Re: Google Groups becomes even less useful.

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:36:48, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

>> The official name of Obamacare is the "Patient Protection and
>> Affordable Care Act." Do you care to place any bets on whether the
>> price of insurance goes up or down? If it goes up, will you admit
>> I was right?
>
>Given that most of the things that would reduce costs were stripped out
>by the Republicans, it may go up a bit yet. Eventually we'll vote the
>blood-sucking sons of bitches out and fix that, though.

What provisions were "stripped out" by the Republicans?
--
"God was knocking on the door. And He wanted in real bad."
Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle - Footfall

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:36:48, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>The American health care "system" costs far too much, doesn't cover too
>many people, and produced mediocre results. It's vital that we fix
>this.

What do you base the "mediocre results" part on?
--
"Isn't life strange
A turn of the page
A book without light
Unless with love we write"
John Lodge

[Scott Lurndal]

"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:
>On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:36:48, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
>>> The official name of Obamacare is the "Patient Protection and
>>> Affordable Care Act." Do you care to place any bets on whether the
>>> price of insurance goes up or down? If it goes up, will you admit
>>> I was right?
>>
>>Given that most of the things that would reduce costs were stripped out
>>by the Republicans, it may go up a bit yet. Eventually we'll vote the
>>blood-sucking sons of bitches out and fix that, though.
>
>What provisions were "stripped out" by the Republicans?

Single payer comes to mind immediately.

For those who believe that republicans are rational beings, I
refer you to the recently released platform of the Texas Republican
party: http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012-Platform-Final.pdf

The are completely nuts.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On 02 Jul 2012 00:59:52, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:36:48, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>>>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>
>>>> The official name of Obamacare is the "Patient Protection and
>>>> Affordable Care Act." Do you care to place any bets on whether the
>>>> price of insurance goes up or down? If it goes up, will you admit
>>>> I was right?
>>>
>>>Given that most of the things that would reduce costs were stripped out
>>>by the Republicans, it may go up a bit yet. Eventually we'll vote the
>>>blood-sucking sons of bitches out and fix that, though.
>>
>>What provisions were "stripped out" by the Republicans?
>
>Single payer comes to mind immediately.

Do you have a citation for that?

>For those who believe that republicans are rational beings, I
>refer you to the recently released platform of the Texas Republican
>party: http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012-Platform-Final.pdf
>
>The are completely nuts.

--
"Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what
do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do
they?"
- George Carlin

[William December Starr]

In article <jo6Ir.171965$%w4.1...@news.usenetserver.com>,

sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) said:

> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:

>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

[ re the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" ]

>>> Given that most of the things that would reduce costs were
>>> stripped out by the Republicans, it may go up a bit yet.
>>> Eventually we'll vote the blood-sucking sons of bitches out and
>>> fix that, though.
>>
>> What provisions were "stripped out" by the Republicans?
>
> Single payer comes to mind immediately.

As I recall (yes, possibly wrongly), that was never _in_ there in
the first place due to terror on the part of the law's sponsors
that it might irritate the Republicans, and oh lord we can't have
_that_.

-- wds

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:

> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:36:48, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
>>> The official name of Obamacare is the "Patient Protection and
>>> Affordable Care Act." Do you care to place any bets on whether the
>>> price of insurance goes up or down? If it goes up, will you admit
>>> I was right?
>>
>>Given that most of the things that would reduce costs were stripped out
>>by the Republicans, it may go up a bit yet. Eventually we'll vote the
>>blood-sucking sons of bitches out and fix that, though.
>
> What provisions were "stripped out" by the Republicans?

Off the top of my head, single payer option, and negotiation of drug
prices for medicare (something every other insurance plan in the USA
does). I believe there were a bunch more.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> writes:

> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:36:48, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>The American health care "system" costs far too much, doesn't cover too
>>many people, and produced mediocre results. It's vital that we fix
>>this.
>
> What do you base the "mediocre results" part on?

Talking to people from other countries, and reading studies about health
care systems in other countries. Hundreds of people and dozens of
studies over the decades.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <ylfkipe6...@dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:36:48, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>
>>>> The official name of Obamacare is the "Patient Protection and
>>>> Affordable Care Act." Do you care to place any bets on whether the
>>>> price of insurance goes up or down? If it goes up, will you admit
>>>> I was right?
>>>
>>>Given that most of the things that would reduce costs were stripped out
>>>by the Republicans, it may go up a bit yet. Eventually we'll vote the
>>>blood-sucking sons of bitches out and fix that, though.
>>
>> What provisions were "stripped out" by the Republicans?
>
>Off the top of my head, single payer option, and negotiation of drug
>prices for medicare (something every other insurance plan in the USA
>does). I believe there were a bunch more.

Given that it passed without a single Republican vote it seems absurd
to blame them for the contents.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in
news:ylfkehou...@dd-b.net:

> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:36:48, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The American health care "system" costs far too much, doesn't
>>>cover too many people, and produced mediocre results. It's
>>>vital that we fix this.
>>
>> What do you base the "mediocre results" part on?
>
> Talking to people from other countries, and reading studies
> about health care systems in other countries. Hundreds of
> people and dozens of studies over the decades.

Can you give some examples of what makes it mediocre?

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[David Friedman]

In article <ylfkehou...@dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:36:48, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >
> >>The American health care "system" costs far too much, doesn't cover too
> >>many people, and produced mediocre results. It's vital that we fix
> >>this.
> >
> > What do you base the "mediocre results" part on?
>
> Talking to people from other countries, and reading studies about health
> care systems in other countries. Hundreds of people and dozens of
> studies over the decades.

Having done similar things, I suspect you may be getting a biased
picture. As best I can tell, comparisons of outcome measures are pretty
ambiguous.

I have an old post, reporting on comparisons in an English book on the
U.K. system, comparing it to several others, at:

<http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2011/11/international-healthcare-comp
arisons.html>

Relevant bits:

For "mortality from causes considered amenable to healthcare," "in 1998
the UK had the highest mortality rates of the five countries compared."

"England continued to have the highest breast cancer mortality rates
among these comparator countries."

"Of the five countries compared, the US had the highest survival rates
from breast cancer, ..."

For colorectal cancer, "New Zealand had the highest mortality rate ...
and the US had the lowest."

"In 2001, England's mortality rate from stroke ... was lower than that
in Australia ... but higher than that in the US ..."

"82% of UK respondents indicated that they were treated in [Accident and
emergency] in less than four hours, a figure broadly in line with
comparator countries (AUS 87%; CAN 74%; NZ 86%; US 87%).

"Patient reports of access to primary care within 48 hours saw the UK ...
outperform both the US and Canada" (Australia and New Zealand did still
better).

"In response to a question regarding whether recent [Accident and
emergency] visits would have been necessary if appropriate primary care
had been available ... the UK had the best result."

"The UK had the lowest level of health consequences resulting from ...
errors and mistakes."

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[Kip Williams]

Absurd it may be, but Obama believed he had to try and get both sides
into the vote.

People keep trying to tell him he needs to stop doing that.


Kip W
rasfw

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 15:37:37 -0400, Kip Williams
<mrk...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:5MmIr.17381$5i7....@newsfe19.iad> in
rec.arts.sf.fandom,rec.arts.sf.written:

> Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

>> In article <ylfkipe6...@dd-b.net>,
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:

>>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:36:48, David Dyer-Bennet
>>>> <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>>>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

>>>>>> The official name of Obamacare is the "Patient
>>>>>> Protection and Affordable Care Act." Do you care to
>>>>>> place any bets on whether the price of insurance
>>>>>> goes up or down? If it goes up, will you admit I
>>>>>> was right?

>>>>> Given that most of the things that would reduce costs
>>>>> were stripped out by the Republicans, it may go up a
>>>>> bit yet. Eventually we'll vote the blood-sucking
>>>>> sons of bitches out and fix that, though.

