OT: Simply amazing
Mark & Juanita
This should cause some statist heads to explode:
<http://hillbuzz.org/2009/11/10/thank-you-former-president-george-w-bush-and-former-first-lady-laura-bush/>
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
RicodJour
Greg G.
> This should cause some statist heads to explode:
><http://hillbuzz.org/2009/11/10/thank-you-former-president-george-w-bush-and-former-first-lady-laura-bush/>
Bush's problem was that he simply wasn't prepared for the immensity of
the problems he was presented with and had a pack of old Nixon
era/PNAC/NeoCon players making decisions for him. He was elected on
the reputation of his father and simply wasn't up to the task as is
often the case with oligarchical candidates. You could tell by the end
of his term that he was having second thoughts about many of the
things that were done on his watch, and his and his father's "legacy."
As a result he took much more personal control in the last few months,
including the refusal to aid Israel in bombing Iran, refusal to pardon
traitor Libby instead commuting his prison sentence (which was also a
mistake but pacifying the party leaders), and the expansion of health
care clinics. He was weak in the face of more seasoned players like
Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove, and caught a lot of flack that he would not
have otherwise simply because, as Command and Chief, he was the
sacrificial figurehead. And you better believe they knew this and
took advantage of it. The coddling of Saudi Arabia and whisking the
bin Ladens out of the country after 9/11 made for bad press as well.
Does this make him a great president? Emphatically not, but certainly
not the worst we've had. His terms were no cake walk, which is
probably what he was expecting, but it is intrinsic to the job to
filter out untoward influences and act accordingly in the best
interests of the country. After all, he was supposed to be the
Ultimate Decider.
Just my 2 cents...
Greg G.
evodawg
>
>
> This should cause some statist heads to explode:
>
<http://hillbuzz.org/2009/11/10/thank-you-former-president-george-w-bush-and-former-first-lady-laura-bush/>
>
Thanks for the post and link. Great reading. It's amazing how many now have
buyers remorse.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/
dadiOH
> Does this make him a great president? Emphatically not, but certainly
> not the worst we've had.
My mileage varies.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Robatoy
WTF is this you're starting? A right-wing apologist circle jerk?
Tom Watson
It's bad enough that it suffers from the gender confusion expressed in
its handle - but the confusion apparently goes much deeper.
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Greg G.
>Greg G. wrote:
>
>> Does this make him a great president? Emphatically not, but certainly
>> not the worst we've had.
>
>My mileage varies.
Not even trying to be an apologist, but there have been some pretty
poor predecessors - reputations have a tendency to be spiffed up for
the history books. The in your face era of the Intertubes places
tremendous scrutiny on what used to be a fairly cloistered job.
Perhaps I should have left out the "certainly" adverb... ;-)
As much as I disagreed with much that went on, waving Hitler posters
wasn't a part of the dissent. Not now, not then - it just gets in the
way of realistic solutions which are hard enough to come by as it is.
Greg G.
dadiOH
I should have said that my mileage varies among those I have
experienced...FDR to current. Among those, George W. is at the bottom of my
list, a position previously occupied by LBJ who is followed by Carter (moral
but inept). Tops? Probably Harry Truman followed by Eisenhauer.
Greg G.
>Greg G. wrote:
>> dadiOH said:
>>
>>> Greg G. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does this make him a great president? Emphatically not, but
>>>> certainly not the worst we've had.
>>>
>>> My mileage varies.
>>
>> Not even trying to be an apologist, but there have been some pretty
>> poor predecessors - reputations have a tendency to be spiffed up for
>> the history books. The in your face era of the Intertubes places
>> tremendous scrutiny on what used to be a fairly cloistered job.
>> Perhaps I should have left out the "certainly" adverb... ;-)
>> As much as I disagreed with much that went on, waving Hitler posters
>> wasn't a part of the dissent. Not now, not then - it just gets in the
>> way of realistic solutions which are hard enough to come by as it is.
>>
>>
>> Greg G.
>
>I should have said that my mileage varies among those I have
>experienced...FDR to current. Among those, George W. is at the bottom of my
>list, a position previously occupied by LBJ who is followed by Carter (moral
>but inept). Tops? Probably Harry Truman followed by Eisenhauer.
