http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opxuUj6vFa4

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:50:33 -0500, metspitzer
wrote:

http://www.youtube.com

Some old hate and fear... Leave that behind and learn to
rejoice and enjoy the future.

HEARD OBAMA'S MAN ROBERT REICH SAY THIS . DOESNT SURPRISE ME.

----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:50:33 -0500, metspitzer
wrote:

http://www.youtube.com

Some old hate and fear... Leave that behind and learn to
rejoice and enjoy the future.


I'd rather see the actual outcome before I rejoice. So far it looks a lot
like another pork bill that will give little results.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:50:33 -0500, metspitzer
wrote:

http://www.youtube.com
Some old hate and fear... Leave that behind and learn to
rejoice and enjoy the future.


I'd rather see the actual outcome before I rejoice. So far it looks a lot
like another pork bill that will give little results.


1. Congress lecturing private companies on how to manage money broke my
irony meter. Pot Kettle Black, etc.

2. Fed Gov is broke. Exactly where is this stimulus money coming from?
If it was a private company, they would be forced into bankruptcy, and
the directors would be led away in handcuffs.

3. TANSTAAFL. Any 'free money' they pass out now, will end up costing us
more somewhere else, sometime. Plus, of course, the cut off the top for
the money handlers.

4. And from a public relations standpoint, the New Guys shot themselves
in the foot with that fancy coronation, er, inauguration, the other day.
Yeah, I know donations paid for most of it, but it STILL cost the
taxpayers way more than it should have. Swear him in IN the capital
building, and let the whole world watch on TV. Not like you saw a damn
thing if you were there in person anyway, unless you were in the first
few rows, or near one of the Jumbotrons.

--
aem sends, planning to hunker down bigtime for the next couple years....

The government is about to spend money as fast as it can. Since that
money is our money, wouldn't that encourage people NOT to spend on
unnecessary items? For example, I am doing more repair work and less
replacement buying. Now if the government said, "we are removing all
taxes for the next six months" I might go shopping. I think
government spending will make the recession worse. We will see.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:50:33 -0500, metspitzer
wrote:

http://www.youtube.com

Some old hate and fear... Leave that behind and learn to
rejoice and enjoy the future.


I'd rather see the actual outcome before I rejoice. So far it looks
a lot like another pork bill that will give little results.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

* $1 billion subsidy for Amtrack,
* $2 billion for child-care subsidies,
* $50 million for National Endowment for the Arts,
* $400 million for global-warming research,
* $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects,
* $8 billion for renewable energy research,
* $6 billion for mass transit,
* $7 billion to modernize federal buildings ($150 million for just the
Smithsonian),
* $81 billion for Medicaid,
* $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits,
* $20 billion for food stamps,
* $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income
tax.

And more...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

HeyBub wrote:

I'd rather see the actual outcome before I rejoice. So far it looks
a lot like another pork bill that will give little results.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

* $1 billion subsidy for Amtrack,
* $2 billion for child-care subsidies,
* $50 million for National Endowment for the Arts,
* $400 million for global-warming research,
* $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects,
* $8 billion for renewable energy research,
* $6 billion for mass transit,
* $7 billion to modernize federal buildings ($150 million for just the
Smithsonian),
* $81 billion for Medicaid,
* $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits,
* $20 billion for food stamps,
* $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay
income tax.

And more...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

This just in:

$335 million for sexually transmitted disease prevention. To the degree that
this money encourages entrepreneurship by nascent hookers, I guess it could
fit in the "economic stimulus" definition.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:21:05 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

I'd rather see the actual outcome before I rejoice. So far it looks
a lot like another pork bill that will give little results.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

* $1 billion subsidy for Amtrack,
* $2 billion for child-care subsidies,
* $50 million for National Endowment for the Arts,
* $400 million for global-warming research,
* $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects,
* $8 billion for renewable energy research,
* $6 billion for mass transit,
* $7 billion to modernize federal buildings ($150 million for just the
Smithsonian),
* $81 billion for Medicaid,
* $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits,
* $20 billion for food stamps,
* $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay
income tax.

