply only to earned income
> (wages, salaries, and other compensation for work performed).
> Investment income would be capped at 30% to avoid disadvantaging
> investing or punishing people that live on investment income.
>
> Likewise, the corporate income tax, though it can not be made exactly
> flat,
> would be made far more so, at 30 or 40%, greatly increasing revenue."
>
> Well, Andrew...I hope you realize that corporate income taxes are a
> cost of doing business which is passed along to the consumer.
Of course, although economics shows that the tax can never be 100%
passed to the consumer, in a competitive environment, but it mostly
is. So what?
> Personally, I don't see the sense in taxing corporations. The only
> reason corporations are paying income taxes is purely for public
> relations to give the public the *illusion* that the corp. is contributing
> to the tax-pot.
I thought this too when I was a teenager, but I now know that the
reason corporations should pay taxes is to limit tax-dodging. This
takes place three ways:
1. Corporations are less able to hide their activities than
individuals
2. No corporate income tax would give them an incentive to pay
employees in kind and avoid taxes
3. Taxing corporations allows us to have lower personal income tax,
reducing the incentive for tax evasion there
> If you need help figuring out how this could be, let me know
> and I'll explain it to you.
Patronising statements are a refuge of false arguments.
> What you propose will result in rampant inflation.
Demonstrate that. Long-term inflation can only be caused by increasing
the money supply, so only short-term shocks could be caused anyway.
> If you were
> to implement your program, there would be a mass exodus
> away from the labour market. Corporations would be
> scrambling to come up with all sorts of ways and means
> to keep their employees.
THAT'S NOT A BUG, IT'S A FEATURE!
That's why I originally titled my essay 'Help end wage-slavery'; it
would transfer power from the bosses back to the workers.
> Production would plummet to
> depths that have never been seen before.
This results in deflation of prices, not inflation. See every business
depression in history ...
> If corporations had to compete with that government
> benefit, they'll have to offer higher wages,
Not necessarily. Wages could fall due to the company not having to pay
for the workers' basic living expenses which are taken care of by the
government benefit. This is the same reason why socialised medicine
saves companies money.
In reality, I expect real wages to rise in jobs that are unpleasant
(and no one would take but for the money), though many of those would
be quickly automated instead. In jobs offering a more pleasant
environment, wages will fall - sometimes below the present minimum
wage, even.
> which means
> higher costs of production, add to that those mega-corporate
> incomes taxes, and they'd end up bankrupt.
By your own argument, they would just pass on all this cost to the
consumer, and not be affected. Which is it?
> Even if this
> sort of program were to be discussed in political circles,
> corporations would pack up and leave to points elsewhere
> on the globe before such a thing as what you propose
> could be implemented.
Nonsense. The productive capacity of other nations is limited, just as
ours is.
> What you propose is insane!
The Nixon administration wanted to implement a guaranteed income, as
did his 1972 opponent George McGovern. Were they insane? The idea has
repeatedly come up on both the left and the right, a sign that it
can't be completely ridiculous.
It's obvious: the only way to abolish poverty (a good idea, right?) is
to give people enough money not to be poor.
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>> Heidi wrote:
>> I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate your understanding of logic.
> Andrew wrote:
> I'm still waiting for you to respond to my point.
You haven't got a point except for that cone on your head.
>> Heidi wrote:
>> Thus far, you've only shown yourself to possess an IQ level
>> equivalent in value as your age.
>Andrew wrote:
> I have taken 3 IQ tests in my adult life. Each time, I have scored too
> high for accurate measurement.
LOL...you're so illogical that even an IQ testing produces
a confused result!
>How about you?
Alas! I'm one point short of genius. <shug>
But, it has served me well thus far.
I can afford to lose a few more IQ points and
still be way ahead of you.
>
> Some of my essays may contain error, but the fact that I even think
> about those things proves my intelligence. You've done nothing
> similar, have you?
Oh, I've thought about and researched a great many different things...way
more than you could ever imagine. You've got to admit that it shows, too.
;-)
Heidi
Andrew Usher
> >"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6f73f395-3adf-455e...@a13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> (snip)
>
> >> Heidi wrote:
> >> I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate your understanding of logic.