Eisenhower was in office when I was born. Last true conservative IMHO.
JFK was the first I remember clearly. They went downhill from there.
Greg G.
Mark & Juanita
As usual, when you can't form a reasoned comment, go with the ad hominem.
I expect no less.
As far as the topic, are you really proud of your [let's see, I think you
made the comment, you really wanted] "elite" president in his handling of
this latest terrorist attack?
Cold doesn't begin to describe him.
HeyBub
> On Nov 13, 12:14 am, Mark & Juanita <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote:
>
>
> WTF is this you're starting? A right-wing apologist circle jerk?
No, he's simply observing that President Bush and his wife visited and
consoled fellow Texans who were victims of a terrorist attack.
There were no press in attendance and non-personal photos were prohibited.
Bush did the same thing dozens of times when he was president.
Robatoy
Maybe he should have thought of that before sending the troops into
harm's way.
Leon
"Robatoy" <counte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:174c3cac-0a1d-49c9...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Ba a a a a a a a a a a aaaaaa Ba a a a a a a a a a aaaaaa
Robatoy
> "Robatoy" <counterfit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Ah, ba ba ba ba Barbara Ann
Ba ba ba ba Barbara Ann
Oh Barbara Ann, take my hand
Barbara Ann
You got me rockin' and a-rollin'
Rockin' and a-reelin'
Barbara Ann ba ba
Ba Barbara Ann
Went to a dance, lookin' for romance
Saw Barbara Ann, so I thought I'd take a chance
With Barbara Ann, Barbara Ann
Take my hand
You got me rockin' and a-rollin'
Rockin' and a-reelin'
Barbara Ann ba ba
Ba ba ba ba black sheep
Ba ba ba ba Barbara Ann
Ba ba ba ba Barbara Ann
Barbara Ann, take my hand
Barbara Ann
You got me rockin' and a-rollin'
Rockin' and a-reelin'
Barbara Ann ba ba
Ba Barbara Ann
(Let's go now!)
(Ow!)
(Hal, and his famous ashtray!)
(You smell like Rocky. You're always scratchin' it.)
(Hey, come on!)
(Scratch it, Carl, scratch it, baby, right over there.
Down a little lower. Down a little lower!)
(Saw-- Tried--)
Tried Peggy Sue
Tried Betty Lou
Tried Mary Lou
But I knew she wouldn't do
Barbara Ann, Barbara Ann
Take my hand
Barbara Ann
Take my hand
You got me rockin' and a-rollin'
Rockin' and a-reelin'
Barbara Ann ba ba
Ba Barbara Ann
Ba ba ba ba Barbara Ann
Ba ba ba ba Barbara Ann
Barbara Ann
Take my hand
Barbara Ann
You got me rockin' and a-rollin'
Rockin' and a-reelin'
Barbara Ann ba ba
Ba Barbara Ann
Barbara Ann, Barbara Ann
Barbara Ann, Barbara Ann
Yeah, Barbara Ann, Barbara Ann
Barbara Ann, Barbara Ann
You got me rockin' and a-rollin'
Rockin' and a-reelin'
Barbara Ann ba ba
Ba Barbara Ann
(Let's try that again. One more.)
You got me rockin' and a-rollin'
Rockin' and a-reelin'
Barbara Ann ba ba
Ba Barbara Ann
(Ha ha. Let's try it one more time.)
You got me rockin' and a-rollin'
Rockin' and a-reelin'
Barbara Ann ba ba
Ba Barbara Ann
(Let's try it once more.)
(One more time. More artistic flavor.)
One more time
You got me rockin' and a-rollin'
Barbara Ann
Woah
You got me rockin'
You got me rollin'
Oh, Barbara Ann
(Thank you very much, folks.)
(Thanks, Dean.)
(Yeah, it's not bad.)
HeyBub
He didn't send them so much as he allowed them to go. Remember, all our
military are volunteers. They enlisted for the opportunity to kill people
and blow things up.