>>>> What provisions were "stripped out" by the Republicans?

>>> Off the top of my head, single payer option, and
>>> negotiation of drug prices for medicare (something
>>> every other insurance plan in the USA does). I believe
>>> there were a bunch more.

>> Given that it passed without a single Republican vote it
>> seems absurd to blame them for the contents.

Only if you look at too narrow a picture.

> Absurd it may be, but Obama believed he had to try and get
> both sides into the vote.

He's a pragmatic centrist; what else would you expect?

> People keep trying to tell him he needs to stop doing
> that.

And he seems to have moved in that direction.

Brian

[Kurt Busiek]

Not really. They may not have voted, but they sure negotiated a lot.

Basically, they watered it down as far as they could manage through
negotiation and then STILL wouldn't vote for it.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Nobody was compelling the Democrats to stick with that bill once
they realized it would get no (or very few) R votes. They could have
dropped it and said "You know what? We're gonna pass what *we* want".

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-07-02 20:36:50 +0000, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) said:

> In article <jssvs7$ih4$1...@dont-email.me>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-07-02 18:50:56 +0000, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) said:
>>
>>> In article <ylfkipe6...@dd-b.net>,
>>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:36:48, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The official name of Obamacare is the "Patient Protection and
>>>>>>> Affordable Care Act." Do you care to place any bets on whether the
>>>>>>> price of insurance goes up or down? If it goes up, will you admit
>>>>>>> I was right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that most of the things that would reduce costs were stripped out
>>>>>> by the Republicans, it may go up a bit yet. Eventually we'll vote the
>>>>>> blood-sucking sons of bitches out and fix that, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> What provisions were "stripped out" by the Republicans?
>>>>
>>>> Off the top of my head, single payer option, and negotiation of drug
>>>> prices for medicare (something every other insurance plan in the USA
>>>> does). I believe there were a bunch more.
>>>
>>> Given that it passed without a single Republican vote it seems absurd
>>> to blame them for the contents.
>>
>> Not really. They may not have voted, but they sure negotiated a lot.
>>
>> Basically, they watered it down as far as they could manage through
>> negotiation and then STILL wouldn't vote for it.
>

> Nobody was compelling the Democrats to stick with that bill once
> they realized it would get no (or very few) R votes. They could have
> dropped it and said "You know what? We're gonna pass what *we* want".

True, though I don't think that means the GOP shares no responsibility
for its contents. They worked hard to influence those contents.

That there are other paths -- and there almost always are -- doesn't
mean that the path that was used had no effect on what traveled it.

[William December Starr]

In article <bdol6s0nxqjt$.fpr53yy6rczs$.d...@40tude.net>,
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> said:

> Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote

>
>> Absurd it may be, but Obama believed he had to try and get both
>> sides into the vote.
>
> He's a pragmatic centrist; what else would you expect?

You misspelled "idiot."

Maybe the _smartest_ idiot active today, but still an idiot. Some
have commented that only a George W. Bush could have so quickly and
thoroughly squandered the entire stockpile of sympathy and goodwill
that the world gave the U.S. after 9/11; likewise could anyone but
Obama have dumped every bit of the exuberant support he had when the
2008 election was held? It's like sometime between then and the
Inauguration he just _lost interest_ in being successful.

-- wds

[Robert Carnegie]

Wouldn't you say that his mistake was to not
have all his enemies rounded up and executed,
ideally /at/ the Inauguration? That's what
his fans assumed would happen, sure, but a
whole bunch of other people carried right on
disliking him as they always had.

For war crimes he should have sentenced
George W. Bush to serve at least one term
as Obama's Vice-President, just to keep in
the public eye what Obama isn't. With Biden
it doesn't work the same way.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jul 2, 1:04 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

> > Absurd it may be, but Obama believed he had to try and get
> > both sides into the vote.
>
> He's a pragmatic centrist; what else would you expect?

Excuse me? Obama is not and never has been a centrist. He's a
radical leftist and has been all his life.

I mean, really, he's a Chicago street politician. Are you paying
attention to what he /says/ rather than what he /does/? Naive much?

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jul 2, 4:30 pm, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:

> For war crimes he should have sentenced
> George W. Bush to serve at least one term
> as Obama's Vice-President, just to keep in
> the public eye what Obama isn't.  With Biden
> it doesn't work the same way.

And the punishment for Obama's WORSE war crimes? Legally he is a mass
murderer.

[Kip Williams]

Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Jul 2, 1:04 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Absurd it may be, but Obama believed he had to try and get
>>> both sides into the vote.
>>
>> He's a pragmatic centrist; what else would you expect?
>
>
> Excuse me? Obama is not and never has been a centrist. He's a
> radical leftist and has been all his life.

Fuck that. He's right of Nixon and has been for years. It's the paid
fearmongers who keep saying he's full of evil lefty plans that he'll put
into operation at some mythical future date.

/He'll take away our guns! The proof is that he hasn't yet!/

> I mean, really, he's a Chicago street politician. Are you paying
> attention to what he /says/ rather than what he /does/? Naive much?

Yeah, he talked a good center-left game in the election, all right.
Backwards much?


Kip W
rasfw

[Scott Lurndal]

While the democrats were in the majority until 2010, they weren't
filibuster proof and the republicans filibustered _every single initiative_
that was tried during those first two years. I'm not sure how the
ACA made it through at all.

scott

[Robert Carnegie]

(1) "Legally"?, and, (2), you're saying that
like it matters.

I'm saying that he missed a trick in not appointing
Bush as court jester. Although it would be kind of
difficult to arrange. Maybe get Michelle to dress
up as Condoleezza (two z's? really? huh) and tell
Bush he /won a third term as President/. You know
he'd fall for it. Hang around the White House all
day, happily. Doing little dances for the press.
Except he'd want to go out and cut brush. They'd
have to plant some. What was up with that anyway?

[Seth]

In article <a5ef31...@mid.individual.net>,

Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:

>Nobody was compelling the Democrats to stick with that bill once
>they realized it would get no (or very few) R votes. They could have
>dropped it and said "You know what? We're gonna pass what *we* want".

If they had any guts and organization they could have done that.

Seth

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2ba0159c-05bd-418c...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.
com:

Damn. Somebody made Shawn look like the smart one.

I recall how hard I laughed during the campaign when the press kept
calling Obama bipartisan, and talking up how he like working with the
other side. His idea of working with the other side is for
Republicans (and moderate Democrats) to sit down, shut up, and vote
how they're told.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:d51a596f-04db-4e67...@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 12:35:29 AM UTC+1, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 4:30 pm, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > For war crimes he should have sentenced
>> > George W. Bush to serve at least one term
>> > as Obama's Vice-President, just to keep in
>> > the public eye what Obama isn't.  With Biden
>> > it doesn't work the same way.
>>
>> And the punishment for Obama's WORSE war crimes?
>> Legally he is a mass murderer.
>
> (1) "Legally"?,

In Shawnworld.

> and, (2), you're saying that
> like it matters.

No, he's saying that like *he* matters.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On 2 Jul 2012 18:50:56, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>)
wrote:

That is my take on it as well.