>
> > Andrew wrote:
> > I'm still waiting for you to respond to my point.
>
> You haven't got a point except for that cone on your head.
I don't think there's any logical response to this ad hominem.
> LOL...you're so illogical that even an IQ testing produces
> a confused result!
No, standard IQ tests are only calibrated up to a certain point.
> >How about you?
>
> Alas! I'm one point short of genius. <shug>
> But, it has served me well thus far.
>
> I can afford to lose a few more IQ points and
> still be way ahead of you.
The _lowest_ score I ever got on any _subtest_ was 145 - and I wasn't
trying very hard that day. That's way ahead of you. Yes, comparing IQ
scores may be like comparing dick size, but you started it.
> > Some of my essays may contain error, but the fact that I even think
> > about those things proves my intelligence. You've done nothing
> > similar, have you?
>
> Oh, I've thought about and researched a great many different things...way
> more than you could ever imagine. You've got to admit that it shows, too.
Empty boasting. You've never posted anything here that shows any
curiosity.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> >"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6f73f395-3adf-455e...@a13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> (snip)
>
> >> Heidi wrote:
> >> I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate your understanding of logic.
>
> > Andrew wrote:
> > I'm still waiting for you to respond to my point.
>
> You haven't got a point except for that cone on your head.
I don't think there's any logical response to this ad hominem.
> LOL...you're so illogical that even an IQ testing produces
> a confused result!
No, standard IQ tests are only calibrated up to a certain point.
> >How about you?
>
> Alas! I'm one point short of genius. <shug>
> But, it has served me well thus far.
>
> I can afford to lose a few more IQ points and
> still be way ahead of you.
The _lowest_ score I ever got on any _subtest_ was 145 - and I wasn't
trying very hard that day. That's way ahead of you. Yes, comparing IQ
scores may be like comparing dick size, but you started it.
> > Some of my essays may contain error, but the fact that I even think
> > about those things proves my intelligence. You've done nothing
> > similar, have you?
>
> Oh, I've thought about and researched a great many different things...way
> more than you could ever imagine. You've got to admit that it shows, too.
Empty boasting. You've never posted anything here that shows any
curiosity.
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
>>>> Heidi wrote:
>>>> I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate your understanding of
logic.
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>> I'm still waiting for you to respond to my point.
>>Heidi wrote:
>>You haven't got a point except for that cone on your head.
>Andrew wrote:
>I don't think there's any logical response to this ad hominem.
Well..there ya go...I got you stumped for logic. LOL..
>>>> Heidi wrote:
>>>> Thus far, you've only shown yourself to possess an IQ level
>>>> equivalent in value as your age.
>>>Andrew wrote:
>>> I have taken 3 IQ tests in my adult life. Each time, I have scored too
>>> high for accurate measurement.
>>Heidi wrote:
>>LOL...you're so illogical that even an IQ testing produces
>> a confused result!
>Andrew wrote:
> No, standard IQ tests are only calibrated up to a certain point.
Look, Andrew...all this means is that your IQ couldn't be
measured. Your mind is just too weird.
>>>Andrew wrote:
>>>How about you?
>>Heidi wrote:
>> Alas! I'm one point short of genius. <shug>
>> But, it has served me well thus far.
>> I can afford to lose a few more IQ points and
>> still be way ahead of you.
>Andrew wrote:
> The _lowest_ score I ever got on any _subtest_ was 145 - and I wasn't
> trying very hard that day. That's way ahead of you.
Andrew, you've done nothing but idle at less than 65. If you wish
to be my intellectual equal, then you're simply going to have
to put your brain into gear. I max out at 144. If that's too much
of an effort for you, I can make do with 120, but no less.
>> >Andrew wrote:
>> > Some of my essays may contain error, but the fact that I even think
>> >about those things proves my intelligence. You've done nothing
>> > similar, have you?
>>Heidi wrote:
>> Oh, I've thought about and researched a great many different
things...way
>> more than you could ever imagine. You've got to admit that it shows,
too.
>Andrew wrote:
> You've never posted anything here that shows any
> curiosity.