And more...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

This just in:

$335 million for sexually transmitted disease prevention. To the degree that
this money encourages entrepreneurship by nascent hookers, I guess it could
fit in the "economic stimulus" definition.

That could stimulate the economy it they imposed a tail tax.

On Jan 28, 11:21*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

I'd rather see the actual outcome before I rejoice. *So far it looks
a lot like another pork bill that will give little results.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

* $1 billion subsidy for Amtrack,
* $2 billion for child-care subsidies,
* $50 million for National Endowment for the Arts,
* $400 million for global-warming research,
* $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects,
* $8 billion for renewable energy research,
* $6 billion for mass transit,
* $7 billion to modernize federal buildings ($150 million for just the
Smithsonian),
* $81 billion for Medicaid,
* $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits,
* $20 billion for food stamps,
* $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay
income tax.

And more...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

This just in:

$335 million for sexually transmitted disease prevention. To the degree that
this money encourages entrepreneurship by nascent hookers, I guess it could
fit in the "economic stimulus" definition.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, it is clearly going to stimulate something!

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:27:02 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:50:33 -0500, metspitzer
wrote:

http://www.youtube.com

Some old hate and fear... Leave that behind and learn to
rejoice and enjoy the future.


I'd rather see the actual outcome before I rejoice. So far it looks
a lot like another pork bill that will give little results.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

* $1 billion subsidy for Amtrack,
* $2 billion for child-care subsidies,
* $50 million for National Endowment for the Arts,
* $400 million for global-warming research,
* $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects,
* $8 billion for renewable energy research,
* $6 billion for mass transit,
* $7 billion to modernize federal buildings ($150 million for just the
Smithsonian),
* $81 billion for Medicaid,
* $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits,
* $20 billion for food stamps,
* $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income
tax.

And more...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

Really, really interesting that out of all those billions, they
couldn't spare a few dollars for family planning. It has been pulled
out of the bill by those major assholes in Congress.
With a big Dem majority, why do they have to suck up to the Radical
Religious Right? I hope the Senate puts it back in. What a disgrace!

I hope also that Obama wields his considerable clout to
make sure that family planning is restored. It''s pocket change,
facrynoutloud, in comparison with the other mega programs above.

Obama is a very smart guy. He can do the math. It's well known that
a dollar spent on family planning yields thousands of dollars saved
down the line on medical costs for children (usually not covered by
insurance), and for social costs incurred by unwanted children and/or
children not given proper pre-natal care, proper nourishment, proper
education, etc. Where do you think those children end up? Gangs,
prison, drugs -- and what do you think they end up costing society --
that means YOU!

BTW, in case you don't understand "family planning", it does NOT, as
the Religious Right pretends, mean advocating abortion. What it means
is having the children you want when you want them -- which includes
fertility counseling for parents who can't have children.

wrote in message
Really, really interesting that out of all those billions, they
couldn't spare a few dollars for family planning. It has been pulled
out of the bill by those major assholes in Congress.
With a big Dem majority, why do they have to suck up to the Radical
Religious Right? I hope the Senate puts it back in. What a disgrace!

You don't need money for family planning. Don't want a baby? Don't ****.
Our parents taught us than when we were kids and it worked.




BTW, in case you don't understand "family planning", it does NOT, as
the Religious Right pretends, mean advocating abortion. What it means
is having the children you want when you want them -- which includes
fertility counseling for parents who can't have children.

Maybe you should teach masturbation and oral sex.

wrote:

I'd rather see the actual outcome before I rejoice. So far it looks
a lot like another pork bill that will give little results.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

* $1 billion subsidy for Amtrack,
* $2 billion for child-care subsidies,
* $50 million for National Endowment for the Arts,
* $400 million for global-warming research,
* $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects,
* $8 billion for renewable energy research,
* $6 billion for mass transit,
* $7 billion to modernize federal buildings ($150 million for just
the Smithsonian),
* $81 billion for Medicaid,
* $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits,
* $20 billion for food stamps,
* $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay
income tax.