Fully 85% of those who've served in Iraq or Afghanistan have re-enlisted at
the first opportunity. The remaining 15% retired, were invalided out, or
mistakenly married harridans. Heck, the 1st Infantry Division (parts of
which have served as many as FOUR tours of duty in Iraq), routinely meets
its re-enlistment goals some months before the end of each fiscal year.
You've got to look long-term, too. We need a war every ten to fifteen years
to keep the tip of the spear sharp. After all, who would become a fireman if
there were no more fires? As things stand today, just about every military
commander, from sergeant to 4-star, has led men in battle. You can't BUY
that kind of experience.
We've also got to protect and encourage our warrior class. War is what they
were trained to do, it's what they need to do, it's what they were born to
do. They serve for their country's sake, for honor's sake, for glory's sake.
For their lands. For their families. For themselves.
Han
news:eO6dnWtI1LR-qJ3W...@earthlink.com:
> We've also got to protect and encourage our warrior class. War is what
> they were trained to do, it's what they need to do, it's what they
> were born to do. They serve for their country's sake, for honor's
> sake, for glory's sake. For their lands. For their families. For
> themselves.
Sorry, but that statement reminds me too much of what the Germans were
saying at the start of WWI:
Eine frische fr�hliche Krieg.
Remind me, hw many casulaties in WWI?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
dadiOH
You forgot apple pie :)
tom
> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote innews:eO6dnWtI1LR-qJ3W...@earthlink.com:
>
> > We've also got to protect and encourage our warrior class. War is what
> > they were trained to do, it's what they need to do, it's what they
> > were born to do. They serve for their country's sake, for honor's
> > sake, for glory's sake. For their lands. For their families. For
> > themselves.
>
> Sorry, but that statement reminds me too much of what the Germans were
> saying at the start of WWI:
>
>
> Remind me, hw many casulaties in WWI?
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid
Thank you. Tom
Tom Watson
<nos...@hadenough.com> wrote:
> As usual, when you can't form a reasoned comment, go with the ad hominem.
>I expect no less.
>
When the conservative movement was represented by the likes of Reagan,
Goldwater and Buckley it was a true representation of a substantial
sector of the American political spectrum. The leadership had
vitality, wit and grace. But now that it is fronted by Limbaugh,
O'Reilly and the sad-eyed-clown Beck, it is nothing but a gang of
thugs and incipient brown shirts.
People like this don't amount to a shit stain on Bill Buckley's
drawers and the people who follow them are the real sheep on the
island, who'd better seriously watch their ass.
This is more of a reply than you deserve. Googlectuals and Political
Scientologists like you and HeyBoob have never had an independent
thought and never will. You vomit up the pap you get from the tit of
the disc jockeys that serve as the intelligentsia of right. And you
wonder why those who respond to you simply dismiss you as idiots,
rather than argue the points of what you think are your positions.
It's because you are idiots.
Res ipsa loquitur.
(Latin for, 'You've passed the duck test'.)
Swingman
> It's because you are idiots.
In this nation at present, purposely divided by ideology so that the
fleecing is easier, ALL who take part in divisive 'conservative versus
liberal', 'democrat versus republican' rhetoric are idiots, contributing
directly to the problem by playing into the hands of those looking to
"divide and conquer".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
notbob
<modquote>
> In this nation at present, purposely divided by ideology so that the
> fleecing is easier, ALL who take part in divisive 'conservative versus
> liberal', 'democrat versus republican' rhetoric are idiots, contributing
> directly to the problem by playing into the hands of those looking to
> "divide and conquer".
</modquote>
Tom Watson
>Tom Watson wrote:
>
>> It's because you are idiots.
>
>In this nation at present, purposely divided by ideology so that the
>fleecing is easier, ALL who take part in divisive 'conservative versus
>liberal', 'democrat versus republican' rhetoric are idiots, contributing
>directly to the problem by playing into the hands of those looking to
>"divide and conquer".
That sounds more reasonable than it is.
If you want to stand with them, fine. I'm tired of them smearing
their shit on the walls and expecting me to discuss it as though it's
art.
Swingman
>
>> Tom Watson wrote:
>>
>>> It's because you are idiots.