As an aside, this is cross-posted and rasff is downloaded first by
Agent, but it only shows in rasfw. This seems odd to me.
--
"Oh now feel it comin' back again
Like a rollin' thunder chasing the wind
Forces pullin' from the center of the earth again
I can feel it."
- Ed Kowalczyk,Chad Taylor,Patrick Dahlheimer
& Chad Gracey

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 15:37:37, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:

He has no choice now.
--
"In 1980 I found myself seated next to the former president of Mexico
at a ski-area restaurant. What, he asked amiably, had I done when I
lived in Mexico? "I tried to undermine your regime, Mr. President."
He thought this amusing..."
William F. Buckley, Jr.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 13:21:27, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:

>On 2012-07-02 18:50:56, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) said:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:36:48, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> The official name of Obamacare is the "Patient Protection and
>>>>>> Affordable Care Act." Do you care to place any bets on whether the
>>>>>> price of insurance goes up or down? If it goes up, will you admit
>>>>>> I was right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that most of the things that would reduce costs were stripped out
>>>>> by the Republicans, it may go up a bit yet. Eventually we'll vote the
>>>>> blood-sucking sons of bitches out and fix that, though.
>>>>
>>>> What provisions were "stripped out" by the Republicans?
>>>
>>> Off the top of my head, single payer option, and negotiation of drug
>>> prices for medicare (something every other insurance plan in the USA
>>> does). I believe there were a bunch more.
>>
>> Given that it passed without a single Republican vote it seems absurd
>> to blame them for the contents.
>
>Not really. They may not have voted, but they sure negotiated a lot.
>
>Basically, they watered it down as far as they could manage through
>negotiation and then STILL wouldn't vote for it.

I'd like to see actual accounts as opposed to the type of "as I recall"
statements I have seen so far.
--
"God was knocking on the door. And He wanted in real bad."
Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle - Footfall

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 23:59:45, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:

>Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>
>>Nobody was compelling the Democrats to stick with that bill once
>>they realized it would get no (or very few) R votes. They could have
>>dropped it and said "You know what? We're gonna pass what *we* want".
>
>If they had any guts and organization they could have done that.

Well, Will Rogers did famously note that the Democratic Party was not
organized. If it were to try to be organized, they'd probably lose half
their membership.
--
"Short human words were like trying to lift water with a knife."
- Robert A. Heinlein

[David DeLaney]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 2, 1:04 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> > Absurd it may be, but Obama believed he had to try and get
>> > both sides into the vote.
>>
>> He's a pragmatic centrist; what else would you expect?
>
>Excuse me? Obama is not and never has been a centrist. He's a
>radical leftist and has been all his life.

Your world's sky color is showing through again. Obama is slightly right-wing,
with centrist leanings, at present. The trouble is that the Republican party
has run so far and so fast to the right that they've forced video errors
while the cameras try to keep up; _Richard Nixon_ would be a "radical
leftist" in the view you're trying to present as correct. So the only possible
way you can see him that way is if you're running hard to keep up with
the wacko religious fundamentalists and the Tea Party absolute-loons who
have got the Republicans' platforms held hostage.

Really, "Everything that the Democrats propose must be voted down,
filibustered, twisted into nonsense and hatred, and claimed that we did
it first and that's why we can't let them do it" is no way to run a country,
or even a small village.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>His idea of working with the other side is for
>Republicans (and moderate Democrats) to sit down, shut up, and vote
>how they're told.

...for the last few years I could have happily gone along with that program.
Alas, what we got instead.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Some pragmatism about the ongoing behavior of the "party of no".

[David Friedman]

In article <jssvs7$ih4$1...@dont-email.me>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
wrote:

> > Given that it passed without a single Republican vote it seems absurd
> > to blame them for the contents.
>
> Not really. They may not have voted, but they sure negotiated a lot.
>
> Basically, they watered it down as far as they could manage through
> negotiation and then STILL wouldn't vote for it.

In which case the Democrats could have passed whatever version they
wanted, if all of them had been willing to support it. Your version
seems to assume that the Democrats acted foolishly.

I think a more plausible interpretation is that the bill was tailored to
appeal to Democrats--including ones who weren't at all sure they liked
it.

[David Friedman]

In article <jstclh$iar$1...@reader1.panix.com>, se...@panix.com (Seth)
wrote:

Not if some of the Democrats would have refused to vote for what the
others wanted, which was almost certainly the case. There was a good
deal of negotiation designed to buy the votes of particular Democratic
legislators.

[David Friedman]

In article <5MmIr.17381$5i7....@newsfe19.iad>,

Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Given that it passed without a single Republican vote it seems absurd
> > to blame them for the contents.
>
> Absurd it may be, but Obama believed he had to try and get both sides
> into the vote.

You appear to have a lower opinion of his intelligence than I do.

If he believed he had to get both sides to vote for it, he would have
abandoned the program when it was clear he couldn't. If he regarded
doing so as desirable but not essential, he would have constructed his
preferred bill, subject to getting enough Democratic votes to pass it.

Which, I think, was what he was doing.

[David Friedman]

In article
<2ba0159c-05bd-418c...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Excuse me? Obama is not and never has been a centrist. He's a
> radical leftist and has been all his life.
>
> I mean, really, he's a Chicago street politician.

The second statement is correct, but I don't think it is consistent with
the first. The Daley machine was many things, but not radical leftist.

Back when Lindsey was mayor of New York, the story goes, a New York
liberal went to visit Chicago. When he returned, his friends met him at
the airport to find out what that foreign country was like.

"I have seen the past, and it works."

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

No, the problem is they believed that compromise was possible and
reasonable, and that the other guys would be reasonable.

Of course, they weren't going to be reasonable, and so the Democrats
had to do all of the moving. And it kept going that way. The problem
with that, of course, is that if you "compromise" by going halfway
towards your opponent's position, but your opponent doesn't do the same,
in the VERY FIRST iteration you reach the central, true compromise, and
every move after that you're already well into what used to be your
opponent's territory. But since the political axis is defined (in the
USA) almost solely in terms of those two parties, it means that the
ENTIRE AXIS shifts to that direction, and yet both sides are arguing
just as vehemently over smaller and smaller differences.

Zeno's Politics in action.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 7/3/12 5:00 AM, David Friedman wrote:
> In article <jssvs7$ih4$1...@dont-email.me>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Given that it passed without a single Republican vote it seems absurd
>>> to blame them for the contents.
>>
>> Not really. They may not have voted, but they sure negotiated a lot.
>>
>> Basically, they watered it down as far as they could manage through
>> negotiation and then STILL wouldn't vote for it.
>
> In which case the Democrats could have passed whatever version they
> wanted, if all of them had been willing to support it. Your version
> seems to assume that the Democrats acted foolishly.

*DING!* Or rather, yes, in hindsight. Not foolishly from the original
point of view, as I was watching it. (Note, I am neither Republican nor
Democrat and only voted for Obama because I felt he was the lesser of
the two evils at the time. Alas, I'll STILL have to vote for him because
the Republican party has shown it's even crazier than I thought)

The Democrats assumed that (A) the core of politics is compromise
between two positions, and (B) that the Republicans recognized this and
would bargain in good faith. Obama, despite having a landslide, wanted
to try to bring everyone together, so compromise was his first initiative.

The Republicans actually had no intention of supporting anything with
his name on it, but "bargained" by pressuring him and implying he might
get support if he did this, then that, then the other thing. Then, AFTER
it was all changed, it was put to the vote and the Republicans reneged
on the implied deals. They knew they could do this and that it would
HELP them if they did this, because then people would say, exactly as
you have, that this MUST have been Obama's plan -- he could have passed
anything he wanted! Thus this broken, half-effective, clumsy, barely
better than nothing plan which is nonetheless "Obamacare". And other
similar events.

Now, we can say he should've just gone ahead and DONE what he wanted to
do. But not being a time traveller or Mentor of Arisia, I can't foresee
what might have happened if Obama had said "Screw you guys. I don't need
you, I don't need compromise, I need to get things DONE, and so you can
just sit down and NOT vote if that's what you want."

[Carson Chittom]

My ninth-hand understanding is that the Republicans "filibustered" by
quietly saying, "If you bring up such-and-such a measure, we'll
filibuster it"; to which the Democrats, rather than requiring the former
to actually declaim Shakespeare and read phonebooks, caved. Perhaps I'm
misinformed.

