The Pending Collapse Of The U.S.A.
hal
The Pending Collapse Of The U.S.A.
By Timothy V. Gatto
November 20, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- The truth that most
people realize but can�t openly talk about is that America has seen
better days and that the system of capitalism has long outlived its
usefulness. The last part of that sentence, that capitalism has
outlived its usefulness, is thoroughly the fault of the capitalists
themselves.
For many years now, transnational corporations have sent much of
America�s manufacturing overseas in order to take advantage of low
cost workers. About the only manufacturing this country does on a
large scale is earth moving equipment (Caterpillar) and military
equipment. Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon, General Electric and
firms like that are the major remnants of a once thriving industrial
base that made America. Detroit is still trying to hang in there, but
shortfalls in sales have left it up to the workers in these plants to
take it on the chin as their pay and benefits get cut.
The Dow is trying to make a comeback but the way I see it, much of the
rise of �blue-chip� stocks is really more wishful thinking than
serious thought. The stocks being sold on the backs of some of these
companies are being bought on speculation that the market will go
higher based on the rise of the GDP. The question that I would like to
ask, is how far can the GDP go when 70% of the GDP is based on
consumer spending? Where is consumer spending going to come from when
realistically over 16% of the people in America aren�t working?
In an essay, written by Richard Heinberg entitled �Should We Prop-up a
Dying Economy� (19 October 2009), he argues that the economists and
the people who follow physical science disagree sharply about where
this economy is going. Peak Oil, whether it is present now or just
years away, will mean that the economy will contract. The economists
state that growth can happen in any environment, yet it is apparent
that when oil prices spiked in 2008, the auto industry and the airline
industry almost went belly-up. Shrinkage of energy means shrinkage in
the economy, we have all been under the notion that we can borrow
against a growing economy. The facts are that if the economy does not
grow, there will be very little in the growth of capital to repay
debts that are leveraged at an average of an average of 350% of debt
to GDP ratio. Where will new capital come from?
As the price of petroleum becomes higher, imported goods will become
more expensive. When our government fails to repay our foreign
creditors, or pays them back in hyper-inflated dollars, there will be
no credit issued to this country. This can be a significant problem
because we currently use 25% of the world�s oil supply and we buy that
oil on credit. He says;
�We have entered a new economic era in which the former rules no
longer
apply. Low interest rates and government spending no longer translate
to
incentives for borrowing and job production. Cheap energy won't appear
just because there is demand for it. Substitutes for essential
resources
will in most cases not be found. Over all, the economy will continue
to
shrink in fits and starts until it can be maintained by the energy and
material resources that Earth can supply on ongoing basis.�
That is frightening to say the least. I believe that what our
government should be doing is to listen to the scientists and stop
listening to the economists. We have already borrowed almost 24
BILLION dollars, that is $80,000 for every man, woman and child in the
U.S. We are robbing our future to pay for an economy that is
unsustainable. Without economic growth, the banks, the investment
houses and the insurance companies are bound to fail anyway. We might
as well let them fail and get on with the business of restoring a
sustainable economy.
In a talk called �The Five Stages of Collapse�, by Dmitry Orlov, a
former Russian that watched the collapse of the Soviet Union, they
are;
The Five Stages of Collapse
1. Stage one: Financial Collapse
2. Commercial Collapse
3. Political Collapse
4. Social Collapse
5. Cultural Collapse
This isn�t the warning of a horror show, but unless we start to
prepare for a full or partial collapse, it could be worse than it has
to be. He envisions a breakdown of society gradually replaced by
stronger knit communities that must depend on each other for basic
needs or it could be a complete breakdown of utter anarchy.
Meanwhile the Eagle sits on its perch, fighting wars in foreign lands
while spending billions of American dollars doing it. The average
American will see no benefit or harm whether we win or lose against
the Taliban in Afghanistan. What we will have done however, is strap
Americans with more debt and more use of precious resources. The
American eagle is getting a little bit wobbly on its perch and it
wouldn�t surprise me to see all American soldiers taken from all
overseas assignments and brought back to this country just to deal
with the economic collapse, and because we can no longer afford to
keep them overseas.
We need to start thinking about where we live and how we will survive
an economic collapse. When the federal government can no longer
function, what will we do to replace it? How are individuals to
survive when essential goods and services become extinct? This isn�t a
future scenario that will happen twenty or thirty years from now, no!
We are already experiencing it.
We can continue to live our daily lives watching TV and the
advertisements that lull us into a false sense of security that
everything is well, or we can start making provisions to deal with the
calamity that lies ahead. We can provision staples, use alternative
energy sources to heat our homes or assist us in heating them, and we
can start talking with each other and get to know the neighbor that
lives across the street that you have never talked to.
I�m really not an alarmist, but I see the merit of what so many
scientists are predicting. Not only will Peak Oil stop economic
growth, but climate change according to a UN report will bring
desertification to 70% of the planet by 2025. Maybe petroleum peaking
out is in reality what may save our planet. Maybe a return to simpler
ways to live and work will stop the CO2 emissions, but I don�t think
so. Third world countries are surpassing the industrialized countries
in carbon emissions by burning coal. What I would like to know is who
is really minding this nation�s business? What is the Federal
government doing when scientific fact is thrown in their face? While
Obama listens to Timothy Geitner and Ben Bernanke and other Goldman
Sacks alumni, a company that produces nothing and makes money by
buying low and selling high with government funds, where are the
people that see what�s happening? If I can understand the
ramifications of what is happening in front of my face, what about the
President of the United States? Is he really ignorant or does he just
not wish to deal with it? I�m curious; maybe someone in the executive
branch can give us answers. It would be in everyone�s best interest to
have people starting to deal with reality instead of putting their
head in the sand. Maybe the American eagle should be replaced with the
ostrich.
Tim Gatto's new book Complicity to Contempt is available at Amazon,
Barnes and Noble, Abe's and other fine bookstores now.
YumYumPandaburger
Maybe I'm a bit naive in this, but this is how I see it:
1) Oild is found in deserts (mostly, at least)
2) Mass-desertification is upon us by 2025
1) + 2) equals a lot of oil is to be had by 2025 !
Appledog
Excellent but Tim falls short where he authoritively states that he
can predict the future.
Just because we achieve a financial collapse does not mean we need to
collapse our society or our culture, for example. Second point -
blaming capitalism ties Tim in as someone who knows jack about
capitalism or anything else. What's he suggesting - facism?
Communism? I'd like to know.
If he's reccomending monarchy for example, how are we going to elect
the new king? Problems, problems!
-
hal
<theorig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Maybe I'm a bit naive in this, but this is how I see it:
>
>1) Oild is found in deserts (mostly, at least)
>2) Mass-desertification is upon us by 2025
>
>1) + 2) equals a lot of oil is to be had by 2025 !
That's gotta be one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.
YumYumPandaburger
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:07:24 -0800 (PST), YumYumPandaburger
>
> >Maybe I'm a bit naive in this, but this is how I see it:
>
> >1) Oild is found in deserts (mostly, at least)
> >2) Mass-desertification is upon us by 2025
>
> >1) + 2) equals a lot of oil is to be had by 2025 !
>
> That's gotta be one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.
I take that as a compliment. Anyway Usenet EUA clearly state that the
burden of proof is upon the one who rejects another posters claim.
So there you go, prove me wrong.
Greendistantstar
> The Pending Collapse Of The U.S.A.
>
> By Timothy V. Gatto
clipped
> We have already borrowed almost 24 BILLION dollars, that is $80,000 for every man, woman and child in the
> U.S.
Say what??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIs
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Greendistantstar
Do you want to borrow my Sarcasmometer?
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Greendistantstar
Well how come there's so much oil out there under the oceans, eh smarty-pants?
Like there's just *heaps* of sand there!
No...wait....
GDS
"Let's roll!"
hal
The oil got into the ground by a known process of biomass
accumulation. The mere existence of a surface desert ecosystem does
not mean the necessary process occurred a million years ago to lay
down the necessary biomass for oil production. Oil production
occurred only in certain areas on the planet. We know what those
areas are. Simply because some lie under desert areas does not mean
all desert areas have oil.
YumYumPandaburger
wrote:
No reason to be cautios, for your are CORRECT.
That oil is not just hovering around at the bottom of the ocean, no
it's not. As we all know oil floats. That's how those pesky sea birds
get all oiled up once in a while.
Ocean oil is found UNDER THE SAND UNDER THE OCEAN. And what do you
think that sand is? Is it providing the right environtment for a
forest, bushes, or even grass? Do you think there is CATTLE GRAZING AT
THE BOTTEM OM THE OCEAN???
HELL NO. That sand is basically an UNDERWATER DESERT. Desertification
at it's best.
So oil that is pumped from oceans is also pumped from deserts.
> "Let's roll!"
let's hippety-hop.