>> In this nation at present, purposely divided by ideology so that the
>> fleecing is easier, ALL who take part in divisive 'conservative versus
>> liberal', 'democrat versus republican' rhetoric are idiots, contributing
>> directly to the problem by playing into the hands of those looking to
>> "divide and conquer".
>
>
> That sounds more reasonable than it is.
>
> If you want to stand with them, fine. <snip>
Easy now, what's unreasonable is making that assumption ...
RicodJour
I think you should update your sig line to include that nugget. It's
obviously true. Divide and conquer, or divide and distract. It
amounts to the same thing.
R
Greg G.
>Tom Watson wrote:
>
>> It's because you are idiots.
>
>In this nation at present, purposely divided by ideology so that the
>fleecing is easier, ALL who take part in divisive 'conservative versus
>liberal', 'democrat versus republican' rhetoric are idiots, contributing
>directly to the problem by playing into the hands of those looking to
>"divide and conquer".
You betcha!
Greg G.
Tim Daneliuk
Will someone please pass me the popcorn. I don't want to miss a minute of
this show ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy
Get your own popcorn, you lazy incompetent oaf. Trying to live of the
prevails of someone else's popcorn...shame on you!
Robatoy
I, once again, point to this document:
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=7124
(And no.. it is not another one of those Elders Of Zion pieces of
claptrap hoax.)
diggerop
Sadly, the moneylenders are still in control of the temple.
Making obscene profits,
Using obscene practices,
Paying themselves obscene salaries,
Taking obscene risks in the secure knowledge that the taxpayer will bail
them out "for the good of the nation" when it all falls in a heap. Some
defend the system as free enterprise. Seems more like usury to me.
diggerop.
- who doesnt have a credit card and hasn't
borrowed money from the leeches for 40 years.
diggerop
HeyBub
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:01:45 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote:
>
>> As usual, when you can't form a reasoned comment, go with the ad
>> hominem. I expect no less.
>>
>
> When the conservative movement was represented by the likes of Reagan,
> Goldwater and Buckley it was a true representation of a substantial
> sector of the American political spectrum. The leadership had
> vitality, wit and grace. But now that it is fronted by Limbaugh,
> O'Reilly and the sad-eyed-clown Beck, it is nothing but a gang of
> thugs and incipient brown shirts.
Brown shirts? I think you exaggerate. The conservative doesn't carry
swastika signs like the left did during the Bush years. The conservatives
don't beat people senseless like the SEIU thugs did recently (or the
teamster thugs did during the Bush years). Conservatives do, sometimes,
carry guns.
I'll agree that Buckley was erudite, Goldwater was principled, and Reagan
was convinced.
Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Beck are entertainers and not even in the same
profession as the one's you named. Better comparisons would be Limbaugh with
Streisand, O'Reilly with Alex Baldwin, and Glenn Beck with Roman Polanski.
>
> People like this don't amount to a shit stain on Bill Buckley's
> drawers and the people who follow them are the real sheep on the
> island, who'd better seriously watch their ass.
>
> This is more of a reply than you deserve. Googlectuals and Political
> Scientologists like you and HeyBoob have never had an independent
> thought and never will. You vomit up the pap you get from the tit of
> the disc jockeys that serve as the intelligentsia of right. And you
> wonder why those who respond to you simply dismiss you as idiots,
> rather than argue the points of what you think are your positions.
>
> It's because you are idiots.
>
I know it's hard for progressives such as yourself to do, but please refrain
from profanity - this is a family group.
It's for the children.
Greg G.
>On Nov 16, 12:09 pm, Swingman <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom Watson wrote:
>> > It's because you are idiots.
>>
>> In this nation at present, purposely divided by ideology so that the
>> fleecing is easier, ALL who take part in divisive 'conservative versus
>> liberal', 'democrat versus republican' rhetoric are idiots, contributing
>> directly to the problem by playing into the hands of those looking to
>> "divide and conquer".
>>
>
>I, once again, point to this document:
>http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=7124
>(And no.. it is not another one of those Elders Of Zion pieces of
>claptrap hoax.)
(For those who know this, move along...)