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 02:01:48, David Friedman
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>> Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>>
>> >Nobody was compelling the Democrats to stick with that bill once
>> >they realized it would get no (or very few) R votes. They could have
>> >dropped it and said "You know what? We're gonna pass what *we* want".
>>
>> If they had any guts and organization they could have done that.
>
>Not if some of the Democrats would have refused to vote for what the
>others wanted, which was almost certainly the case. There was a good
>deal of negotiation designed to buy the votes of particular Democratic
>legislators.

Democratic Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of
Louisiana pop right to mind in that regard.
--
"The only universal message in science fiction: There exist minds that
think as well as you do, but differently."
- Laurence VanCott Niven

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 08:39:36, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>On 7/3/12 5:00 AM, David Friedman wrote:
>> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Given that it passed without a single Republican vote it seems absurd
>>>> to blame them for the contents.
>>>
>>> Not really. They may not have voted, but they sure negotiated a lot.
>>>
>>> Basically, they watered it down as far as they could manage through
>>> negotiation and then STILL wouldn't vote for it.
>>
>> In which case the Democrats could have passed whatever version they
>> wanted, if all of them had been willing to support it. Your version
>> seems to assume that the Democrats acted foolishly.
>
> *DING!* Or rather, yes, in hindsight. Not foolishly from the original
>point of view, as I was watching it. (Note, I am neither Republican nor
>Democrat and only voted for Obama because I felt he was the lesser of
>the two evils at the time. Alas, I'll STILL have to vote for him because
>the Republican party has shown it's even crazier than I thought)
>
> The Democrats assumed that (A) the core of politics is compromise
>between two positions, and (B) that the Republicans recognized this and
>would bargain in good faith. Obama, despite having a landslide, wanted
>to try to bring everyone together, so compromise was his first initiative.

The compromises were with his own Party, Wasp. He had to compromise to
get Democrats on board. They remembered Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Margolies-Mezvinsky> from the
Clinton era and wanted concessions if they were to vote for PPACA. As
in my other post, I'll mention Senators Nelson of Nebraska and Landreiu
of Louisiana as two who had to be so courted in order to pass the bill.

> The Republicans actually had no intention of supporting anything with
>his name on it, but "bargained" by pressuring him and implying he might
>get support if he did this, then that, then the other thing. Then, AFTER
>it was all changed, it was put to the vote and the Republicans reneged
>on the implied deals. They knew they could do this and that it would
>HELP them if they did this, because then people would say, exactly as
>you have, that this MUST have been Obama's plan -- he could have passed
>anything he wanted! Thus this broken, half-effective, clumsy, barely
>better than nothing plan which is nonetheless "Obamacare". And other
>similar events.
>
> Now, we can say he should've just gone ahead and DONE what he wanted to
>do. But not being a time traveller or Mentor of Arisia, I can't foresee
>what might have happened if Obama had said "Screw you guys. I don't need
>you, I don't need compromise, I need to get things DONE, and so you can
>just sit down and NOT vote if that's what you want."
--

"You roll out of bed, Mr. Coffee's dead - The morning's looking bright
And your priest ran off to Europe - And didn't even write
And your husband wants to be a girl ....."
Gary Portney

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-07-03 09:00:38 +0000, David Friedman

<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:

> In article <jssvs7$ih4$1...@dont-email.me>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Given that it passed without a single Republican vote it seems absurd
>>> to blame them for the contents.
>>
>> Not really. They may not have voted, but they sure negotiated a lot.
>>
>> Basically, they watered it down as far as they could manage through
>> negotiation and then STILL wouldn't vote for it.
>
> In which case the Democrats could have passed whatever version they
> wanted, if all of them had been willing to support it. Your version
> seems to assume that the Democrats acted foolishly.
>
> I think a more plausible interpretation is that the bill was tailored to
> appeal to Democrats--including ones who weren't at all sure they liked
> it.

I think that's a plausible partial interpretation, but incomplete.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in
news:slrnjv4kj...@gatekeeper.vic.com:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>His idea of working with the other side is for
>>Republicans (and moderate Democrats) to sit down, shut up, and
>>vote how they're told.
>
> ...for the last few years I could have happily gone along with
> that program. Alas, what we got instead.
>

Indeed. But it's hardly surprising, when his followers were
_literally_ (and yes, I know what it means) comparing him to Jesus
during the campaign.

[David DeLaney]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in

>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>His idea of working with the other side is for
>>>Republicans (and moderate Democrats) to sit down, shut up, and
>>>vote how they're told.
>>
>> ...for the last few years I could have happily gone along with
>> that program. Alas, what we got instead.
>>
>Indeed. But it's hardly surprising, when his followers were
>_literally_ (and yes, I know what it means) comparing him to Jesus
>during the campaign.

Well, you can compare almost _anyone_ to Jesus. I presume you mean "and
saying they were near-equals"?

Dave, currently has Jesus hair but maybe 1.5x Jesus weight

[David DeLaney]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In which case the Democrats could have passed whatever version they
>wanted, if all of them had been willing to support it. Your version
>seems to assume that the Democrats acted foolishly.

...I am shocked, SHOCKED, to hear of Democrats acting foolishly in a politicial
situation in this establishment!

Dave

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in

news:slrnjv66o...@gatekeeper.vic.com:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>His idea of working with the other side is for
>>>>Republicans (and moderate Democrats) to sit down, shut up, and
>>>>vote how they're told.
>>>
>>> ...for the last few years I could have happily gone along with
>>> that program. Alas, what we got instead.
>>>
>>Indeed. But it's hardly surprising, when his followers were
>>_literally_ (and yes, I know what it means) comparing him to
>>Jesus during the campaign.
>
> Well, you can compare almost _anyone_ to Jesus. I presume you
> mean "and saying they were near-equals"?

And do you want to know the scariest part? It wasn't some random
wingnut on a blog. It was John Fucking Scalzi, who, while a wingnut
on a blog, isn't generally random.

>
> Dave, currently has Jesus hair but maybe 1.5x Jesus weight

So your'e 50% better than Jesus?

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-07-03 16:29:10 +0000, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

<taus...@gmail.com> said:

> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in
> news:slrnjv66o...@gatekeeper.vic.com:
>
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in
>>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> His idea of working with the other side is for
>>>>> Republicans (and moderate Democrats) to sit down, shut up, and
>>>>> vote how they're told.
>>>>
>>>> ...for the last few years I could have happily gone along with
>>>> that program. Alas, what we got instead.
>>>>
>>> Indeed. But it's hardly surprising, when his followers were
>>> _literally_ (and yes, I know what it means) comparing him to
>>> Jesus during the campaign.
>>
>> Well, you can compare almost _anyone_ to Jesus. I presume you
>> mean "and saying they were near-equals"?
>
> And do you want to know the scariest part? It wasn't some random
> wingnut on a blog. It was John Fucking Scalzi, who, while a wingnut
> on a blog, isn't generally random.
>>
>> Dave, currently has Jesus hair but maybe 1.5x Jesus weight
>
> So your'e 50% better than Jesus?

Bigger. Like the Beatles.

[David Friedman]

In article <slrnjv66r...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,

d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >In which case the Democrats could have passed whatever version they
> >wanted, if all of them had been willing to support it. Your version
> >seems to assume that the Democrats acted foolishly.
>
> ...I am shocked, SHOCKED, to hear of Democrats acting foolishly in a
> politicial
> situation in this establishment!

And we just watched "Casablanca" a few days ago.

I disapprove of Obama's policies, but I don't think he is foolish.

Political parties have some of the same market failure problems as
governments--even if each politician correctly acts in his own interest,
the net result may be worse for most or even all than if they had done
something else. I think the Republicans have illustrated that problem in
the course of choosing a presidential candidate.

But I wouldn't blame the Democrats for that, or the Republicans for
similar situations on the other side.