Greendistantstar
> On 23 nov, 15:30, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
> wrote:
>> YumYumPandaburger wrote:
>>> On 23 nov, 16:18, hal wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:07:24 -0800 (PST), YumYumPandaburger
>>>> <theoriginald...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Maybe I'm a bit naive in this, but this is how I see it:
>>>>> 1) Oild is found in deserts (mostly, at least)
>>>>> 2) Mass-desertification is upon us by 2025
>>>>> 1) + 2) equals a lot of oil is to be had by 2025 !
>>>> That's gotta be one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.
>>> I take that as a compliment. Anyway Usenet EUA clearly state that the
>>> burden of proof is upon the one who rejects another posters claim.
>>> So there you go, prove me wrong.
>> Well how come there's so much oil out there under the oceans, eh smarty-pants?
>>
>> Like there's just *heaps* of sand there!
>>
>> No...wait....
>
> No reason to be cautios, for your are CORRECT.
>
> That oil is not just hovering around at the bottom of the ocean, no
> it's not. As we all know oil floats. That's how those pesky sea birds
> get all oiled up once in a while.
Stupid birds....
> Ocean oil is found UNDER THE SAND UNDER THE OCEAN.
>And what do you
> think that sand is? Is it providing the right environtment for a
> forest, bushes, or even grass? Do you think there is CATTLE GRAZING AT
> THE BOTTEM OM THE OCEAN???
>
> HELL NO. That sand is basically an UNDERWATER DESERT. Desertification
> at it's best.
>
> So oil that is pumped from oceans is also pumped from deserts.
Looks like game, set and match to me!
>> "Let's roll!"
>
> let's hippety-hop.
You first.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
YumYumPandaburger
wrote:
> YumYumPandaburger wrote:
> > On 23 nov, 15:30, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
> > wrote:
> >> YumYumPandaburger wrote:
> >>> On 23 nov, 16:18, hal wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:07:24 -0800 (PST), YumYumPandaburger
> >>>> <theoriginald...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Maybe I'm a bit naive in this, but this is how I see it:
> >>>>> 1) Oild is found in deserts (mostly, at least)
> >>>>> 2) Mass-desertification is upon us by 2025
> >>>>> 1) + 2) equals a lot of oil is to be had by 2025 !
> >>>> That's gotta be one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.
> >>> I take that as a compliment. Anyway Usenet EUA clearly state that the
> >>> burden of proof is upon the one who rejects another posters claim.
> >>> So there you go, prove me wrong.
> >> Well how come there's so much oil out there under the oceans, eh smarty-pants?
>
> >> Like there's just *heaps* of sand there!
>
> >> No...wait....
>
> > No reason to be cautios, for your are CORRECT.
>
> > That oil is not just hovering around at the bottom of the ocean, no
> > it's not. As we all know oil floats. That's how those pesky sea birds
> > get all oiled up once in a while.
>
> Stupid birds....
With the petrol prices in Europe, we put those fucking feathered oil
thieves through a mangler just to recover a few drops of black gold
Herbert Cannon
If he's reccomending monarchy for example, how are we going to elect
the new king? Problems, problems!
It is good to be King.
-
hal
SCUBA Cows. Sure. They eat seaweed. Where've you been?
YumYumPandaburger
I sense the smell of bullshit. And I do not like that smell, my friend.
YumYumPandaburger
wrote:
Actually I believe he is being ironic.
Shuurai
> > So there you go, prove me wrong.
>
> Well how come there's so much oil out there under the oceans, eh smarty-pants?
>
> Like there's just *heaps* of sand there!
We need to drain the oceans!
YumYumPandaburger
Might I suggest evaporation?
Shuurai
> > > Well how come there's so much oil out there under the oceans, eh smarty-pants?
>
> > > Like there's just *heaps* of sand there!
>
> > We need to drain the oceans!
>
> Might I suggest evaporation?
Exactly! See, folks have been looking at this global warming thing
all wrong. We need to ACCELERATE warming to get all of that ocean
water out of the way!
hal
<theorig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:07:24 -0800 (PST), YumYumPandaburger
>>
>> >> <theoriginald...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >Maybe I'm a bit naive in this, but this is how I see it:
>>
>> >> >1) Oild is found in deserts (mostly, at least)
>> >> >2) Mass-desertification is upon us by 2025
>>
>> >> >1) + 2) equals a lot of oil is to be had by 2025 !
>>
>> >> That's gotta be one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.
>>
>> >I take that as a compliment. Anyway Usenet EUA clearly state that the
>> >burden of proof is upon the one who rejects another posters claim.
>>
>> >So there you go, prove me wrong.
>>
>> The oil got into the ground by a known process of biomass
>> accumulation. =A0The mere existence of a surface desert ecosystem does
>> not mean the necessary process occurred a million years ago to lay
>> down the necessary biomass for oil production. =A0Oil production
>> occurred only in certain areas on the planet. =A0We know what those
>> areas are. =A0Simply because some lie under desert areas does not mean
>> all desert areas have oil.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergev=
>en -
>
>I sense the smell of bullshit. And I do not like that smell, my friend.
You're retarded, aren't you?
hal
buy stock in really big buckets so we have something to pump it into !
YumYumPandaburger
I don't like that tone, boy.
Herbert Cannon
>> >I sense the smell of bullshit. And I do not like that smell, my friend.
>>
>> You're retarded, aren't you?
>
> I don't like that tone, boy.
For Heaven's sake don't say anything about your bowling score.
Herbert Cannon
"Shuurai" <shuu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:923a2e3d-6b8a-41d1...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Damn. Al is going to lose a lot of money.
YumYumPandaburger
> "Shuurai" <shuura...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Al invented the large bucket. And possibly also global warming.
Shuurai
> > > all wrong. We need to ACCELERATE warming to get all of that ocean
> > > water out of the way!
>
> > Damn. Al is going to lose a lot of money.
>
> Al invented the large bucket. And possibly also global warming.
Take care, sir! You are besmirching the man who stands as our first
and only defense against ManBearPig!
Why can't you take him cereal?
trav...@aol.com
WHO??
> November 20, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- The truth that most
> people realize but can’t openly talk about is that America has seen
> better days and that the system of capitalism has long outlived its
> usefulness. The last part of that sentence, that capitalism has
> outlived its usefulness, is thoroughly the fault of the capitalists
> themselves.
What is the alternative system? Socialism? ROTFL. One ponzi for
another.
> In an essay, written by Richard Heinberg entitled “Should We Prop-up a
> Dying Economy” (19 October 2009), he argues that the economists and
> the people who follow physical science disagree sharply about where
> this economy is going. Peak Oil, whether it is present now or just
> years away, will mean that the economy will contract. The economists
> state that growth can happen in any environment, yet it is apparent
> that when oil prices spiked in 2008, the auto industry and the airline
> industry almost went belly-up. Shrinkage of energy means shrinkage in
> the economy, we have all been under the notion that we can borrow
> against a growing economy. The facts are that if the economy does not
> grow, there will be very little in the growth of capital to repay
> debts that are leveraged at an average of an average of 350% of debt
> to GDP ratio. Where will new capital come from?
Titan. I hear there are virtually unlimited reserves of NG there. We
can't run out of it.
> “We have entered a new economic era in which the former rules no
> longer
> apply. Low interest rates and government spending no longer translate
> to
> incentives for borrowing and job production. Cheap energy won't appear
> just because there is demand for it. Substitutes for essential
> resources
> will in most cases not be found. Over all, the economy will continue
> to
> shrink in fits and starts until it can be maintained by the energy and
> material resources that Earth can supply on ongoing basis.”
gee...it took Tony this many years to crib my shit?
> That is frightening to say the least. I believe that what our
> government should be doing is to listen to the scientists and stop
> listening to the economists. We have already borrowed almost 24
> BILLION dollars, that is $80,000 for every man, woman and child in the
The scientists? Most of them are completely full of shit too. They
too grew up in a 3 century growth phase.
> In a talk called “The Five Stages of Collapse”, by Dmitry Orlov, a
> former Russian that watched the collapse of the Soviet Union, they
> are;
>
> The Five Stages of Collapse
>
> 1. Stage one: Financial Collapse
>
> 2. Commercial Collapse
>
> 3. Political Collapse
>
> 4. Social Collapse
>
> 5. Cultural Collapse
>
> This isn’t the warning of a horror show, but unless we start to
> prepare for a full or partial collapse, it could be worse than it has
> to be. He envisions a breakdown of society gradually replaced by
> stronger knit communities that must depend on each other for basic
> needs or it could be a complete breakdown of utter anarchy.
You can have all the 3rd world demographic.
> in carbon emissions by burning coal. What I would like to know is who
> is really minding this nation’s business? What is the Federal
> government doing when scientific fact is thrown in their face? While
> Obama listens to Timothy Geitner and Ben Bernanke and other Goldman
> Sacks alumni, a company that produces nothing and makes money by
Sachs, not Sacks. Again, nothing I haven't already told your stupid
ass a thousand times, HAL.