And then they went on to elect Woodrow Wilson who established the
Federal Reserve and the 16th ammendment authorizing income taxes.
Later in life, Wilson stated: "I am a most unhappy man. I have
unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled
by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The
growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the
hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of
the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the
civilized world - no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a
Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a
Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant
men."
And: "Some of the biggest men in the U.S. in the fields of commerce
and manufacturing know that there is a power so organized, so subtle,
so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their
breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
And now, boys and girls, you know the rest of the story.
Greg G.
D'ohBoy
The Ruling Elite's version of 'bread and circuses'.
Plus ca change.....
D'ohBoy
Mike M
They have lost the ability to negotiate an equitable consensus.
Mike M
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:09:20 -0600, Swingman <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
Larry Jaques
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:19:39 -0800, the infamous Mike M
<mikemc...@mindless.com> scrawled the following:
>
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:09:20 -0600, Swingman <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Tom Watson wrote:
>>
>>> It's because you are idiots.
>>
>>In this nation at present, purposely divided by ideology so that the
>>fleecing is easier, ALL who take part in divisive 'conservative versus
>>liberal', 'democrat versus republican' rhetoric are idiots, contributing
>>directly to the problem by playing into the hands of those looking to
>>"divide and conquer".
>
>
>So true, the two parties on a national level screw up the system.
>They have lost the ability to negotiate an equitable consensus.
Well, you remember what Auntie Marge said regarding "concensus",
right?
--
For me, pragmatism is not enough. Nor is that fashionable word "consensus."
To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs,
principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one
believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very
issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement
on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under
the banner "I stand for consensus"?
--Margaret Thatcher (in a 1981 speech)
LJ sez: It's a good thing we have concensus on the case of Anthropogenic
Global Warming (kumbaya), isn't it?
jo4hn
Anyone who would like to learn something about climate, here is a good
place to start- http://climate.nasa.gov/
facts aren't as much fun as supposition.
:-)
jo4hn
Fred the Red Shirt
> ...
>
> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>
> Rob Leatham
Swimming.
Morris Dovey
Tom Watson
wrote:
>Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 12:14 am, Mark & Juanita <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>>>
>>> Rob Leatham
>>
>> Swimming.
>
>Russian roulette.
DUI defense.
Robatoy
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:10:36 -0600, Morris Dovey <mrdo...@iedu.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> >> On Nov 13, 12:14 am, Mark & Juanita <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote:
> >>> ...
>
> >>> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>
> >>> Rob Leatham
>
> >> Swimming.
>
> >Russian roulette.
>
> DUI defense.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Watsonhttp://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Necessary when a lousy shot.
Dave in Houston
"jo4hn" <jo...@mahalo.charter.net> wrote in message
news:lNudnft9krAVsJnW...@supernews.com...
> Anyone who would like to learn something about climate, here is a good
> place to start- http://climate.nasa.gov/
>
> facts aren't as much fun as supposition.
WHAT?! A GOVERNMENT website?! HA! They're just trying to take over
the weather!
Dave in Houston
Dave in Houston
What happened to better dumb than red . . . er . . . tougher than dumb .
. . er . . .
Dave in Houston
Larry Jaques
<jo...@mahalo.charter.net> scrawled the following:
RIP, NASA, who has officially sold its soul to the LWBO. (Liberals
with blinders on)
That ain't just supposition, it's suppositories they want the public
to swallow. Hayseuss Effin' Crisco!
...but it's not too late to save the drowning polar bears. Adopt one
today at an Algore Carbon Neutral site near you!
Speaking of which, Algore's little mansion uses more eneergy in a year
than I have used in my entire adult life.
--
When we are planning for posterity,
we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
-- Thomas Paine
Lew Hodgett
"Larry Jaques" wrote:
> ...but it's not too late to save the drowning polar bears. Adopt one
> today at an Algore Carbon Neutral site near you!
>
> Speaking of which, Algore's little mansion uses more eneergy in a
> year
> than I have used in my entire adult life.
Larry, get your shit together.
The place was carbon neutral last time somebody bothered to check
things out.