[Jette Goldie]

On 03/07/2012 00:32, Shawn Wilson wrote:

> On Jul 2, 1:04 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Absurd it may be, but Obama believed he had to try and get
>>> both sides into the vote.
>>
>> He's a pragmatic centrist; what else would you expect?
>
>

> Excuse me? Obama is not and never has been a centrist. He's a
> radical leftist and has been all his life.
>

> I mean, really, he's a Chicago street politician. Are you paying
> attention to what he /says/ rather than what he /does/? Naive much?
>
>

Hmmm, the American "left" seems to be to the right of everyone else's
"centre" :-)


--
Jette Goldie
jgold...@btinternet.com

Living in the Future!

[David Friedman]

In article <jsup68$ejb$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> The Republicans actually had no intention of supporting anything with
> his name on it, but "bargained" by pressuring him and implying he might
> get support if he did this, then that, then the other thing. Then, AFTER
> it was all changed, it was put to the vote and the Republicans reneged
> on the implied deals.

How can you know these things well enough to have confidence in that
account? All of the relevant sources have their own axes to grind and
their own biases in looking at what happened. In particular, how can you
know that an "implied deal" ever existed?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in
news:jsv7al$6ea$1...@dont-email.me:

Jesus Fat(tm).

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 00:28:39, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> writes:

>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

>>>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:

>>>>>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>
>>>>>>>> The official name of Obamacare is the "Patient
>>>>>>>> Protection and Affordable Care Act." Do you care to
>>>>>>>> place any bets on whether the price of insurance
>>>>>>>> goes up or down? If it goes up, will you admit I
>>>>>>>> was right?
>>
>>>>>>> Given that most of the things that would reduce costs
>>>>>>> were stripped out by the Republicans, it may go up a
>>>>>>> bit yet. Eventually we'll vote the blood-sucking
>>>>>>> sons of bitches out and fix that, though.
>>
>>>>>> What provisions were "stripped out" by the Republicans?
>>
>>>>> Off the top of my head, single payer option, and
>>>>> negotiation of drug prices for medicare (something
>>>>> every other insurance plan in the USA does). I believe
>>>>> there were a bunch more.
>>
>>>> Given that it passed without a single Republican vote it
>>>> seems absurd to blame them for the contents.
>>
>> Only if you look at too narrow a picture.
>>
>>> Absurd it may be, but Obama believed he had to try and get
>>> both sides into the vote.
>>
>> He's a pragmatic centrist; what else would you expect?
>
>Some pragmatism about the ongoing behavior of the "party of no".

A not insignificant number of the McSoundbite named Party were sent to
Washington in 2010 *to* say "No." to the President. One would think
that a politician keeping their promises would be an objectively good
thing to do.
--
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know
whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty'."
- Theodore Roosevelt

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

>Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Jul 2, 1:04 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>>> > Absurd it may be, but Obama believed he had to try and get
>>> > both sides into the vote.
>>>
>>> He's a pragmatic centrist; what else would you expect?
>>
>>Excuse me? Obama is not and never has been a centrist. He's a
>>radical leftist and has been all his life.
>
>Your world's sky color is showing through again. Obama is slightly right-wing,
>with centrist leanings, at present. The trouble is that the Republican party
>has run so far and so fast to the right that they've forced video errors
>while the cameras try to keep up; _Richard Nixon_ would be a "radical
>leftist" in the view you're trying to present as correct. So the only possible
>way you can see him that way is if you're running hard to keep up with
>the wacko religious fundamentalists and the Tea Party absolute-loons

How are "fiscal responsibility, strict constitutionality and free
markets" the markers of absolute loondom?

>who have got the Republicans' platforms held hostage.
>
>Really, "Everything that the Democrats propose must be voted down,
>filibustered, twisted into nonsense and hatred, and claimed that we did
>it first and that's why we can't let them do it" is no way to run a country,
>or even a small village.

--
"I'm warning you: I'm very dangerous when I don't know what I'm doing..."
- The Fourth Doctor

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On 02 Jul 2012 23:40:20 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

>wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) writes:
>>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> said:

>>> Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>
>>>> Absurd it may be, but Obama believed he had to try and get both
>>>> sides into the vote.
>>>
>>> He's a pragmatic centrist; what else would you expect?
>>

>>You misspelled "idiot."
>>
>>Maybe the _smartest_ idiot active today, but still an idiot. Some
>>have commented that only a George W. Bush could have so quickly and
>>thoroughly squandered the entire stockpile of sympathy and goodwill
>>that the world gave the U.S. after 9/11; likewise could anyone but
>>Obama have dumped every bit of the exuberant support he had when the
>>2008 election was held? It's like sometime between then and the
>>Inauguration he just _lost interest_ in being successful.
>
>While the democrats were in the majority until 2010, they weren't
>filibuster proof and the republicans filibustered _every single initiative_
>that was tried during those first two years. I'm not sure how the
>ACA made it through at all.

Do you mean PPACA? And have you forgotten about ARRA?
--
"Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that
you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who
misunderstand you."
Sir Karl Popper

[David Loewe, Jr.]

Pretty much.

I'd like to see them go back to the old method where somebody had to
keep talking on the floor (at least during business hours - I'd modify
it that much) in order to keep the filibuster alive.
--
"Why, Orson [Welles]," Eddie [Wood] asked with a final tug. "What
are we going to do tonight?"
"The same thing we do every night, Eddie," I responded, lighting
the cigar and savoring the taste of the smoke. "Try to take over
the movies." - A World Of Laughter, A World Of Tears

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 16:32:25 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:2ba0159c-05bd-418c...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.fandom,rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Jul 2, 1:04 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>>> Absurd it may be, but Obama believed he had to try and get
>>> both sides into the vote.

>> He's a pragmatic centrist; what else would you expect?

> Excuse me? Obama is not and never has been a centrist. He's a
> radical leftist and has been all his life.

<splork>

Is your real name Rush Limbaugh?

> I mean, really, he's a Chicago street politician. Are you
> paying attention to what he /says/ rather than what he
> /does/?

Both, but primarily to what he does, of course.

> Naive much?

You, or me? Actually, neither of us is naïve: I'm
realistic, and you're nuts.

[Moriarty]

On Jul 4, 3:48 am, Jette Goldie <jgoldie...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 00:32, Shawn Wilson wrote:

<snip>

> > Excuse me?  Obama is not and never has been a centrist.  He's a
> > radical leftist and has been all his life.
>
> > I mean, really, he's a Chicago street politician.  Are you paying
> > attention to what he /says/ rather than what he /does/?  Naive much?
>
> Hmmm, the American "left" seems to be to the right of everyone else's
> "centre" :-)

You're taking Shawn's loony views and tarring other Americans with the
same brush.

-Moriarty

[Kip Williams]

No, the alleged center here is way to the right, due to the GOP's
aggressive strategy of playing the ref.

I say "alleged," because polls that don't ask whether people identify as
a liberal or conservative, but instead ask specific questions about
rights and what they want from the government, tend to show that voters
are more liberal than they know.

I do believe, though, that even taking that into account, our center is
far to the left of Europe's.


Kip W
rasfw

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote in
news:egp6v7ts6ju6mt5vj...@4ax.com:

As a counterexample, tell that to those who were living in Germany
in the early 20s.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:0qp6v7tq4phjttlqe...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
> wrote:
>
>>Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Jul 2, 1:04 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu>
>>>wrote:
>
>>>> > Absurd it may be, but Obama believed he had to try and get
>>>> > both sides into the vote.
>>>>
>>>> He's a pragmatic centrist; what else would you expect?
>>>
>>>Excuse me? Obama is not and never has been a centrist. He's a
>>>radical leftist and has been all his life.
>>
>>Your world's sky color is showing through again. Obama is
>>slightly right-wing, with centrist leanings, at present. The
>>trouble is that the Republican party has run so far and so fast
>>to the right that they've forced video errors while the cameras
>>try to keep up; _Richard Nixon_ would be a "radical leftist" in
>>the view you're trying to present as correct. So the only
>>possible way you can see him that way is if you're running hard
>>to keep up with the wacko religious fundamentalists and the Tea
>>Party absolute-loons
>
> How are "fiscal responsibility, strict constitutionality and
> free markets" the markers of absolute loondom?