> buying low and selling high with government funds, where are the
> people that see what’s happening? If I can understand the
> ramifications of what is happening in front of my face, what about the
> President of the United States? Is he really ignorant or does he just
> not wish to deal with it? I’m curious; maybe someone in the executive
He's a clueless buffoon.
> branch can give us answers. It would be in everyone’s best interest to
> have people starting to deal with reality instead of putting their
> head in the sand. Maybe the American eagle should be replaced with the
> ostrich.
Bama was not elected for his competency; it was because we are
laboring in a delusion that RACISM was the biggest issue facing
mankind. We focused all energy on conquering an IRRELEVANCY and
actually doing away with something that was constructive.
Trav
Greendistantstar
Excelsior!
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Greendistantstar
> Bama was not elected for his competency; it was because we are
> laboring in a delusion that RACISM was the biggest issue facing
> mankind. We focused all energy on conquering an IRRELEVANCY and
> actually doing away with something that was constructive.
FFS what was the alternative? McCain and Palin? McCain is a nice bloke, honest all the rest, but
Prez material? Nope.
Could you *really* imagine Palin as VP? That vacuous bimbo a heartbeat away from the world's most
powerful office? C'mon.
If there was a better candidate, the repubs should have produced such a person, but they didn't.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
hal
My theory is they threw the election intentionally because they knew
the economy was going down the tubes (thanks to them). They wanted a
socialist nigger to take the fall for it. The propaganda machine is
going full force trying to blame this one on Obama. And the right
wing is doing everything they can to make sure he fails. None of this
is by accident.
>
>GDS
>
>"Let's roll!"
djinn
YumYumPandaburger
I was taking him cereal !
Herbert Cannon
>
> If there was a better candidate, the repubs should have produced such a
> person, but they didn't.
Sigh! I am as yet undiscovered. I expect my campaign slogan of: OFF WITH
THEIR HEADS might have been a wee bit too strong for the weak kneed. Next
time, I shall mellow it to: CRANK UP THE TANKS LADS. I fully intend to sieze
all the breweries in Canada in a blitzkrieg as an opening gambit.
I cannot imagine why someone would not want to visit faroff exotic lands,
catch different rotting diseases, meet interesting strangers and kill them.
" The longer the world goes without a major war, the easier it is to get one
started." " The Ascent of Money," by Niall Ferguson.
trav...@aol.com
> Prez material? Nope.
There was no good alternative. But, again, wonder why you are so
enamored of Bama, sufficient to leap to his defense all the time like
this.
> Could you *really* imagine Palin as VP? That vacuous bimbo a heartbeat away from the world's most
> powerful office? C'mon.
Dude...we have a clueless empty suit in there and have before.
Remember, Ronald Raygun was a TWO term President. Don't tell me that
a fucking chimp couldn't be President.
> If there was a better candidate, the repubs should have produced such a person, but they didn't.
>
> GDS
There are PLENTY of better options. You are making argumentum ad
populum and you don't even know it.
Trav
trav...@aol.com
> the economy was going down the tubes (thanks to them). They wanted a
> socialist nigger to take the fall for it. The propaganda machine is
> going full force trying to blame this one on Obama. And the right
> wing is doing everything they can to make sure he fails. None of this
> is by accident.
Boy that right wing sure is so clever and smart and in control. They
obviously run everything and there's nothing you can do about it.
Trav
Herbert Cannon
> My theory is they threw the election intentionally because they knew
> the economy was going down the tubes
and because we are much smarter than you.
(thanks to them).
We decided to let you finish the job which you are doing in a stellar
fashion.
They wanted a
> socialist nigger to take the fall for it.
Yes but you failed to step up when duty called so we had to settle for a
half breed.
The propaganda machine is
> going full force trying to blame this one on Obama.
Write three letters.
And the right
> wing is doing everything they can to make sure he fails.
Hardly an effort at all. He is doing that magnificently by himself.
None of this
> is by accident.
I love it when a plan comes together.
Herbert Cannon
>
>> Could you *really* imagine Palin as VP? That vacuous bimbo a heartbeat
>> away from the world's most
>> powerful office? C'mon.
>
> Dude...we have a clueless empty suit in there and have before.
> Remember, Ronald Raygun was a TWO term President. Don't tell me that
> a fucking chimp couldn't be President.
Yeah but he was at least smarter than the peanut farmer.
>
>> If there was a better candidate, the repubs should have produced such a
>> person, but they didn't.
>>
>> GDS
>
> There are PLENTY of better options. You are making argumentum ad
> populum and you don't even know it.
Ahem Ahem Ahem. How about the WAR MAGGOT!!
Herbert Cannon
<trav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e991a8c6-5f4b-46c8...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMlJgh8yY4k
Greendistantstar
>> FFS what was the alternative? McCain and Palin? McCain is a nice bloke, honest all the rest, but
>> Prez material? Nope.
>
> There was no good alternative.
Well there ya go.
> But, again, wonder why you are so
> enamored of Bama, sufficient to leap to his defense all the time like
> this.
I suppose I simply express a very Aussie attitude, which we call 'a fair go'.
We voted in a left wing govt in 2007, and while I don't share their political world view, I am
prepared to give them a go. Plus there's a cyclicality to governments in office; after a while any
party that's been in too long gets stale and complacent
>> Could you *really* imagine Palin as VP? That vacuous bimbo a heartbeat away from the world's most
>> powerful office? C'mon.
>
> Dude...we have a clueless empty suit in there and have before.
Obama is no dummy, Trav.
> Remember, Ronald Raygun was a TWO term President. Don't tell me that
> a fucking chimp couldn't be President.
Your system seems to allow this. Ever thought of changing it somehow?
>> If there was a better candidate, the repubs should have produced such a person, but they didn't.
>>
>> GDS
>
> There are PLENTY of better options.
'are'? Didn't you just say "There was no good alternative." ?
Or do you mean now, present tense?
> You are making argumentum ad
> populum and you don't even know it.
Uh? How so? Where am I deferring to masses of others?
That a proposition is agreed to be true by many does not mean it is necessarily true, but it doesn't
mean that it's necessarily wrong by virtue of that, either.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
hal
<trav...@aol.com> wrote:
>> My theory is they threw the election intentionally because they knew
>> the economy was going down the tubes (thanks to them). =A0They wanted a
>> socialist nigger to take the fall for it. =A0The propaganda machine is
>> going full force trying to blame this one on Obama. =A0And the right
>> wing is doing everything they can to make sure he fails. =A0None of this
>> is by accident. =A0
>
>Boy that right wing sure is so clever and smart and in control. They
>obviously run everything and there's nothing you can do about it.
Yes, unfortunately, that seems to be true. An actual working
democracy is only an illusion.
>
>Trav
Appledog
>
> >Boy that right wing sure is so clever and smart and in control. They
> >obviously run everything and there's nothing you can do about it.
>
> Yes, unfortunately, that seems to be true. An actual working
> democracy is only an illusion.
Yep. At least, according to the founding fathers, who were quite clear
on that the USA was to be a republic and NOT a democracy. The very
fact that Americans are so pro-democracy is evidence that their
constitution has already been undermined and their country taken away
from them by mass media and "enemies from within". It makes no
difference if such people are for or against America or Americans; the
only point I am making is that the USA is no longer a country which
follows it's constitution. Simple as that.
-
Greendistantstar
> On Nov 24, 11:52 pm, hal wrote:
>>> Boy that right wing sure is so clever and smart and in control. They
>>> obviously run everything and there's nothing you can do about it.
>> Yes, unfortunately, that seems to be true. An actual working
>> democracy is only an illusion.
> Yep. At least, according to the founding fathers, who were quite clear
> on that the USA was to be a republic and NOT a democracy.
In what document did the Founding Fathers state this?
Are you suggesting that it's impossible for a republic to be a democracy?
GDS
"Let's roll!"
hal
<Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>Appledog wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 11:52 pm, hal wrote:
>>>> Boy that right wing sure is so clever and smart and in control. They
>>>> obviously run everything and there's nothing you can do about it.
>>> Yes, unfortunately, that seems to be true. An actual working
>>> democracy is only an illusion.
>
>> Yep. At least, according to the founding fathers, who were quite clear
>> on that the USA was to be a republic and NOT a democracy.
>
>In what document did the Founding Fathers state this?
Outside Independence Hall when
the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,
Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
"A republic, if you can keep it."
>
>Are you suggesting that it's impossible for a republic to be a democracy?
That's a very common claim by someone wanting to sound smart and
knowledgeable, but miss the point that while the US is technically a
republic, a republic is a representative democracy so it is not at all
in error to refer to it as a democracy.
>
>GDS
>
>"Let's roll!"
Herbert Cannon
>> Dude...we have a clueless empty suit in there and have before.
>
> Obama is no dummy, Trav.
Ok that is it. No more beer for you.
Appledog
wrote:
> Appledog wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 11:52 pm, hal wrote:
> >>> Boy that right wing sure is so clever and smart and in control. They
> >>> obviously run everything and there's nothing you can do about it.
> >> Yes, unfortunately, that seems to be true. An actual working
> >> democracy is only an illusion.