Lew
jo4hn
>> Anyone who would like to learn something about climate, here is a good
>> place to start- http://climate.nasa.gov/
>>
>> facts aren't as much fun as supposition.
>
> RIP, NASA, who has officially sold its soul to the LWBO. (Liberals
> with blinders on)
>
> That ain't just supposition, it's suppositories they want the public
> to swallow. Hayseuss Effin' Crisco!
>
> ...but it's not too late to save the drowning polar bears. Adopt one
> today at an Algore Carbon Neutral site near you!
>
> Speaking of which, Algore's little mansion uses more eneergy in a year
> than I have used in my entire adult life.
>
> --
> When we are planning for posterity,
> we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
> -- Thomas Paine
Keep this in mind: Learning is not a requirement in this country, but I
suggest it before you speak.
J. Clarke
Yeah, because after he got caught with his pants down the slimy bastard
busted his ass to make it so. If he really believed his Convenient Lie then
it would have been "carbon neutral" two years ago when he was mouthing off.
Doug Winterburn
> In article <00809baf$0$13094$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>, Lew Hodgett
> of the earth for energy.
You can be carbon neutral just like AL. I am:
Mark & Juanita
Umm, yeah. He bought carbon credits to balance out his energy costs;
coincidentally, he bought those credits from a company he owns that sells
carbon credits. Nope, no issues there.
<http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/251232/>
> Lew
--
Mark & Juanita
> diggerop said:
>
>>On Nov 16, 12:09 pm, Swingman <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Watson wrote:
>>> > It's because you are idiots.
>>>
>>> In this nation at present, purposely divided by ideology so that the
>>> fleecing is easier, ALL who take part in divisive 'conservative versus
>>> liberal', 'democrat versus republican' rhetoric are idiots, contributing
>>> directly to the problem by playing into the hands of those looking to
>>> "divide and conquer".
>>>
>>
>>I, once again, point to this document:
>>http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=7124
>>(And no.. it is not another one of those Elders Of Zion pieces of
>>claptrap hoax.)
>
> (For those who know this, move along...)
>
> And then they went on to elect Woodrow Wilson who established the
> Federal Reserve and the 16th ammendment authorizing income taxes.
>
The 16'th amendment was one of the most egregious elements of the
destruction of the intent of the founders and the purpose of the
Constitution. By giving the federal government the authority to directly tax
citizens of the states, it also gave the federal government nearly
unlimited power over those citizens. That money, taken from the states
only goes back to the states if they enact regulations required by the
federal government, essentially undermining the entire federalist system
established to limit the power of the federal government.
Wilson's "progressivism" and determination to re-distribute wealth then led
to the increasing statism during the FDR "New Deal" years and has continued
after that.
... snip
>
>
> Greg G.
Mark & Juanita
> Tom Watson wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:01:45 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>> <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As usual, when you can't form a reasoned comment, go with the ad
>>> hominem.
>>> I expect no less.
>> This is more of a reply than you deserve. Googlectuals and Political
>> Scientologists like you and HeyBoob have never had an independent
>> thought and never will. You vomit up the pap you get from the tit of
>> the disc jockeys that serve as the intelligentsia of right. And you
>> wonder why those who respond to you simply dismiss you as idiots,
>> rather than argue the points of what you think are your positions.
>>
>> It's because you are idiots.
>>
... and you continue to make my point. One would think you could at least
come up with something a bit more intellectual than the school yard
taunt "idiot".
The problem with you statists is that you just can't believe someone can
reach a conclusion other than your "intellectual, nuanced" view of the
world and the realization that an over-arching state control of everyones'
life is just the way things should be. If anyone disputes that, comes to a
different conclusion, or points out something that disputes that happy
little notion, they could not have come to that conclusion by observation
of human nature, reading of history, or any independent thinking. No sir,
only idiots who listen to talk shows could have those thoughts and are just
reciting lines from the person programming them.
I'm done wit' dis Tom. You've shown good writing style in the past and
some creative writing skills. Unfortunately, that hides some really ugly
ideas and attitudes.
>>
>> Res ipsa loquitur.