I was just reading, a little while ago, about a Tea Bagger
legislator in Montana, who is ranting that - seriously - Bambi will
cause gasoline to go to $25/gallon soon.

Tea Baggers *are* loons.

[David DeLaney]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in

>> Dave, currently has Jesus hair but maybe 1.5x Jesus weight
>
>So your'e 50% better than Jesus?

Depends how you rate avoirdupois.

Dave, and what kind of ounces

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:52:40, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote

People who call them "Tea Baggers" are loons.

I saw video of a US Representative from Georgia, a member of the
Democratic Party, who asked an Admiral if the island of Guam could tip
over if they put too many people on it. Don't act like all of the loons
are on one side of the aisle or that they are more numerous on one side
or the other.
--
"There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool
following it."
- Laurence VanCott Niven

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

Surely you meant "right."
--
"Clams on the half shell...and rollerskates."
Bernard Edwards & Nile Rodgers

[Kurt Busiek]

No, Shawn's views are loony as hell, but what Americans call the left
does extend far to the right of what most of the world considers the
center.

[David Friedman]

In article <jt0db9$p2j$1...@dont-email.me>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
wrote:

> No, Shawn's views are loony as hell, but what Americans call the left
> does extend far to the right of what most of the world considers the
> center.

Part of that may be because the U.S. has a two party system, and each
party is a coalition. Democrats are presumptively left--but some of them
are well to the right of some Republicans.

Much of Europe has proportional representation, which tends to produce
multiple parties with clearer ideological locations.

But it's also true that socialist ideas have been more popular, and
classical liberal ideas less, in Europe than in America over the past
century plus. Substantial elements of the New Deal were copied from
Bismarck's Prussia--decades after Bismarck implemented them there.

[David Friedman]

In article <f8b7v7pgba6gtb0kp...@4ax.com>,

"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:

> >Tea Baggers *are* loons.
>
> People who call them "Tea Baggers" are loons.

Not loons--only rude and arrogant.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:23:41 -0400, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
DeLaney) wrote:

>Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in
>>> Dave, currently has Jesus hair but maybe 1.5x Jesus weight
>>
>>So your'e 50% better than Jesus?
>
>Depends how you rate avoirdupois.

I can take it or leave it. I mean, it is not as if it is any
sort of gold standard.

>Dave, and what kind of ounces

Sincerely,

Gene "Troylling" Wirchenko

[Philip Chee]

My observation from this side of the pond is that Obama is solidly
middle of the road. But since in the US there is no real "left" to
counterbalance the right wing Republicans, most Americans don't have a
political scale that goes anywhere left of centre and so Obama is "left"
only in the relative sense.

Phil

--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.

[David Friedman]

In article <5otbmj....@news.alt.net>,

Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:

> But since in the US there is no real "left" to
> counterbalance the right wing Republicans, most Americans don't have a
> political scale that goes anywhere left of centre and so Obama is "left"
> only in the relative sense.

For a slightly different perspective, note that, for all the talk about
reducing government spending and balancing the budget, the "cuts"
proposed by the Republicans (other than Ron Paul) are reductions in the
rate of growth of spending, not reductions in spending. The most extreme
reform of the schooling system that anyone in politics seriously
considers is to retain a massive government subsidy, while permitting
students to choose between government run and privately run but
government funded schools. Similarly in many other issues.

Or in other words, from your standpoint the American political scale
runs from center to right, from mine it runs from center to left.
Governments currently spent more than three times as large a fraction of
national income as they did in the nineteenth century, and nobody is
politics is seriously suggesting any significant reduction in that.

[David Friedman]

In article <sbg7v7d59s6glg3m7...@4ax.com>,

Which heavier, an ounce of gold or an ounce of feathers?

[David DeLaney]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:

>> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>> >Depends how you rate avoirdupois.
>>
>> I can take it or leave it. I mean, it is not as if it is any
>> sort of gold standard.
>>
>> >Dave, and what kind of ounces
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Gene "Troylling" Wirchenko
>
>Which heavier, an ounce of gold or an ounce of feathers?

Depends; what's the air pressure, and where's the linking verb?

Dave

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 12:19:59 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> said:
>>
>> > Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote

>> >
>> >> Absurd it may be, but Obama believed he had to try and get both
>> >> sides into the vote.
>> >
>> > He's a pragmatic centrist; what else would you expect?
>>

>> You misspelled "idiot."
>>
>> Maybe the _smartest_ idiot active today, but still an idiot. Some
>> have commented that only a George W. Bush could have so quickly and
>> thoroughly squandered the entire stockpile of sympathy and goodwill
>> that the world gave the U.S. after 9/11; likewise could anyone but
>> Obama have dumped every bit of the exuberant support he had when the
>> 2008 election was held? It's like sometime between then and the
>> Inauguration he just _lost interest_ in being successful.
>

>Wouldn't you say that his mistake was to not
>have all his enemies rounded up and executed,
>ideally /at/ the Inauguration? That's what
>his fans assumed would happen, sure, but a
>whole bunch of other people carried right on
>disliking him as they always had.
>
>For war crimes he should have sentenced
>George W. Bush to serve at least one term
>as Obama's Vice-President,

Would you give Obama the power to unilaterally change the Constitution?
Because that is what would be necessary to have this occur.

>just to keep in the public eye what Obama isn't.

I don't think that the comparison would go quite the way you believe.

>With Biden it doesn't work the same way.
--
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail
fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
- John Paul Jones

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:24:52, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)

wrote:

>Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>His idea of working with the other side is for
>>Republicans (and moderate Democrats) to sit down, shut up, and vote
>>how they're told.
>
>...for the last few years I could have happily gone along with that program.
>Alas, what we got instead.

Because freedom of thought and action are such ugly concepts?
--
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible
you may be mistaken."
- Oliver Cromwell

[Robert Carnegie]

Do you mean the "executing his enemies" part,
or Bush as Vice-President? I haven't looked
into this, does the Vice-President have to be
eligible as President? Or in that case won't
it just skip over to the next man / woman if
Obama decides to take a long vacation?

> >just to keep in the public eye what Obama isn't.
>
> I don't think that the comparison would go quite the way you believe.

I would have him dance for us /and/ make
speeches. Maybe simultaneously. He said
there wasn't one day of his term that
wasn't joyous, let's keep the joy coming.

Obviously I should have suggested this at
the appropriate time.

[Lowell Gilbert]

d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) writes:

> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>>> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>> >Depends how you rate avoirdupois.
>>>
>>> I can take it or leave it. I mean, it is not as if it is any
>>> sort of gold standard.
>>>
>>> >Dave, and what kind of ounces
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Gene "Troylling" Wirchenko
>>
>>Which heavier, an ounce of gold or an ounce of feathers?
>
> Depends; what's the air pressure, and where's the linking verb?

I'll give you a hint on the latter: boy, are its arms tired.

- Lowell

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 08:53:03, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com>
wrote:

We have due process.

>or Bush as Vice-President? I haven't looked
>into this,

Obviously.

>does the Vice-President have to be
>eligible as President?

Yes.

"no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall
be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

>Or in that case won't
>it just skip over to the next man / woman if
>Obama decides to take a long vacation?
>
>> >just to keep in the public eye what Obama isn't.
>>
>> I don't think that the comparison would go quite the way you believe.
>
>I would have him dance for us /and/ make
>speeches. Maybe simultaneously. He said
>there wasn't one day of his term that
>wasn't joyous, let's keep the joy coming.

Envy is not pretty.