And more...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

Really, really interesting that out of all those billions, they
couldn't spare a few dollars for family planning. It has been pulled
out of the bill by those major assholes in Congress.
With a big Dem majority, why do they have to suck up to the Radical
Religious Right? I hope the Senate puts it back in. What a disgrace!


Because "family planning" has nothing positive to do with economic recovery
and "family planning" is not the province of government?

There is no end to pet projects and seemingly worthwhile endeavors. Every
cuckoo enterprise, from soy sauce to pet hypnosis, has its advocates and all
are convinced their their one true love can save the planet.

The fact is that most of our social problems can be traced to an up-stream
liberal scheme that went horribly wrong: education, homelessness, teen
pregnancy, drug abuse, obesity, etc. Well, maybe not obesity...

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:39:15 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:50:33 -0500, metspitzer
wrote:

http://www.youtube.com

Same old hate and fear... Leave that behind and learn to
rejoice and enjoy the future.


I'd rather see the actual outcome before I rejoice. So far it looks a lot
like another pork bill that will give little results.


OK, how about rejoice in the hope for a better future.

Yea, I agree that it may not be as good as I hope.

On Jan 29, 10:38*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote in message
Really, really interesting that out of all those billions, they
couldn't spare a few dollars for family planning. It has been pulled
out of the bill by those major assholes in Congress.
With a big Dem majority, why do they have to suck up to the Radical
Religious Right? *I hope the Senate puts it back in. What a disgrace!

You don't need money for family planning. Don't want a baby? *Don't ****.
Our parents taught us than when we were kids and it worked.


In light of everything that has happened in the last, say, 40 years,
do you really think that we can get people to not ****?

I'd much rather have people ****ing their brains out and using
birth control than ****ing their brains out (which they're going to
do anyway), and not using anything.

I've often thought that if I struck it rich, I'd endow the "Cindy
Hamilton
Fund for Tubal Ligations and Vasectomies". Perhaps I'd have to give
it a snappier name.

Cindy Hamilton

In article ,
wrote:

The malign influence of the Radical Religious Right has been one of
the major factors in the increase of STDs and unwanted pregnancies
by very young women -- really girls.

Gee, you really should tell the Census Bureau and others who show
teen pregnancy rate going down for 15 years, until '06. . CDC seems to
disagree with you on STD rates, too.
But hey, never let a little thing like facts get in the way of a
good rant.

"Cindy Hamilton" wrote in message
In light of everything that has happened in the last, say, 40 years,
do you really think that we can get people to not ****?

I'd much rather have people ****ing their brains out and using
birth control than ****ing their brains out (which they're going to
do anyway), and not using anything.

I've often thought that if I struck it rich, I'd endow the "Cindy
Hamilton
Fund for Tubal Ligations and Vasectomies". Perhaps I'd have to give
it a snappier name.

Cindy Hamilton

************************************************** ****************************

I don't care if they **** their brains out, but I don't want to have to keep
them supplied with condoms. They could go to your place if you opened a
chain of them As for names:
Scissor Works.
Kind Cuts
Neuter dame us
One Small Snip for Mankind
The Knife Works
Chap Your Stick
One a more nautical theme, Bay Be Gone

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"Cindy Hamilton" wrote in message
In light of everything that has happened in the last, say, 40 years,
do you really think that we can get people to not ****?

I'd much rather have people ****ing their brains out and using
birth control than ****ing their brains out (which they're going to
do anyway), and not using anything.

I've often thought that if I struck it rich, I'd endow the "Cindy
Hamilton
Fund for Tubal Ligations and Vasectomies". Perhaps I'd have to give
it a snappier name.