Sure I have. It's just that you haven't paid any attention; and when you
do,
you don't comprehend!
Heidi
Andrew Usher
> >>Heidi wrote:
> >>You haven't got a point except for that cone on your head.
>
> >Andrew wrote:
> >I don't think there's any logical response to this ad hominem.
>
> Well..there ya go...I got you stumped for logic. LOL..
You're the only one laughing, I reckon.
> >Andrew wrote:
> > No, standard IQ tests are only calibrated up to a certain point.
>
> Look, Andrew...all this means is that your IQ couldn't be
> measured. Your mind is just too weird.
IQ tests have a linear scale and do not have any such result. No
psychologist has told me differently.
> >Andrew wrote:
> > The _lowest_ score I ever got on any _subtest_ was 145 - and I wasn't
> > trying very hard that day. That's way ahead of you.
>
> Andrew, you've done nothing but idle at less than 65. If you wish
> to be my intellectual equal, then you're simply going to have
> to put your brain into gear.
My brain is in gear. Apparently yours is in reverse or something.
> I max out at 144. If that's too much
> of an effort for you, I can make do with 120, but no less.
I doubt your IQ could be 144. In any case, it's absurd that you expect
me to believe you on your IQ but won't believe me on mine -
considering that women are more likely to lie about anything..
> >Andrew wrote:
> > You've never posted anything here that shows any
> > curiosity.
>
> Sure I have. It's just that you haven't paid any attention; and when you
> do, you don't comprehend!
Sure I'd believe you over my lying eyes!
You even admit your EL wasn't original to you. On the other hand most
of my proposals are original.
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>> >Andrew wrote:
>> > No, standard IQ tests are only calibrated up to a certain point.
>> Heidi wrote:
>> Look, Andrew...all this means is that your IQ couldn't be
>> measured. Your mind is just too weird.
> Andrew wrote:
> IQ tests have a linear scale and do not have any such result. No
> psychologist has told me differently.
You might be an idiot savant which puts you into the "special needs"
catagory. Btw, how old are you?
(snip)
>> >Andrew wrote:
>> > You've never posted anything here that shows any
>> > curiosity.
>> Heidi wrote:
>> Sure I have. It's just that you haven't paid any attention; and when
you
>> do, you don't comprehend!
>Andrew wrote:
> Sure I'd believe you over my lying eyes!
>
> You even admit your EL wasn't original to you.
I give credit where credit is due. A friend of mine
suggested 0% income taxes, but tax only consumable
goods. I thought it brilliant. So, now I'm discussing it
with you and giving you my ideas as to how this
might work, and how one might transition into it.
>On the other hand most
> of my proposals are original.
...and insane. Your essay demonstrates to me
that your thoughts are not very well organized.
You contradict yourself in a number of areas.
It also indicates to me that you have not
done your research.
Anyway, I probably won't have much time to
address that other post of yours. I'm kidnapping
my husband for the weekend and taking him
to an isolated coastal island. Whether or not
he will survive the ordeal remains to be seen.
If you care about men, you might want
to wish him luck.
Heidi
Andrew Usher
> You might be an idiot savant which puts you into the "special needs"
> catagory. Btw, how old are you?
Backpedaling are you? And I see you snipped the stuff about IQ scores;
too embarrassing to you, isn't it?
> >Andrew wrote:
> > Sure I'd believe you over my lying eyes!
> >
> > You even admit your EL wasn't original to you.
>
> I give credit where credit is due.
If you really give credit, you would give a name.
> A friend of mine
> suggested 0% income taxes, but tax only consumable
> goods. I thought it brilliant.
You're easily impressed.
> >On the other hand most
> > of my proposals are original.
>
> ...and insane.
As you know, it's a fine line between genius and insanity, and I think
I'm on the genius side. Hahaha, all I have to do is take over the
world ...
> Your essay demonstrates to me
> that your thoughts are not very well organized.
> You contradict yourself in a number of areas.
You haven't shown any contradictions, so that is a lie.