> > Yep. At least, according to the founding fathers, who were quite clear
> > on that the USA was to be a republic and NOT a democracy.
>
> In what document did the Founding Fathers state this?
Good one. Ok I give up - in which document did Benjamin Franklin say
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."? I looked around
but I couldn't find a reference to the actual document it was written
in, if written at all.
In which document did John Adams say, "Democracy... while it lasts is
more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy
never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There
is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."?
And so forth. Of course it is so easy to find so many quotes like
this, because pure democracy was a well-stated aversion of the
founding fathers. Here's one from George Washington.. In what document
did George Washington say, "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will
be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy
members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of
civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost
nations of justice and liberality."?
Personally if you don't know the answer don't worry about it. I'm not
really interested in what document the quotes were printed in. If
you'd like some more by some of the other founding fathers let me
know, they're all over the web. Aww hell, let me throw together a few
James Madison quotes and come up with a reading;
1. "A pure democracy is a society consisting of a small number of
citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person." -
James Madison
2. "A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people."
- James Madison
3. "All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
- James Madison
4. "We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our
liberties." - James Madison
5. "'Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security,
or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in
their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." -James Madison
Here's one from John Adams: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It
soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy
yet that did not commit suicide." -John Adams
"Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that
every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or
property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of
these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the
moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth,
beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious
will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." -John Adams
Seems clear to me what Madison would think of the huge buerocratic
sloth currently running the USA, performing illegal wiretaps,
suspending habeus corpus, and so forth - as effective as it is - he
would probably like to see government at least made a little more
efficient.
Please note that I am also unable to find what particular document
those quotes were printed in. However it is my personal opinion (as
crap as that is) that it's self-evident what the founding fathers
wanted WRT a Republic versus a Democracy.
-
hal
<oliver....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Please note that I am also unable to find what particular document
>those quotes were printed in. However it is my personal opinion (as
>crap as that is) that it's self-evident what the founding fathers
>wanted WRT a Republic versus a Democracy.
>
>-
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Article IV - The States
Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against
Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive
(when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Republic
republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a
monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political
unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power
is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected
officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a
nation or other political unit having such a form of government
Source: NMW
Shuurai
> > Bama was not elected for his competency; it was because we are
> > laboring in a delusion that RACISM was the biggest issue facing
> > mankind. We focused all energy on conquering an IRRELEVANCY and
> > actually doing away with something that was constructive.
>
> FFS what was the alternative? McCain and Palin? McCain is a nice bloke, honest all the rest, but
> Prez material? Nope.
McCain was and is far more qualified than Obama for the job. It is
becoming more and more clear by the day that Obama is in way over his
head, and it's only going to get worse. So, while McCain certainly
wasn't my first choice (or even in my top ten) he would have been
better than Obama, by far.
> Could you *really* imagine Palin as VP? That vacuous bimbo a heartbeat away from the world's most
> powerful office? C'mon.
As compared to the empty suit we currently have occupying the office
itself? Obama is better at reading a teleprompter and APPEARING
intelligent, but look at the shit he's actually DOING with the
office. He's spending us into fucking oblivion, even after
acknowledging that it's ALREADY unsustainable. Faced with rising
healthcare costs, they're pushing a bill that RAISES the cost of
health care. Faced with rising unemployment, they pushing policy that
discourages job creation.
Frankly, I don't think McCain - or Palin - could do a hell of a lot
worse.
Shuurai
> Please note that I am also unable to find what particular document
> those quotes were printed in. However it is my personal opinion (as
> crap as that is) that it's self-evident what the founding fathers
> wanted WRT a Republic versus a Democracy.
A republic is a form of democratic government.
Shuurai
> > There was no good alternative.
>
> Well there ya go.
There were plenty of good alternatives. Ron Paul was an excellent
alternative, for example. There may not have been better popular
alternatives; but there were certainly good ones.
> > But, again, wonder why you are so
> > enamored of Bama, sufficient to leap to his defense all the time like
> > this.
>
> I suppose I simply express a very Aussie attitude, which we call 'a fair go'.
There is a limit.
If you jumped on a bus in Melbourne and were expecting to go to
Sydney, and the bus driver started driving west, how long would you
wait before concluding that you might be on the on wrong bus? If
people started pointing out that the bus was heading west, for how
long would you suggest that maybe they ought to just wait?
Granted, change takes time. And if Obama was pushing an agenda that
was actually rational, the "wait and see" thing might apply. But he
isn't pushing a rational agenda. Faced with unsustainable debt, he
wants to spend more. Faced with corruption and greed on Wall Street,
his answer is to funnel even more money at the folks responsible.
Faced with rising unemployment, he and his cohorts push policy that is
counter-productive to job creation.
It's not like these policies are going to suddenly become rational if
we're all just willing to wait a while.
In short, while change does indeed take time, when it's clear that the
change being attempted is fundamentally going in the wrong direction,
the "wait and see" attitude is not only wrong, but rather stupid. We
don't need time to see that spending MORE is going to make already
unsustainable debt even worse; it's mathematically inevitable without
regard to the function of time.
> We voted in a left wing govt in 2007, and while I don't share their political world view, I am
> prepared to give them a go. Plus there's a cyclicality to governments in office; after a while any
> party that's been in too long gets stale and complacent
We've been giving the agenda that Obama represents "a go" for the past
nine years or so, and it isn't working any more now than it was
before.
> >> Could you *really* imagine Palin as VP? That vacuous bimbo a heartbeat away from the world's most
> >> powerful office? C'mon.
>
> > Dude...we have a clueless empty suit in there and have before.
>
> Obama is no dummy, Trav.
No; he's not a dummy. Just inexperienced and extremely arrogant;
which in some ways can be worse.
> > Remember, Ronald Raygun was a TWO term President. Don't tell me that
> > a fucking chimp couldn't be President.
>
> Your system seems to allow this. Ever thought of changing it somehow?
Unfortunately the folks running the system have firmly entrenched
themselves; it's not likely to change without some kind of massive
upheaval.
> > There are PLENTY of better options.
>
> 'are'? Didn't you just say "There was no good alternative." ?
>
> Or do you mean now, present tense?
There were, and are, far better alternatives. Unfortunately, the vast
majority of voters put less thought into the election than they did
American Idol.
> > You are making argumentum ad
> > populum and you don't even know it.
>
> Uh? How so? Where am I deferring to masses of others?
By suggesting that the fact the republicans (a mass) didn't produce a
better alternative is proof that one did not exist. The fact of the
matter is BOTH parties produced shit - the democrats just produced a
more polished turd this time around.
> That a proposition is agreed to be true by many does not mean it is necessarily true, but it doesn't
> mean that it's necessarily wrong by virtue of that, either.
Which is why your argument - that if a party didn't produce a better
alternative it meant that none existed - was argumentum ad populum.
trav...@aol.com
No, he wasn't.
He was a clueless dope who began a campaign of reckless deficit
spending and called it an economy.
Trav
trav...@aol.com
This is bc we have a one party system.
> I suppose I simply express a very Aussie attitude, which we call 'a fair go'.
You gonna give a drunk a fair go at your car? How about a gang of
blacks a fair go at your wife?
> We voted in a left wing govt in 2007, and while I don't share their political world view, I am
> prepared to give them a go. Plus there's a cyclicality to governments in office; after a while any
> party that's been in too long gets stale and complacent
I don't give incompetent doctors a fair go at trying surgery on me.
> Obama is no dummy, Trav.
Yeah, he actually is. He may be intelligent but is totally clueless.
> Your system seems to allow this. Ever thought of changing it somehow?
Money owns the government. We have a Tapeworm Economy. Only way to
stop it is to DESTROY the means by which the "elites" capture the
government, which is the dollar.
> 'are'? Didn't you just say "There was no good alternative." ?
>
> Or do you mean now, present tense?
Option is not an alternative.
> Uh? How so? Where am I deferring to masses of others?
>
> That a proposition is agreed to be true by many does not mean it is necessarily true, but it doesn't
> mean that it's necessarily wrong by virtue of that, either.
>
> GDS
Your appeal to popular agreement is argumentum ad populum.
Trav
trav...@aol.com
>
> There is a limit.
Yes.
And the part that morons like GDS don't seem to get is that there is
NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE POLICIES OF O'BAMMA AND BUSCH.
NONE.
On ANYTHING.
He's forgotten that I opposed 99% of what the last guy did, too...as
it was obviously WRONG. And I took flak from all the rightards
everywhere on it, got called a fucking liberal dozens of times, which
is so laughable as to even defy comment.
The limit is when he started going in the SAME exact direction as
Busch.
> If you jumped on a bus in Melbourne and were expecting to go to
> Sydney, and the bus driver started driving west, how long would you
> wait before concluding that you might be on the on wrong bus? If
> people started pointing out that the bus was heading west, for how
> long would you suggest that maybe they ought to just wait?