Cindy Hamilton

************************************************** ****************************

I don't care if they **** their brains out, but I don't want to have
to keep them supplied with condoms. They could go to your place if
you opened a chain of them As for names:
Scissor Works.
Kind Cuts
Neuter dame us
One Small Snip for Mankind
The Knife Works
Chap Your Stick
One a more nautical theme, Bay Be Gone

The government of India tried something similar. They gave big bucks to any
male who would get a vasectomy at a government clinic.

There were LINES, waiting lists, overworked doctors. The response was
absolutely incredible! The number of old codgers in walkers and
wheel-chairs, all lined up to go under the knife, was amazing.

wrote:

Obama is a very smart guy. He can do the math. It's well known that
a dollar spent on family planning yields thousands of dollars saved
down the line on medical costs for children (usually not covered by
insurance), and for social costs incurred by unwanted children and/or
children not given proper pre-natal care, proper nourishment, proper
education, etc. Where do you think those children end up? Gangs,
prison, drugs -- and what do you think they end up costing society --
that means YOU!

We've had government financing of "family planning" for many years. It's
called penology (no pun intended). That's right - lock them up during their
main reproductive years and they don't breed.



BTW, in case you don't understand "family planning", it does NOT, as
the Religious Right pretends, mean advocating abortion. What it means
is having the children you want when you want them -- which includes
fertility counseling for parents who can't have children.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:52:05 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Obama is a very smart guy. He can do the math. It's well known that
a dollar spent on family planning yields thousands of dollars saved
down the line on medical costs for children (usually not covered by
insurance), and for social costs incurred by unwanted children and/or
children not given proper pre-natal care, proper nourishment, proper
education, etc. Where do you think those children end up? Gangs,
prison, drugs -- and what do you think they end up costing society --
that means YOU!

We've had government financing of "family planning" for many years.

No we have not. Not so it matters. It's been a politicized mockery
which has yielded the opposite results from what it purports to
desire. The religious fanatics have picketed and attacked private
clinics and have murdered physicians and clinic workers. Nice!

It's called penology (no pun intended). That's right - lock them up
during their main reproductive years and they don't breed.

Whaddaymean "lock 'em up"? Why shouldn't people enjoy sex?
As long as they know how to avoid STDs, AIDS, and unwanted
pregnancies.

(Many have only half-jokingly suggested "lockingup" horny young males
from 14 to 24 in large compounds where they can get their rocks off
playing soccer. Let 'em out when they can practice responsible sex.)

The U.S. is (or was until Jan 20) the only "developed" country where
public policy is run by religious fanatics, and our tax money is
wasted on the laughable "abstinence only" programs that pandered to
Bush's "base".

Check out the multiple studies that showed these programs not only do
not work, but have the OPPOSITE effect! Young people who are
programmed by politicized religious fanatics into unrealistic
expectations -- but are not taught how their bodies work -- get into
much, much more trouble, since obviously healthy young humans are not
going to "abstain" indefinitely from the joys of sex.

BTW, in case you don't understand "family planning", it does NOT, as
the Religious Right pretends, mean advocating abortion. What it means
is having the children you want when you want them -- which includes
fertility counseling for parents who can't have children.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:48:48 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"Cindy Hamilton" wrote in message
In light of everything that has happened in the last, say, 40 years,
do you really think that we can get people to not ****?

I'd much rather have people ****ing their brains out and using
birth control than ****ing their brains out (which they're going to
do anyway), and not using anything.

I agree, as you'll see from my preceding message.

I've often thought that if I struck it rich, I'd endow the "Cindy
Hamilton
Fund for Tubal Ligations and Vasectomies". Perhaps I'd have to give
it a snappier name.

Cindy Hamilton

************************************************** ****************************

I don't care if they **** their brains out, but I don't want to have
to keep them supplied with condoms. They could go to your place if
you opened a chain of them As for names:
Scissor Works.
Kind Cuts
Neuter dame us
One Small Snip for Mankind
The Knife Works
Chap Your Stick
One a more nautical theme, Bay Be Gone

The government of India tried something similar.