Andrew Usher
Andre Lieven
> In article
> <a2a073b2-81e4-4c30-93e9-9ab0b24be...@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 3, 6:18 pm, Andrew Usher <kook under his-b...@loon.nut>
> > weaseled:
> > > Heidi Graw wrote:
> > > > Andrew,
>
> > > > What is *your* ideal world in which you
> > > > would like to live? Can you describe
> > > > it for us point by point?
>
> > > I'm probably one of the smartest people in the world,
>
> > ROTFLMAO !
>
> > No evidence EVER offered ? Pedo factless bullshit loon claim
> > always fails.
>
> > > but no one can
> > > fully outline a utopia from his own head. I will not try only to have
> > > you pick it apart.
>
> > Translation: "I have nothing that cannot be utterly demolished by a
> > fifth grader."
>
> > Andre
>
> I'm sure you're the expert on fifth grader thinking, Andre. :-)
After years of dealing with "feminist thinking", I would say that
my calling that 5th grader thinking was somewhat... generous.
> Sorry, but I couldn't resist.
That's OK, I can play the straight man, too...
> regards,
> PolishKnight
>
> (It was a joke!)
Got it. :-)
Andre
Andre Lieven
> >"Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:054daf55-5a9f-421f...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> >> Heidi Graw wrote:
> >
> >> >Andrew wrote:
> >> > justified: betrayal.
> >>
> >> I see. So, if you were caught betraying your wife, you
> >> would allow her to smash your skull with that cast
> >> iron frying pan?
>
> > Andrew wrote:
> > That (adultery) is not betrayal by my definition as it involves no
> > actual damages.
>
> Oh really? What if you caught AIDS from another woman and
> betrayal which *may* result in premature death. I would
> think a premature death inflicted by a wayward husband
> qualifies as having caused *actual* damage.
In addition, what if his wife's adultery resulted in a love-child
that said wife then tried to pass off as being his ?
If that's not betrayal, then his use of the word has Zero meaning.
Andre
Andrew Usher
> > > That (adultery) is not betrayal by my definition as it involves no
> > > actual damages.
> >
> > Oh really? What if you caught AIDS from another woman and
> > then passed it along to your wife? Adultery is the kind of
> > betrayal which *may* result in premature death. I would
> > think a premature death inflicted by a wayward husband
> > qualifies as having caused *actual* damage.
>
> In addition, what if his wife's adultery resulted in a love-child
> that said wife then tried to pass off as being his ?
Of course, this wouldn't work for the MAN's adultery, which was the
topic.
> If that's not betrayal, then his use of the word has Zero meaning.
Because you have no sense of loyalty.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > I'm sure you're the expert on fifth grader thinking, Andre. :-)
>
> After years of dealing with "feminist thinking", I would say that
> my calling that 5th grader thinking was somewhat... generous.
Brilliant. Of course he was referring to your thinking, but in your
egocentric mind, your thinking is always perfect, isn't it?
> > (It was a joke!)
>
> Got it. :-)
No you don't.
Andrew Usher
Andre Lieven
moronised:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
> > > > That (adultery) is not betrayal by my definition as it involves no
> > > > actual damages.
>
> > > Oh really? What if you caught AIDS from another woman and
> > > then passed it along to your wife? Adultery is the kind of
> > > betrayal which *may* result in premature death. I would
> > > think a premature death inflicted by a wayward husband
> > > qualifies as having caused *actual* damage.
>
> > In addition, what if his wife's adultery resulted in a love-child
> > that said wife then tried to pass off as being his ?
>
> Of course, this wouldn't work for the MAN's adultery, which was the
> topic.
It might have been your topic, but no one else is obligated by your
insane wishes and demands.
> > If that's not betrayal, then his use of the word has Zero meaning.
>
> Because you have no sense of loyalty.
You are insane. Get professional mental health care immediately.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
> > > I'm sure you're the expert on fifth grader thinking, Andre. :-)
>
> > After years of dealing with "feminist thinking", I would say that
> > my calling that 5th grader thinking was somewhat... generous.
>
> Brilliant. Of course he was referring to your thinking, but in your
> egocentric mind, your thinking is always perfect, isn't it?
Society and I know each other, here, over many years.