No...even better. You've been on that fucking bus for 9 hours and the
toilet is clogged and there's nothing but fuckin pernicious venomous
snakes and other fucking alien creatures around (this is Australia
afterall) that are just waiting to fucking kill you. And so everyone
is pissed at the driver and they demand a change. And another,
blacker guy, more affable, more glib jumps in the seat and proceeds to
CONTINUE DRIVING IN THE SAME MOTHERFUCKING DIRECTION. At what point
do you throw his black ass off the bus???
Look, motherfucker, we said CHANGE, not hey we want a colored guy just
to drive us in the same fucking direction!
> Unfortunately the folks running the system have firmly entrenched
> themselves; it's not likely to change without some kind of massive
> upheaval.
They manufacture dollars...some go to politicians, others to bankers,
these dollars get translated into real things, real wealth. We're
looking at having to revolt against our own currency because it is the
means used to shackle us. Hint: this is the origin of the money
provision in the Constitution.
> Which is why your argument - that if a party didn't produce a better
> alternative it meant that none existed - was argumentum ad populum.
Trav
trav...@aol.com
> becoming more and more clear by the day that Obama is in way over his
> head, and it's only going to get worse. So, while McCain certainly
> wasn't my first choice (or even in my top ten) he would have been
> better than Obama, by far.
No...he'd have done the SAME THINGS. To the fuckin letter!
Look, man, this is raygunomics growth era industrial revolution
thinking. There is nobody outside of me and a very few other people
who get what is happening.
That includes all of the fuckin economists, the bankers, the
capitalists, the governors. They do not understand what has occurred
and they will not listen. We have 300 years of history as white
swans; they insist that this thing in front of them is spraypainted.
And until reality bitchslaps us and there is true upheaval in the
power structure, nobody can get airtime to say what's really going on.
I mean, GFD, how many people even in here understand what the oil peak
is from a technical perspective?? And I've been droning on about it
for how many years now? People STILL insist that a higher price point
will cause an increase in supply. There's a guy who I know who posted
here occasionally who is a VERY smart man and it took my nearly having
to bludgeon him with this stuff to get him to REALIZE the error and
the fundamental flaw in economics. I tried a dozen different ways to
explain how things like peak were inelastic with respect to demand
before I found one that resonated sufficiently for him to understand
that everything he thought he knew about this was wrong and oh shit
the problem really IS insoluble!
Yes, GORE would have invaded Iraq...he had to. These things are not
decided by individual men in the Oval Office.
> As compared to the empty suit we currently have occupying the office
> itself? Obama is better at reading a teleprompter and APPEARING
> intelligent, but look at the shit he's actually DOING with the
> office. He's spending us into fucking oblivion, even after
> acknowledging that it's ALREADY unsustainable. Faced with rising
> healthcare costs, they're pushing a bill that RAISES the cost of
> health care. Faced with rising unemployment, they pushing policy that
> discourages job creation.
>
> Frankly, I don't think McCain - or Palin - could do a hell of a lot
> worse.
I'd have at least liked seein Palin on TV every other fuckin minute
like Bama is, bc Palin got nice tits.
Trav
Greendistantstar
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:09:31 +0900, Greendistantstar
> <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>> Appledog wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 11:52 pm, hal wrote:
>>>>> Boy that right wing sure is so clever and smart and in control. They
>>>>> obviously run everything and there's nothing you can do about it.
>>>> Yes, unfortunately, that seems to be true. An actual working
>>>> democracy is only an illusion.
>>> Yep. At least, according to the founding fathers, who were quite clear
>>> on that the USA was to be a republic and NOT a democracy.
>> In what document did the Founding Fathers state this?
>
> Outside Independence Hall when
> the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,
> Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
> "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
> With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
> "A republic, if you can keep it."
Who said anything about a monarchy?
>> Are you suggesting that it's impossible for a republic to be a democracy?
>
> That's a very common claim by someone wanting to sound smart and
> knowledgeable, but miss the point that while the US is technically a
> republic, a republic is a representative democracy so it is not at all
> in error to refer to it as a democracy.
Of course.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
hal
<Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>hal wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:09:31 +0900, Greendistantstar
>> <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Appledog wrote:
>>>> On Nov 24, 11:52 pm, hal wrote:
>>>>>> Boy that right wing sure is so clever and smart and in control. They
>>>>>> obviously run everything and there's nothing you can do about it.
>>>>> Yes, unfortunately, that seems to be true. An actual working
>>>>> democracy is only an illusion.
>>>> Yep. At least, according to the founding fathers, who were quite clear
>>>> on that the USA was to be a republic and NOT a democracy.
>>> In what document did the Founding Fathers state this?
>>
>> Outside Independence Hall when
>> the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,
>> Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
>> "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
>> With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
>> "A republic, if you can keep it."
>
>Who said anything about a monarchy?
When the framers went into the Constitutional Convention a republic
was not a done deal and ending up with another monarchy was a real
possibility.
Appledog
Ok - so what's your point? :)
-
Herbert Cannon
<trav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f096d9c6-e7dc-420a...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>> Yeah but he was at least smarter than the peanut farmer.
>
> No, he wasn't.
Oh yes he was.
He did not say the Shah was a rock of stability in the Middle East right
before he fell. Now that is clueless.
He did not think that Khomeni would be a ruler like Ghandi ( that is really
clueless) Speaking of which, Obama is equally as clueless as Carter.
He did not say the rulers of Sudan were nice people.
He did not give malaise speeches.
He managed to get himself re elected for a second term. Peanut could not get
himself re- elected dogcatcher and still proves his imcompetence on a daily
basis today. Like you are racist if you dont like Obama's policies.
He did not get a Nobel peace prize. A sure sign of cluelessness.
>
> He was a clueless dope who began a campaign of reckless deficit spending
Clue: The spending toppled the Soviets and Putin thinks that was the
biggest disaster of the century.
and called it an economy.
Yeah; but it was spent on the military. Whatcha got against the military
industrial complex? They gotta eat too.
trav...@aol.com
> He did not say the Shah was a rock of stability in the Middle East right
> before he fell. Now that is clueless.
> He did not think that Khomeni would be a ruler like Ghandi ( that is really
> clueless) Speaking of which, Obama is equally as clueless as Carter.
> He did not say the rulers of Sudan were nice people.
> He did not give malaise speeches.
> He managed to get himself re elected for a second term. Peanut could not get
> himself re- elected dogcatcher and still proves his imcompetence on a daily
> basis today. Like you are racist if you dont like Obama's policies.
> He did not get a Nobel peace prize. A sure sign of cluelessness.
Wow...so getting elected to a 2nd term, another popularity contest, is
a sign of being a smart President? ROTFL. FDR was elected to FOUR
terms, dumbass. You gonna sing his praises next?
> Clue: The spending toppled the Soviets and Putin thinks that was the
> biggest disaster of the century.
Peak oil in 1989 toppled the Soviets. We had little to do with it.
And now, look at us, WE are toppling! Empires rise and fall and this
is the main reason why. They overreach. I'm not going to tolerate
the lionization of Raygun with his voodoo economics of DEBT that have
been adopted by every subsequent President. We never paid that debt
back; we just went further in.
And for what? For MILITARY spending on bullshit that was never needed
or never used? Look around you, man. We have great weapons but no
other industrial base...wtf kind of an economy is that?
> Yeah; but it was spent on the military. Whatcha got against the military
> industrial complex? They gotta eat too.
Fuck them; they're a titanic waste of money.
Trav
Jerry B. Altzman
> McCain was and is far more qualified than Obama for the job. It is
> becoming more and more clear by the day that Obama is in way over his
> head, and it's only going to get worse. So, while McCain certainly
> wasn't my first choice (or even in my top ten) he would have been
> better than Obama, by far.
How so? How would he have NOT continued doing what Bush did?
> Frankly, I don't think McCain - or Palin - could do a hell of a lot
> worse.
No, they'd be doing the same thing.
//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman jba...@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.
trav...@aol.com
Yes.
Where we are in game theory is an endgame. The moves are
predetermined.
Hasn't anyone YET figured out how I can so accurately predict the
future? I can see more moves ahead than you people. But if you
played Kasparov in a game of chess, when the board got a little thin,
it'd seem like he was freakin clairvoyant.
Trav
Herbert Cannon
I'm not going to tolerate
the lionization of Raygun with his voodoo economics of DEBT that have
been adopted by every subsequent President. We never paid that debt
back; we just went further in.
Do you really think a flying fuck what you tolerate, parasite? Or anyone
else for that matter.
Herbert Cannon
<trav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:81c8d2a0-38b9-4704...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 25, 1:35 pm, "Jerry B. Altzman" <jba...@altzman.com> wrote:
> on 11/24/2009 1:37 PM Shuurai said the following:
>
> > McCain was and is far more qualified than Obama for the job. It is
> > becoming more and more clear by the day that Obama is in way over his
> > head, and it's only going to get worse. So, while McCain certainly
> > wasn't my first choice (or even in my top ten) he would have been
> > better than Obama, by far.