No. Not similar in any way, shape or form. A terrible idea.
Instituted without cultural sensitivity. Don't forget that India,
up till a few decades ago, burned widows on their husband's
biers. Women were taught that their husband is like God.*

To institute a cold turkey vasectomy program in a culture like that
without careful cultural preparation is to court failure

Would have worked much better to educate women that they
have the right to stand up to their husbands in order to control their
own fertility. Teach them birth control, make it cheap, safe,
and reliable. Longer, slower, but in the end, much more effective

*Still the case in village India, which is centuries behind
urban india.

They gave big bucks to any
male who would get a vasectomy at a government clinic.

There were LINES, waiting lists, overworked doctors. The response was
absolutely incredible! The number of old codgers in walkers and
wheel-chairs, all lined up to go under the knife, was amazing.

Could you cite your sources? Straight question.

wrote:

They gave big bucks to any
male who would get a vasectomy at a government clinic.

There were LINES, waiting lists, overworked doctors. The response was
absolutely incredible! The number of old codgers in walkers and
wheel-chairs, all lined up to go under the knife, was amazing.

Could you cite your sources? Straight question.

No cite needed. I am the source.

wrote:

It's called penology (no pun intended). That's right - lock them up
during their main reproductive years and they don't breed.

Whaddaymean "lock 'em up"? Why shouldn't people enjoy sex?
As long as they know how to avoid STDs, AIDS, and unwanted
pregnancies.

Uh, by "lock 'em up" put them in same-sex institutions where they can fag
with each other but not cause pregnancies. Nobody said they couldn't enjoy
sex.



(Many have only half-jokingly suggested "lockingup" horny young males
from 14 to 24 in large compounds where they can get their rocks off
playing soccer. Let 'em out when they can practice responsible sex.)

Right. They can play soccer and other pussy passtimes. And it's not the
"horny young males" that are the only culprits. If the gals weren't
similarly inclined there wouldn't be a problem. Anyway, we don't lock them
up for being sexually inclined - we lock them up for felonies. Sex is not
(usually) a felony.


The U.S. is (or was until Jan 20) the only "developed" country where
public policy is run by religious fanatics, and our tax money is
wasted on the laughable "abstinence only" programs that pandered to
Bush's "base".

That goes with the political territory. As of Jan 20th, the federal
government will be pandering to a different base. For example, 45% of the
proposed $1 trillion "stimulus" package is directed toward unions or union
support structures. And most of that goes toward the SEIU (Service Employees
International Union).


Check out the multiple studies that showed these programs not only do
not work, but have the OPPOSITE effect! Young people who are
programmed by politicized religious fanatics into unrealistic
expectations -- but are not taught how their bodies work -- get into
much, much more trouble, since obviously healthy young humans are not
going to "abstain" indefinitely from the joys of sex.

Oh bother! I saw a High School nurse on TV who said she had personally
counseled over 400 pregnant girls. None, NOT ONE, did not know how she got
pregnant or the basic biology involved.

The kids know.

There is ample anecdotal evidence, too. For example, I went to school BEFORE
the push for sex education. We didn't have condom + banana demonstrations or
all the other high-tech methodologies. In fact, the only worthwhile "sex
education" class I remember, was 9th-grade "health" class where we boys were
taught the one-handed technique for opening a brassiere latch without losing
a finger. I suspect, even as graphic as it is today, virtually all
teen-agers know more than is presented in class.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
wrote:

They gave big bucks to any
male who would get a vasectomy at a government clinic.

There were LINES, waiting lists, overworked doctors. The response was
absolutely incredible! The number of old codgers in walkers and
wheel-chairs, all lined up to go under the knife, was amazing.

Could you cite your sources? Straight question.

No cite needed. I am the source.


I remember it too. They even had doctors set up at subway stations to do
the operation.

I love it when people demand a cite. Pretty much means they are too damned
lazy to find out information on their own. Do they expect people to
remember every fat they read and the date of the newspaper or magazine?

CITE: It was in the newspaper