> > > (It was a joke!)
>
> > Got it. :-)
>
> No you don't.
<Massive Kook Projection>
Andre
Andrew Usher
> On Aug 13, 9:53 pm, Andrew Usher <kook_over...@loon.nut> shat:
> > Andre Lieven wrote:
> > > > I'm sure you're the expert on fifth grader thinking, Andre. :-)
> >
> > > After years of dealing with "feminist thinking", I would say that
> > > my calling that 5th grader thinking was somewhat... generous.
> >
> > Brilliant. Of course he was referring to your thinking, but in your
> > egocentric mind, your thinking is always perfect, isn't it?
>
> Society and I know each other, here, over many years.
One does not make jests like that if they do not contain an element of
truth.
> > > > (It was a joke!)
> >
> > > Got it. :-)
> >
> > No you don't.
>
> <Massive Kook Projection>
All yours.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > > In addition, what if his wife's adultery resulted in a love-child
> > > that said wife then tried to pass off as being his ?
> >
> > Of course, this wouldn't work for the MAN's adultery, which was the
> > topic.
>
> It might have been your topic, but no one else is obligated by your
> insane wishes and demands.
No, it was Heidi's topic, but you weren't following the thread, were
you?
> > > If that's not betrayal, then his use of the word has Zero meaning.
> >
> > Because you have no sense of loyalty.
>
> You are insane. Get professional mental health care immediately.
Narcissists never do, after all. As for my being insane, well I
suspect you protest too much.
Andrew Usher
Andre Lieven
stupided:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 9:53 pm, Andrew Usher <kook_over_his-a...@loon.nut> shat:
> > > Andre Lieven wrote:
> > > > > I'm sure you're the expert on fifth grader thinking, Andre. :-)
>
> > > > After years of dealing with "feminist thinking", I would say that
> > > > my calling that 5th grader thinking was somewhat... generous.
>
> > > Brilliant. Of course he was referring to your thinking, but in your
> > > egocentric mind, your thinking is always perfect, isn't it?
>
> > Society and I know each other, here, over many years.
>
> One does not make jests like that if they do not contain an element of
> truth.
No one is obligated by your insanity. HTH.
> > > > > (It was a joke!)
>
> > > > Got it. :-)
>
> > > No you don't.
>
> > <Massive Kook Projection>
>
> All yours.
<Massive Kook Projection>
Andre
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
> > > > In addition, what if his wife's adultery resulted in a love-child
> > > > that said wife then tried to pass off as being his ?
>
> > > Of course, this wouldn't work for the MAN's adultery, which was the
> > > topic.
>
> > It might have been your topic, but no one else is obligated by your
> > insane wishes and demands.
>
> No, it was Heidi's topic, but you weren't following the thread, were
> you?
<Massive Kook Projection>
> > > > If that's not betrayal, then his use of the word has Zero meaning.
>
> > > Because you have no sense of loyalty.
>
> > You are insane. Get professional mental health care immediately.
>
> Narcissists never do, after all. As for my being insane, well I
> suspect you protest too much.
<Massive Kook Projection>
Andre
Andrew Usher
> > > It might have been your topic, but no one else is obligated by your
> > > insane wishes and demands.
> >
> > No, it was Heidi's topic, but you weren't following the thread, were
> > you?
>
> <Massive Kook Projection>
No, it's a fact.
> > > You are insane. Get professional mental health care immediately.
> >
> > Narcissists never do, after all. As for my being insane, well I
> > suspect you protest too much.
>
> <Massive Kook Projection>
No, it's a fact.
But you have nothing better than to blatantly lie, do you?
Andrew Usher
> > > Society and I know each other, here, over many years.
> >
> > One does not make jests like that if they do not contain an element of
> > truth.
>
> No one is obligated by your insanity. HTH.
It's a fact, regardless of your silly denial.
> > > > > > (It was a joke!)
> >
> > > > > Got it. :-)
> >
> > > > No you don't.
> >
> > > <Massive Kook Projection>
> >
> > All yours.
>
> <Massive Kook Projection>
LOL. You know, you really don't need my help to look ridiculous.
Andrew Usher