>> (Latin for, 'You've passed the duck test'.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tom Watson
>> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
>
>
--
Tom Watson
Larry Jaques
<sails...@verizon.net> scrawled the following:
Oh, that's right. I had forgotten that he paid himself (his carbon
trading-card company) for the disastrous wastes of energy. Did you
see that he recently did an entire overhaul on the thing? It cost him
beaucoup ducats and only saved him 10% on cost. The problem is that
his usage expanded with the decrease in energy cost, so the net
outcome is that he's a worse energy spendthrift now than he was
before. Oh, why won't that man go hunting with Dick Cheney?
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=7891
OK, Lew. Get your shit together. You're expelling a dangerous and
toxic gas every time you breathe out. Just ask your friendly
neighborhood EPA guys.
Arrrrrgh! I can't take it any more.
Larry Jaques
<dlwint...@yahoo.com> scrawled the following:
Excellent! I just got mine, good for (my WAG figure) 247,619,423.6
credits. I started saving the Earth in 1970 or so.
Larry Jaques
<nos...@hadenough.com> scrawled the following:
Were it legal, someone somewhere might suggest tying your sig into an
agreeable action at some time, I'll bet.
Tom Watson
If you are Dick Cheney.
Martin H. Eastburn
the last needed hold out and taking the full threat and brute force of the
Federal Government - cutting federal funding for roads and such. They finally
signed - after the law expired - and it is the criminal congress that voted
the exception and allowed a longer time (post vote) for the needed signers to
sign the amendment into law. So taxes have been hated ever since - no thanks
to the greedy Feds.
Martin
Greg G.
>And I might point out that amendment was not ratified in time, Oklahoma being
>the last needed hold out and taking the full threat and brute force of the
>Federal Government - cutting federal funding for roads and such. They finally
>signed - after the law expired - and it is the criminal congress that voted
>the exception and allowed a longer time (post vote) for the needed signers to
>sign the amendment into law. So taxes have been hated ever since - no thanks
>to the greedy Feds.
And state/local governments aren't just as greedy, just in lesser
amounts? Percentage wise, probably as much waste and cronyism.
Greg G.
Pat Barber
J. Clarke
> Sooooo. you are saying JPL knows more than the rec ???
Regardless of any of it, McCain had a plan that would do the US share of
what the global warming people say has to be done and he got castigated as
anti-environment and lost the election. Obama had a plan that was
politically correct and accomplishes diddly and he got praised for it and
won. And China is the major source of CO2 anyway, something that they did
_after_ they signed Kyoto--until somebody pulls their plug anything the US
does is in vain.
Mark & Juanita
> Sooooo. you are saying JPL knows more than the rec ???
>
Soooo, you believe researchers whose funding relies upon certain
conclusions? Nah, nobody would fudge results:
<http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657>
> jo4hn wrote:
>
>> Anyone who would like to learn something about climate, here is a good
>> place to start- http://climate.nasa.gov/
>>
>> facts aren't as much fun as supposition.
>>
>> :-)
>> jo4hn
--
-MIKE-
> Soooo, you believe researchers whose funding relies upon certain
> conclusions? Nah, nobody would fudge results:
>
I heard one climatologist, who quit the government research department
he was in because of too much bias, put it this way,
"You don't get grants from the government by telling them everything's
ok and there's nothing to worry about. You get research grants by telling
them the sky is falling."
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Andrew Barss
:> Sooooo. you are saying JPL knows more than the rec ???
:>
: Soooo, you believe researchers whose funding relies upon certain
: conclusions? Nah, nobody would fudge results:
: <http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657>
Here's a more nuanced view:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/mikes-nature-trick-to-hide-the-decline/
Among other things, as I know from personal experience, "trick"
is used by academics to mean "nifty way of doing or presenting something",
not a deception. I use the term myself, in teachning formal language
theory and doing proofs, to mean, basically, "the thing that you have to
keep in mind/realize to figure out the problem".
In a wwing context, it would be a particularly clever and efficient way of
doing something, or a vital aspect of problem solving you need to grasp to
finish your project.
-- Andy Barss
Larry W
then you would have something.
--
Often wrong, never in doubt.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
Robatoy
Now THAT was useful.