>
> How so? How would he have NOT continued doing what Bush did?
>
> > Frankly, I don't think McCain - or Palin - could do a hell of a lot
> > worse.
>
> No, they'd be doing the same thing.
>
> //jbaltz
> --
> jerry b. altzman jba...@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
> thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.
Yes.
Where we are in game theory is an endgame. The moves are
predetermined.
Hasn't anyone YET figured out how I can so accurately predict the
future?
Tell me when you are going to die and how.
trav...@aol.com
> <travis...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
heart failure from banging your granddaughter
Trav
Herbert Cannon
> Hasn't anyone YET figured out how I can so accurately predict the
> future?
>
> Tell me when you are going to die and how.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
heart failure from banging your granddaughter
No, the immense frustration and abject failure of you trying to use your
microscopic dick to rape some one will probably not kill you. Your crystal
ball is broken.
Fraser Johnston
"Shuurai" <shuu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5370b3a7-9b7f-431d...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > So there you go, prove me wrong.
>>
>> Well how come there's so much oil out there under the oceans, eh
>> smarty-pants?
>>
>> Like there's just *heaps* of sand there!
>
> We need to drain the oceans!
No way I'm going diving for crayfish next Tuesday. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm crayfish.
Fraser
Fraser Johnston
<hal> wrote in message news:4b0abbe1...@news.newsguy.com...
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:19:13 -0800 (PST), Shuurai
> <shuu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> > So there you go, prove me wrong.
>>>
>>> Well how come there's so much oil out there under the oceans, eh
>>> smarty-pants?
>>>
>>> Like there's just *heaps* of sand there!
>>
>>We need to drain the oceans!
>
>
I suggest we pump it into wannabes mom. There will be room to spare.
Fraser
Greendistantstar
What? And drown the Miami Dolphins?
Is that even possible?
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Fraser Johnston
"Greendistantstar" <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:1c6dnTINGZQn-pLW...@westnet.com.au...
Of course not. They're dolphins. And as long as they steer clear of her
cervix they should be fine.
Fraser
YumYumPandaburger
> "Shuurai" <shuura...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5370b3a7-9b7f-431d...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> > So there you go, prove me wrong.
>
> >> Well how come there's so much oil out there under the oceans, eh
> >> smarty-pants?
>
> >> Like there's just *heaps* of sand there!
>
> > We need to drain the oceans!
>
> No way I'm going diving for crayfish next
Your seas are filled with wimpy critters. In the North Sea, crayfish
dives for you.
trav...@aol.com
wrote:
No, I think you have that backwards. In Australia, I think the
crayfish are fucking venomous, just like every other goddamned animal
on that penal colony.
Trav
Fraser Johnston
<trav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:45143c19-0c19-45a2...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
No, I think you have that backwards. In Australia, I think the
crayfish are fucking venomous, just like every other goddamned animal
on that penal colony.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Leave my ex wife out of this. : )
Funnily enough even though we have loads of venomous creatures they don't
really factor in your day to day life. We see the odd redback spider around
which I generally kill on sight but other than that even in the bush you don't
see much in the way of snakes. I saw one a couple of weeks ago camping but as
soon as I saw it, it did a runner. Ticks are way more of a problem.
Fraser
Sam the Bam
> We see the odd redback spider around
> which I generally kill on sight but other than that even in the
> bush you don't see much in the way of snakes. I saw one a
> couple of weeks ago camping but as
> soon as I saw it, it did a runner. Ticks are way more of a problem.
BJJ no can defend against snakes?
Sam
Fraser Johnston
"Sam the Bam" <samth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f48ee7cb-a2fd-4339...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nope. But long handled shovels work a treat. : )
Worst thing camping was hitting an emu on the way home at 110km/h. I broke
it's leg and didn't kill it. So I had to finish it off rather than letting it
die in the hot sun. I had nothing in the car to do the dead with so had to
beat it to death with a rotting tree branch. Not fun. Especially with 3 kids
and an animal loving girlfriend in the car.
Fraser
Appledog
> <travis...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:45143c19-0c19-45a2...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>
> No, I think you have that backwards. In Australia, I think the
> crayfish are fucking venomous, just like every other goddamned animal
> on that penal colony.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Leave my ex wife out of this. : )
Okay back on topic then. The US is no longer the leading economy in
the world. This year, China surpassed the US as the country whose
citizens buy the most cars every year.
Cash for clunkers was a program to ship steel and other metals to
China in return for continued support of the treasury market.
At this rate we're looking at a collapse and revolution sometime in
2009. Silver will easily reach $1,000 an ounce, although I would
honestly not be suprised to see $3,000 silver short term.
-
ha4h...@kent.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
Run over it again?
Seriously though, no chance to save an emu by taking it to the nearest
vet?
Next up: Fraser grazes a hitchiker in the outback, and there's no space
in his car.... LOL
Greendistantstar
> On Nov 30, 1:13 pm, "Fraser Johnston" <ftr...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> <travis...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:45143c19-0c19-45a2...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> No, I think you have that backwards. In Australia, I think the
>> crayfish are fucking venomous, just like every other goddamned animal
>> on that penal colony.
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Leave my ex wife out of this. : )
>
> Okay back on topic then. The US is no longer the leading economy in
> the world. This year, China surpassed the US as the country whose
> citizens buy the most cars every year.
Is that your criterion? Car sales?
> Cash for clunkers was a program to ship steel and other metals to
> China in return for continued support of the treasury market.
What rot.
> At this rate we're looking at a collapse and revolution sometime in
> 2009.
Sometime in the next 4 weeks?
> Silver will easily reach $1,000 an ounce,
When? In 200 years time, or within 4 weeks?
> although I would
> honestly not be suprised to see $3,000 silver short term.
'short term' means what?
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Fraser Johnston
<ha4h...@KENT.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> wrote in
message
news:yoleing...@KENT.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me...
> Run over it again?
I normally would in a 4x4 but the thing got knocked clean off the road into the
bushes next to it. I like animals enough to give them a quick death so they
don't suffer. Biggest problem is an emu has a tennis ball sized head so taking
an accurate swing at it with a stick is not easy. I missed the first time at
which point it knew my intentions which made it even harder. I will know in
the future best way to do it is aim at the neck and break it. Thank god it
wasn't a kangaroo. Those fuckers are solid. I felt sorry for it until I
realized it ran into me and what would of happened if I had been on the bike at
120 km/h. Then I was happy there was one less of the dopey fuckers on the
road.
> Seriously though, no chance to save an emu by taking it to the nearest
> vet?
No room in the car for a pissed off bleeding 40kg bird. That and how much
would it cost? If I had that much room I would of butchered it and been
eating emu steaks that night. Pre tenderized. : )
> Next up: Fraser grazes a hitchiker in the outback, and there's no space
> in his car.... LOL
It depends if it was a hot female Swedish backpacker or a male Japanese
tourist. ; )
Fraser
YumYumPandaburger
> "Sam the Bam" <samtheb...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:f48ee7cb-a2fd-4339...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
This is some straight up Wolf Creek shit ! next time you can play head
on a stick with it :-)
Greendistantstar
> Biggest problem is an emu has a tennis ball sized head so taking
> an accurate swing at it with a stick is not easy. I missed the first time at
> which point it knew my intentions which made it even harder.
Hey, so you took a mulligan, again!
Gotta get you back to the driving range, bro' :)
GDS
"Let's roll!"
trav...@aol.com
> "Sam the Bam" <samtheb...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:f48ee7cb-a2fd-4339...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Fuckin pansy.
If you were a real man you'd have made her do it while you kicked back
in the shade with a Fosters
Trav
trav...@aol.com
> <ha4h-g...@KENT.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> wrote in
> messagenews:yoleing...@KENT.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me...
Next time, um....shoot it?
Trav
YumYumPandaburger
wrote:
> Fraser Johnston wrote:
> > <hal> wrote in messagenews:4b0abbe1...@news.newsguy.com...
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
LOL @ drawning FISH
Appledog
wrote:
> Appledog wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 1:13 pm, "Fraser Johnston" <ftr...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >> <travis...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:45143c19-0c19-45a2...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> No, I think you have that backwards. In Australia, I think the
> >> crayfish are fucking venomous, just like every other goddamned animal
> >> on that penal colony.
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> >> Leave my ex wife out of this. : )
>
> > Okay back on topic then. The US is no longer the leading economy in
> > the world. This year, China surpassed the US as the country whose
> > citizens buy the most cars every year.
>
> Is that your criterion? Car sales?
Yes. What's yours?
> > Cash for clunkers was a program to ship steel and other metals to
> > China in return for continued support of the treasury market.
>
> What rot.
What, you don't believe me? Whyever not?
> > At this rate we're looking at a collapse and revolution sometime in
> > 2009.
>
> Sometime in the next 4 weeks?
I meant to say 2010 but hell, 2009 fits almost as well. The USA has
experienced 100% price inflation on fruit juice boxes, some areas 200%
inflation on rice, and so forth. Ocean spray doesn't even use fruit
(whatsoever) in their cranberry juice anymore, because they can't
afford it. If this keeps up there is going to be hell to pay in 2009.