>Obviously I should have suggested this at
>the appropriate time.
>
>> >With Biden it doesn't work the same way.

--
"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who
does not want to adopt a rational attitude."
Sir Karl Popper

[Scott Lurndal]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:

>Governments currently spent more than three times as large a fraction of
>national income as they did in the nineteenth century, and nobody is
>politics is seriously suggesting any significant reduction in that.

Feel free to reduce your standard of living back to that of the
nineteenth century. I prefer here and now.

BTW, comparing apples to oranges isn't considered to be good debating
technique.

[David Friedman]

In article <B9_Ir.187144$0I1.1...@news.usenetserver.com>,

sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>
> >Governments currently spent more than three times as large a fraction of
> >national income as they did in the nineteenth century, and nobody is
> >politics is seriously suggesting any significant reduction in that.
>
> Feel free to reduce your standard of living back to that of the
> nineteenth century. I prefer here and now.

And you have some evidence that the higher level of government spending
is the cause of the increased national income?

In any case, I wasn't arguing that the government should spend less,
although I think it should. My point was that, by that standard, the
"center" of U.S. political views has shifted far to the left over the
past century plus, defined as towards a larger role for government.

[David Friedman]

In article <slrnjv8d...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,

d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> >> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> >> >Depends how you rate avoirdupois.
> >>
> >> I can take it or leave it. I mean, it is not as if it is any
> >> sort of gold standard.
> >>
> >> >Dave, and what kind of ounces
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> Gene "Troylling" Wirchenko
> >
> >Which heavier, an ounce of gold or an ounce of feathers?
>
> Depends; what's the air pressure, and where's the linking verb?

The linking verb fell into the cracks of my keyboard and got lost--it
was "is."

Assume zero air pressure for simplicity.

[Lowell Gilbert]

"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:

> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>the wacko religious fundamentalists and the Tea Party absolute-loons
>
> How are "fiscal responsibility, strict constitutionality and free
> markets" the markers of absolute loondom?

Hee.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 7/4/12 1:43 PM, David Friedman wrote:
> In article <B9_Ir.187144$0I1.1...@news.usenetserver.com>,
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>>
>>> Governments currently spent more than three times as large a fraction of
>>> national income as they did in the nineteenth century, and nobody is
>>> politics is seriously suggesting any significant reduction in that.
>>
>> Feel free to reduce your standard of living back to that of the
>> nineteenth century. I prefer here and now.
>
> And you have some evidence that the higher level of government spending
> is the cause of the increased national income?
>
> In any case, I wasn't arguing that the government should spend less,
> although I think it should. My point was that, by that standard, the
> "center" of U.S. political views has shifted far to the left over the
> past century plus, defined as towards a larger role for government.
>

That implies that companies that get larger are also shifting to the
left, because they spend a larger fraction of their income on various
types of overhead. The fact is that as you get bigger, and things get
more complicated, you end up spending a larger and larger fraction of
your resources on "overhead". Government is the overhead of the country.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[David Friedman]

In article <0qp6v7tq4phjttlqe...@4ax.com>,
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>(David DeLaney) wrote:

> > So the only possible
> >way you can see him that way is if you're running hard to keep up with

> >the wacko religious fundamentalists and the Tea Party absolute-loons

> How are "fiscal responsibility, strict constitutionality and free
> markets" the markers of absolute loondom?

> >who have got the Republicans' platforms held hostage.

Both of you did notice that Ron Paul isn't getting the nomination,
didn't you?

And I don't think the Republican party has a platform, at the national
level at least, until the convention.

[David Friedman]

In article <jt245d$24l$2...@dont-email.me>,

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> > In any case, I wasn't arguing that the government should spend less,
> > although I think it should. My point was that, by that standard, the
> > "center" of U.S. political views has shifted far to the left over the
> > past century plus, defined as towards a larger role for government.
> >
>
> That implies that companies that get larger are also shifting to the
> left, because they spend a larger fraction of their income on various
> types of overhead. The fact is that as you get bigger, and things get
> more complicated, you end up spending a larger and larger fraction of
> your resources on "overhead". Government is the overhead of the country.

If that were true, we would observe that the fraction of national income
spent by government correlated strongly with nation size at one time as
well as over time. I don't believe we do.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:14:49, David Friedman
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>(David DeLaney) wrote:
>
>> > So the only possible
>> >way you can see him that way is if you're running hard to keep up with
>> >the wacko religious fundamentalists and the Tea Party absolute-loons
>
>> How are "fiscal responsibility, strict constitutionality and free
>> markets" the markers of absolute loondom?
>
>> >who have got the Republicans' platforms held hostage.
>
>Both of you did notice that Ron Paul isn't getting the nomination,
>didn't you?

Yes. So?

>And I don't think the Republican party has a platform, at the national
>level at least, until the convention.

We're not talking about the Republican Party.

The various (there are many - and it's a feature, not a bug) Tea Parties
have varied platforms and interests, but if you get down to the basic
that virtually all of them agree on, those three things I mentioned are
all, by far, the most dominant ones.

All you need to do to confirm this is look back at the initial wave of
Tea Party protests.
--
"Caught between the longing for love
And the struggle for the legal tender"
Clyde J. Browne

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:30:46, Lowell Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org>
wrote:

Do you have a substantive response?
--
"Nothing so conclusively proves a man's ability to lead others as
what he does from day to day to lead himself."
- Thomas Watson, Sr.

[David DeLaney]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> >Which heavier, an ounce of gold or an ounce of feathers?
>>
>> Depends; what's the air pressure, and where's the linking verb?
>
>The linking verb fell into the cracks of my keyboard and got lost--it
>was "is."

Is it was will be now? Or haven it been not?

>Assume zero air pressure for simplicity.

Then if I -remember- right it's the ounce of feathers. But I'd have to look
it up to be sure.

Dave "the wonderful thing about standards / is standards are wonderful things"
DeLaney

[David DeLaney]

David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>His idea of working with the other side is for
>>>Republicans (and moderate Democrats) to sit down, shut up, and vote
>>>how they're told.
>>
>>...for the last few years I could have happily gone along with that program.
>>Alas, what we got instead.
>
>Because freedom of thought and action are such ugly concepts?

Our TWO freedoms are freedom of thought, freedom of action, and freedom of
choice ... three. Our THREE freedoms are freedom of thought, freedom of
action, freedom of choice, and freedom of worship -- -- ...AMONGST our
freedoms are such qualities as!

Dave "...I'll come in again" DeLaney

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:37:46 -0700, David Friedman
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

>In article <sbg7v7d59s6glg3m7...@4ax.com>,
> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:23:41 -0400, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
>> DeLaney) wrote:

[snip]

>> >Depends how you rate avoirdupois.
>>
>> I can take it or leave it. I mean, it is not as if it is any
>> sort of gold standard.
>>
>> >Dave, and what kind of ounces
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Gene "Troylling" Wirchenko
>
>Which heavier, an ounce of gold or an ounce of feathers?

The gold, of course.

Now, what about if it were pounds?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[David Goldfarb]

In article <slrnjv9c7...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,

David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>> >Which heavier, an ounce of gold or an ounce of feathers?
>>>
>>> Depends; what's the air pressure, and where's the linking verb?
>>
>>The linking verb fell into the cracks of my keyboard and got lost--it
>>was "is."
>
>Is it was will be now? Or haven it been not?
>
>>Assume zero air pressure for simplicity.
>
>Then if I -remember- right it's the ounce of feathers. But I'd have to look
>it up to be sure.

Nope, the ounce of gold is heavier. But if we move up to pounds, then
the feathers take it.

(A troy ounce is more weight than an avoirdupois...but avoirdupois pounds
are 16 ounces, and troy pounds are only 12.)

--
David Goldfarb | From the fortune cookie file:
goldf...@gmail.com |
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | "You will have gold pieces by the bushel."