People don't notice it as much because.. 30 cents to 69 cents... the
price is still low. 69 cents to $2, people are going to riot in the
streets.
I remember when bread costs 30 cents a loaf, now it's $3 for the cheap
shit bread. Thats insane. Thank god I don't live in america. It's
going to be a dustbowl in a year.
> > Silver will easily reach $1,000 an ounce,
>
> When? In 200 years time, or within 4 weeks?
Probably within 5-10 years. This is a long term top and just a
speculation. But you would expect something in that range, easily.
> > although I would
> > honestly not be suprised to see $3,000 silver short term.
>
> 'short term' means what?
5-10 years.
Do you believe me? :)
-
trav...@aol.com
> On Nov 30, 1:13 pm, "Fraser Johnston" <ftr...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > <travis...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:45143c19-0c19-45a2...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > No, I think you have that backwards. In Australia, I think the
> > crayfish are fucking venomous, just like every other goddamned animal
> > on that penal colony.
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > Leave my ex wife out of this. : )
>
> Okay back on topic then. The US is no longer the leading economy in
> the world. This year, China surpassed the US as the country whose
> citizens buy the most cars every year.
Not relevant. China would not exist but for our insolvency. Two
sides to the coin. We borrowed so that they could industrialize.
There isn't the oil supply for China to have cars like the US does.
> Cash for clunkers was a program to ship steel and other metals to
> China in return for continued support of the treasury market.
Why would China need to continue to produce flat out? They are
staring collapse in the face, as we are.
> At this rate we're looking at a collapse and revolution sometime in
> 2009. Silver will easily reach $1,000 an ounce, although I would
> honestly not be suprised to see $3,000 silver short term.
2009 is almost over and silver won't go to 1000 absent a true
hyperinflation. If such a thing occasions, China is as dead as
anybody.
Look, we're bankrupt - whose currency is the yuan pegged to? Even the
EU is now fucking bitching about their inflation policy at the RBC.
Everyone is. China seems to think that they can play currency games
and steal IP with impunity. This was all well and good when the
future held limitless growth; now it does not. This shit is going to
backlash with a VENGEANCE.
Despite its bellicosity and rhetoric, China has NEVER stood on its own
two feet. It's needed constant props from the West to drag itself out
of its centuries-long irrelevancy. Now, after what, 10 fucking years
of being on the G10 list, suddenly they are world masters and
brilliant geniuses? On the back of what, cheap labor and bootlegged
DVDs? GTFO here.
The West is going to tire of subsidizing China as China subsidizes the
west.
Trav
Greendistantstar
> On Nov 30, 3:38 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
> wrote:
>> Appledog wrote:
>>> On Nov 30, 1:13 pm, "Fraser Johnston" <ftr...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>> <travis...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:45143c19-0c19-45a2...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>>>> No, I think you have that backwards. In Australia, I think the
>>>> crayfish are fucking venomous, just like every other goddamned animal
>>>> on that penal colony.
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> Leave my ex wife out of this. : )
>>> Okay back on topic then. The US is no longer the leading economy in
>>> the world. This year, China surpassed the US as the country whose
>>> citizens buy the most cars every year.
>> Is that your criterion? Car sales?
>
> Yes.
Do you realize that no one else on the planet would agree with you?
>What's yours?
GNP.
>>> Cash for clunkers was a program to ship steel and other metals to
>>> China in return for continued support of the treasury market.
>> What rot.
>
> What, you don't believe me? Whyever not?
Because it's untrue.
>>> At this rate we're looking at a collapse and revolution sometime in
>>> 2009.
>> Sometime in the next 4 weeks?
>
> I meant to say 2010 but hell, 2009 fits almost as well. The USA has
> experienced 100% price inflation on fruit juice boxes, some areas 200%
> inflation on rice, and so forth. Ocean spray doesn't even use fruit
> (whatsoever) in their cranberry juice anymore, because they can't
> afford it. If this keeps up there is going to be hell to pay in 2009.
> People don't notice it as much because.. 30 cents to 69 cents... the
> price is still low. 69 cents to $2, people are going to riot in the
> streets.
The Great Orange Wars of 2010, eh?
> I remember when bread costs 30 cents a loaf, now it's $3 for the cheap
> shit bread. Thats insane.
How long ago? The increase has to be relative to wages.
> Thank god I don't live in america. It's
> going to be a dustbowl in a year.
No more cheap, sliced bread or fruit juice boxes? Shit...if only people could actually *grow*
oranges or make their own bread.
>>> Silver will easily reach $1,000 an ounce,
>> When? In 200 years time, or within 4 weeks?
>
> Probably within 5-10 years. This is a long term top and just a
> speculation. But you would expect something in that range, easily.
Nah. If anything, I see silver taking a dive relative to other commodities. Almost 40% of silver's
usage is for jewellery, 20% for photography. You think the market for fancy jewellery is bad now?
What will it be like in *really* bad times?
>>> although I would
>>> honestly not be suprised to see $3,000 silver short term.
>> 'short term' means what?
>
> 5-10 years.
>
> Do you believe me? :)
5-10 years isn't short term, economically speaking. Almost anything can spike in value at some point
over a decade, so if that point is your measure of a successful prediction, it's rather meaningless.
If I was you, I'd be buying property. If you buy smartly now, you could be retiring in 10 years with
income-producing assets worth far more than than their PV.
In fact, I'll be specific. First, yield = PV/annualized rent. Compare the yield to the cash rate,
that's your baseline. Add a factor for risk (2% min) and now you have a target.
The property's value should be = < 15X annual rent. If *both* criteria are met, do your local homework.
Fortunes are made during recessions.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Appledog
wrote:
>
> If I was you, I'd be buying property. If you buy smartly now, you could be retiring in 10 years with
> income-producing assets worth far more than than their PV.
I'd rather buy rice futures than a house. Rice went from $5 to $15 a
bag in the states when brazil stopped exporting.
That will happen again when the asian countries stop exporting
sometime between 2010 and 2011. Rice will go to $20 or $30 a bag.
I wonder how many people have noticed the case of the mysteriously
shrinking tuna. Cans which remain the same price but which have
dropped from 7 oz to 5 oz over the past couple of years.
> The property's value should be = < 15X annual rent. If *both* criteria are met, do your local homework.
>
> Fortunes are made during recessions.
Using time tested valuations, a house should not cost more than 4
times your annual income. Especially a first home. Which tells you how
insane real estate prices are, even in Australia.
And yes, I am currently in the market for a home. I'm planning to pick
one up on government auction for half it's value. Now, even if we
weren't in a recession that would be a great value :)
Anyways - I hope you haven't made the mistake of thinking that a
single item with one price tag is better (or worse, necessarily) than
a lot of little fungible items which have a combined value equal to or
greater.
I suggest cans of tuna. In an apololypse, the cans can be used to
repair cars and guns, the oil can be converted for use as car fuel,
and the food itself is great for feeding pigs, into whose sties mel-
gibson lookalikes (thank, you, no need for applause) may find
themselves dropped if they fail to win a MMA fight in the thunderdome.
And, assuming that they weigh 5 oz. each, 80 of them would weigh 400
oz, a suprising number. Actually it's interesting. If you wanted to
invest $500,000 into tuna, it would weigh about 25 tons. Or what,
about 12 kilos of gold. I guess it depends on how much money you
really have. Me I don't have much so I buy tuna, and it makes me feel
rich because it looks like I have a lot of tuna. But really I don't
have much actual value stored up.
-
Appledog
China will be fine. They can feed themselves and their citizens are
investing 5% of their money into silver. If there was any sort of a
collapse their government will survive by pointing out their foresight
in advising the people to buy silver and making it available to them.
At which point they will transition over to a silver money supply if
they don't want to use yuan. The americans and most other western
nations OTOH will be fucked in the ass because they will simply have
nothing, and life in the US will revolve around how much gold you can
pan each day to avoid starvation.
If you don't think it can happen, just look at zimbabwe. The average
american isn't any smarter than those people.
-
Greendistantstar
> On Nov 30, 10:27 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
> wrote:
>> If I was you, I'd be buying property. If you buy smartly now, you could be retiring in 10 years with
>> income-producing assets worth far more than than their PV.
>
> I'd rather buy rice futures than a house. Rice went from $5 to $15 a
> bag in the states when brazil stopped exporting.
Yeah, well most investors want to do today what they should have done yesterday.
> That will happen again when the asian countries stop exporting
> sometime between 2010 and 2011. Rice will go to $20 or $30 a bag.
Then do it today.
> I wonder how many people have noticed the case of the mysteriously
> shrinking tuna. Cans which remain the same price but which have
> dropped from 7 oz to 5 oz over the past couple of years.
My canned tuna costs the same and I get 20% extra. I know cos it says on the can ;>
>> The property's value should be = < 15X annual rent. If *both* criteria are met, do your local homework.
>>
>> Fortunes are made during recessions.
>
> Using time tested valuations, a house should not cost more than 4
> times your annual income.
That's been outdated for about 30 years.
> Especially a first home. Which tells you how
> insane real estate prices are, even in Australia.
Prices are high here due to simple demand and supply. Unlike the US and many other places, we don't
have many folk on low doc or liars loans.
> And yes, I am currently in the market for a home. I'm planning to pick
> one up on government auction for half it's value. Now, even if we
> weren't in a recession that would be a great value :)
Half its value? It's not worth 2x what you're going to pay, else someone would be buying it at that
price. That's what auctions are about...things being worth what people are prepared to pay, and no
more. But if you can get a bargain in a govt auction, good for you, but don't delude yourself that
it's got built-in appreciation.
> Anyways - I hope you haven't made the mistake of thinking that a
> single item with one price tag is better (or worse, necessarily) than
> a lot of little fungible items which have a combined value equal to or
> greater.
It depends. There can be scale economies when you sell as when you buy.
> I suggest cans of tuna. In an apololypse, the cans can be used to
> repair cars and guns, the oil can be converted for use as car fuel,
> and the food itself is great for feeding pigs, into whose sties mel-
> gibson lookalikes (thank, you, no need for applause) may find
> themselves dropped if they fail to win a MMA fight in the thunderdome.
> And, assuming that they weigh 5 oz. each, 80 of them would weigh 400
> oz, a suprising number. Actually it's interesting. If you wanted to
> invest $500,000 into tuna, it would weigh about 25 tons. Or what,
> about 12 kilos of gold. I guess it depends on how much money you
> really have. Me I don't have much so I buy tuna, and it makes me feel
> rich because it looks like I have a lot of tuna. But really I don't
> have much actual value stored up.
A nice lake with trout and a fishing line is a better investment.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Appledog
wrote:
>
> > I'd rather buy rice futures than a house. Rice went from $5 to $15 a
> > bag in the states when brazil stopped exporting.
>
> Yeah, well most investors want to do today what they should have done yesterday.
Ahh yes. The duality of man, I know this well.
> >> The property's value should be = < 15X annual rent. If *both* criteria are met, do your local homework.
>
> >> Fortunes are made during recessions.
>
> > Using time tested valuations, a house should not cost more than 4
> > times your annual income.
>
> That's been outdated for about 30 years.
Yes, and I am saying that is the problem.
-
Greendistantstar
There's nothing wrong with having a house that's worth 10x your income, in fact, that's a great
position to be in. How much you have *borrowed* against the house...now THAT is a different issue.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Stanley Moore
Back in 1993 when I was searching for my first home the realtor asked my
income and when I said $45,000 she said, Good, you need a house in the price
range of $85K." I said :No way. fiond me something cheaper."
I was able to scrape together a 20% down payment and got one for $67,500.
The idea of buying the very most house you can carry is pretty popular with
real estate folks. I have watched HGTV and you see folks buying their first
home with no money down or 5% or these weird 80-20 loans where you carry two
mortgages. I wonder how they can do it, Then they have a show Real Estate
Intervention which is about folks who are trying to seel their houses and
are overpriced because they don't want to have to bring money to the table
because they are underwater. It is sad but you look at their homes and you
see they are either in high cost areas like Baltimore where you get an
attached row house with 1500 square feet cost half a million. Or they
bought mansions in cheaper neighborhoods.
I know I am old and times have changed but it was customeary in the past for
new home owners to get a small strater home, then expand as the family
grows. Our family of 5 grew up in a 1300 sq ft 3 BR 2 bath house on the
outskirts of a small Texas town. Daddy bought it in 1965 for $13K and though
the 6% interest was usuruious. He had it paid off in less than 10 years but
I guess folks are not prudent nowadays.
Though in fairness I mist confess I live (alone) in a 4 BR 4Bath two story
house with water front footage on a quiet cul-de-sac in a very nice
neighborhood in Houston. It is probably much more than I need BUT it is paid
for so I am not blessed with a mortgage. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
.
hal
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Back in 1993 when I was searching for my first home the realtor asked my
>income and when I said $45,000 she said, Good, you need a house in the price
>range of $85K." I said :No way. fiond me something cheaper."
>I was able to scrape together a 20% down payment and got one for $67,500.
>
>The idea of buying the very most house you can carry is pretty popular with
>real estate folks.
Of course. They work on a percentage of the sale price. Everybody
has always wanted to force buyers into a bigger house than they can
afford. That is why we have a housing crisis.
Shuurai
> >The idea of buying the very most house you can carry is pretty popular with
> >real estate folks.
>
> Of course. They work on a percentage of the sale price. Everybody
> has always wanted to force buyers into a bigger house than they can
> afford. That is why we have a housing crisis.
Mainly because the government encouraged - and then basically mandated
- that exact sort of behavior.
You have taken step one. Good job!
trav...@aol.com
> > times your annual income.
>
> That's been outdated for about 30 years.
Yes, welcome to a fucking global property bubble, eh? Gettin it yet?
> Prices are high here due to simple demand and supply. Unlike the US and many other places, we don't
> have many folk on low doc or liars loans.
ROTFL. This is very clearly bullshit, the former portion.
Prices are high because you have a property bubble as well where easy
credit sourced on income multiples that are staggering has driven
prices up. It's a simple matter of credit inflation!
Trav
trav...@aol.com
> position to be in. How much you have *borrowed* against the house...now THAT is a different issue.
>
> GDS
ROTFL..."worth"? Wrong. It commands that price because of the
artificialities of a credit bubble.
Trav
trav...@aol.com
> investing 5% of their money into silver. If there was any sort of a
> collapse their government will survive by pointing out their foresight
> in advising the people to buy silver and making it available to them.
> At which point they will transition over to a silver money supply if
> they don't want to use yuan. The americans and most other western
> nations OTOH will be fucked in the ass because they will simply have
> nothing, and life in the US will revolve around how much gold you can
> pan each day to avoid starvation.
LOL...China cannot turn a profit without a steeply depreciating
currency as an ongoing basis as they continue to build ever more
overcapacity.
If there is a collapse, the government will be overthrown in short
order.
Trav
Stanley Moore
"Shuurai" <shuu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0df05e1e-2434-4780...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
****************************************************
Not just government. Lenders encouraged the trend by creating such things as
80-20 loans in which you essentially borrow your 20% down at a higher rate.
No prudent lender should countenance such a loan. You used to have a
substantial down payment before ANYONE would lend you money for a house. I
guess Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did encourage such behavior by allowing
such loans to be packaged and sold. I know that no local bank like my father
used in 1965 would let you buy a house without cash on the table.
One reason I wanted a house that matched my down payment of 20% was so I
wouldn't have to buy moertgage insurance to cover the lender in case of
default. I felt that was wasted money and didn;t want to pay it. You scrimp
and save and do without stuff until you have the down payment then you buy
an affordable house so that both you and the bank have a substantial stake
in it and you live there until you can afford a better house. Take care
Stanley Moore
<trav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:32ccc8ad-3226-4d8b...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I was wondering what the multiple should be for buying a house. IIRC I was
told back in the day taht you could prudently buy a house that was 2.5X your
annual griss income proviuded your mortggage payment, including taxes and
insurance wasn't more than 25-28% of your monthly gross. What is the
thinking today? Surely those guidelines are still prudent nowadays, right?
Thoug you might have to be an upper income earner to buy a typical house.
Back in my father's day normally wives didn't work so you had to buy your
home on one income. Nowadays a modest $100K income divided among a husband
and wife would let you buy a house worth $250K which based on what I see on
HGTV in hard to find in most places.Here in Houston house prices are low. I
think the median is less than 200K. Take care
Stanley Moore
<ha4h...@KENT.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> wrote in
message
news:yoleing...@KENT.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me...
I imagine trying to manhandle an injured emu which was kidking with its
good leg might pose a proiblem. Thise are not budgirigars that are dicile.
Stanley Moore
"Fraser Johnston" <ftr...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:7nh6asF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Sam the Bam" <samth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f48ee7cb-a2fd-4339...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 29, "Fraser Johnston" <ftr...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> We see the odd redback spider around
>> which I generally kill on sight but other than that even in the
>> bush you don't see much in the way of snakes. I saw one a
>> couple of weeks ago camping but as
>> soon as I saw it, it did a runner. Ticks are way more of a problem.
>
>
> BJJ no can defend against snakes?
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Nope. But long handled shovels work a treat. : )
>
> Worst thing camping was hitting an emu on the way home at 110km/h. I
> broke it's leg and didn't kill it. So I had to finish it off rather than
> letting it die in the hot sun. I had nothing in the car to do the dead
> with so had to beat it to death with a rotting tree branch. Not fun.
> Especially with 3 kids and an animal loving girlfriend in the car.
>
You shoulda driven down the road a piece and walked back our of sight of the
kids. No tire iron in the vehicle? Or you could have driven oveer its head.