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:34:38, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
wrote:

>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>>Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>His idea of working with the other side is for
>>>>Republicans (and moderate Democrats) to sit down, shut up, and vote
>>>>how they're told.
>>>
>>>...for the last few years I could have happily gone along with that program.
>>>Alas, what we got instead.
>>
>>Because freedom of thought and action are such ugly concepts?
>
>Our TWO freedoms are freedom of thought, freedom of action, and freedom of
>choice ... three. Our THREE freedoms are freedom of thought, freedom of
>action, freedom of choice, and freedom of worship -- -- ...AMONGST our
>freedoms are such qualities as!
>
>Dave "...I'll come in again" DeLaney

Those TWO are the ones you'd be trampling on if you had been to have

"gone along" with that program.

--
"Why, Orson [Welles]," Eddie [Wood] asked with a final tug. "What
are we going to do tonight?"
"The same thing we do every night, Eddie," I responded, lighting
the cigar and savoring the taste of the smoke. "Try to take over
the movies." - A World Of Laughter, A World Of Tears

[David Friedman]

In article <M6nt2...@kithrup.com>,

gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:

> Nope, the ounce of gold is heavier. But if we move up to pounds, then
> the feathers take it.
>
> (A troy ounce is more weight than an avoirdupois...but avoirdupois pounds
> are 16 ounces, and troy pounds are only 12.)

Got it.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:34:38 -0400, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
DeLaney) wrote:

>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>>Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>His idea of working with the other side is for
>>>>Republicans (and moderate Democrats) to sit down, shut up, and vote
>>>>how they're told.
>>>
>>>...for the last few years I could have happily gone along with that program.
>>>Alas, what we got instead.
>>
>>Because freedom of thought and action are such ugly concepts?
>
>Our TWO freedoms are freedom of thought, freedom of action, and freedom of
>choice ... three. Our THREE freedoms are freedom of thought, freedom of
>action, freedom of choice, and freedom of worship -- -- ...AMONGST our
>freedoms are such qualities as!

...angst over counting small quantities.

>Dave "...I'll come in again" DeLaney

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Alan Woodford]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 23:25:46 GMT, gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David
Goldfarb) wrote:

>In article <slrnjv9c7...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
>David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>>> >Which heavier, an ounce of gold or an ounce of feathers?
>>>>
>>>> Depends; what's the air pressure, and where's the linking verb?
>>>
>>>The linking verb fell into the cracks of my keyboard and got lost--it
>>>was "is."
>>
>>Is it was will be now? Or haven it been not?
>>
>>>Assume zero air pressure for simplicity.
>>
>>Then if I -remember- right it's the ounce of feathers. But I'd have to look
>>it up to be sure.
>
>Nope, the ounce of gold is heavier. But if we move up to pounds, then
>the feathers take it.
>
>(A troy ounce is more weight than an avoirdupois...but avoirdupois pounds
>are 16 ounces, and troy pounds are only 12.)

Another trivial fact learned. Today has -not- been wasted :-)

Alan Woodford
The Greying Lensman!

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote in
news:f8b7v7pgba6gtb0kp...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:52:40, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote

>>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
>>> wrote:

>>>>Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Jul 2, 1:04 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu>

>>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> > Absurd it may be, but Obama believed he had to try and
>>>>>> > get both sides into the vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's a pragmatic centrist; what else would you expect?
>>>>>

>>>>>Excuse me? Obama is not and never has been a centrist. He's
>>>>>a radical leftist and has been all his life.
>>>>
>>>>Your world's sky color is showing through again. Obama is
>>>>slightly right-wing, with centrist leanings, at present. The
>>>>trouble is that the Republican party has run so far and so
>>>>fast to the right that they've forced video errors while the
>>>>cameras try to keep up; _Richard Nixon_ would be a "radical
>>>>leftist" in the view you're trying to present as correct. So

>>>>the only possible way you can see him that way is if you're

>>>>running hard to keep up with the wacko religious

>>>>fundamentalists and the Tea Party absolute-loons
>>>
>>> How are "fiscal responsibility, strict constitutionality and
>>> free markets" the markers of absolute loondom?
>>

>>I was just reading, a little while ago, about a Tea Bagger
>>legislator in Montana, who is ranting that - seriously - Bambi
>>will cause gasoline to go to $25/gallon soon.
>>
>>Tea Baggers *are* loons.
>
> People who call them "Tea Baggers" are loons.

That's what they called *themselves*, originally. Until they
learned how fucking stupid they were.
>
> I saw video of a US Representative from Georgia, a member of the
> Democratic Party, who asked an Admiral if the island of Guam
> could tip over if they put too many people on it. Don't act
> like all of the loons are on one side of the aisle or that they
> are more numerous on one side or the other.

Typical lie, from an admitted liar. At no paoint did I say that
*only* Tea Baggers were loons, as you well know, only that they
*are* loons. Which you also know.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in news:ddfr-
97D729.203...@news.giganews.com:

> In article <f8b7v7pgba6gtb0kp...@4ax.com>,

> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> >Tea Baggers *are* loons.
>>
>> People who call them "Tea Baggers" are loons.
>

> Not loons--only rude and arrogant.
>
So you agree, then, that the idea that Bambi is going to cause
$25/gallong gasoline (due to a deliberate conspiracy involving
buffalo) is not loony?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:sth8v7poheu9t850n...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:24:52, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
> DeLaney) wrote:
>
>>Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>His idea of working with the other side is for
>>>Republicans (and moderate Democrats) to sit down, shut up, and
>>>vote how they're told.
>>
>>...for the last few years I could have happily gone along with
>>that program. Alas, what we got instead.
>
> Because freedom of thought and action are such ugly concepts?

ARe you really so intellectually challenged that you can't imagine
anything worse, even when you read about it in the newspaper?

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 09:13:58, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:24:52, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
>> DeLaney) wrote:
>>>Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>His idea of working with the other side is for
>>>>Republicans (and moderate Democrats) to sit down, shut up, and
>>>>vote how they're told.
>>>
>>>...for the last few years I could have happily gone along with
>>>that program. Alas, what we got instead.
>>
>> Because freedom of thought and action are such ugly concepts?
>
>ARe you really so intellectually challenged that you can't imagine
>anything worse, even when you read about it in the newspaper?

What ARE you babbling about?
--
"Time passes and you must move on,
Half the distance takes you twice as long
So you keep on singing for the sake of the song
After the thrill is gone."
Don Henley & Glenn Frey

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 09:09:35, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote

>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >Tea Baggers *are* loons.
>>>
>>> People who call them "Tea Baggers" are loons.
>>
>> Not loons--only rude and arrogant.
>>
>So you agree, then, that the idea that Bambi is going to cause
>$25/gallong gasoline (due to a deliberate conspiracy involving
>buffalo) is not loony?

What ARE you babbling about?
--

"There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool
following it."
- Laurence VanCott Niven

[Lowell Gilbert]

"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> writes:

> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:30:46, Lowell Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org>
> wrote:
>
>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
>>>>the wacko religious fundamentalists and the Tea Party absolute-loons
>>>
>>> How are "fiscal responsibility, strict constitutionality and free
>>> markets" the markers of absolute loondom?
>>
>>Hee.
>
> Do you have a substantive response?

Not yet, although I hope to get the time to put one together soon.

The gist is that the "Tea Party" principles do not seem to be reflected
very far in even the rest of their rhetoric, never mind their actions.

[David Friedman]

In article <447guir...@be-well.ilk.org>,

Lowell Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:

> The gist is that the "Tea Party" principles do not seem to be reflected
> very far in even the rest of their rhetoric, never mind their actions.

Part of the problem is that the rhetoric and actions are by a diverse
group of individuals, so it's hard to tell what characteristics are true
of most members of the group. It isn't as if there is some official
spokesman for "the tea party."