Wikileaks
 

On Aug 24, 3:30*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

...





In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
news:9IudnUvzEYUvTO7RnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@earthlink. com...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

.....while shopping for crap they don't need, never needed, and never
will
need.

*Economic 101 would tend to disagree with you. Since you need both a
willing buyer and a willing seller, the buyer, by definition, gets more
utility from the purchase than from hanging on to the money. It is
hardly your place to decide what is crap for a few hundred million
others.

There's an awful lot of brand new unopened stuff at garage sales.

* Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

This is about psychology, isn't it? *Many people have conditioned themselves
to feel happy when they buy stuff. Doesn't matter whether they need it or
not. At some point, adults outgrow this. Most adults, that is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, your wrong. They have been brainwashed by the US consumer
society. TV and so on. Where they come unstuck is when they borrow
money to buy crap.

I have to report I believe I am completely immune to all forms of
advertising.
I never borrow money.

Wikileaks
 

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

I would like to point out that the Queens son and grandson have both
been in combat. Her grandson is now in training to fly attack
helicopters.

While I more than respect the service of the Monarchy, it has
little if nothing to do with your thoughts since the Queen has no real
say any more in who goes to war and who doesn't. If you had brought up
the PM's son or family members of Parliament (which might actually be a
better comparator since REgimental ties being a big part of the British
social fabric in some areas) then I might be impressed.
But again, this is also a few orders of magnitude different from
volunteering and being pushed to slaughter merely because of parentage.


I think the point is that "royals" actually serve in the military.
Meanwhile, the Bush's kiddies did not, and neither did Chelsea Clinton.
That's what needs to change. Politicians do not consider the consequences of
their decisions, at least not to my satisfaction.

Wikileaks
 

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

I would like to point out that the Queens son and grandson have both
been in combat. Her grandson is now in training to fly attack
helicopters.

While I more than respect the service of the Monarchy, it has
little if nothing to do with your thoughts since the Queen has no real
say any more in who goes to war and who doesn't. If you had brought up
the PM's son or family members of Parliament (which might actually be a
better comparator since REgimental ties being a big part of the British
social fabric in some areas) then I might be impressed.
But again, this is also a few orders of magnitude different from
volunteering and being pushed to slaughter merely because of parentage.


I think the point is that "royals" actually serve in the military.
Meanwhile, the Bush's kiddies did not, and neither did Chelsea Clinton.
That's what needs to change. Politicians do not consider the consequences of
their decisions, at least not to my satisfaction.

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 24, 4:58*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
I would like to point out that the Queens son and grandson have both
been in combat. *Her grandson is now in training to fly attack
helicopters.

* * * While I more than respect the service of the Monarchy, it has
little if nothing to do with your thoughts since the Queen has no real
say any more in who goes to war and who doesn't. If you had brought up
the PM's son or family members of Parliament (which might actually be a
better comparator since REgimental ties being a big part of the British
social fabric in some areas) then I might be impressed.
* * *But again, this is also a few orders of magnitude different from
volunteering and being pushed to slaughter merely because of parentage.

--
* I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Ha! You're wrong there. The Queen is the head of the armed forces.The
armed forces swear allegance to the Queen. It is Her Majesties
government.
If they want to start a war, they have to ask her. I am a subject of
the Queen. She pays my pension. She defends me my religion and my
health.
She owns all land in the UK. I have bought my house but it's still
legally hers. The justice system is hers.
The alternative is the likes of Bush and Saddam Hussien.
There's a few European countries gone back to monarchs after a period
without. Including us. (Google Oliver Cromwell.)
But can they do all of the above

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 24, 5:00*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Aug 24, 3:08 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:





"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

om...

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

.....while shopping for crap they don't need, never needed, and never
will
need.

Economic 101 would tend to disagree with you. Since you need both a
willing buyer and a willing seller, the buyer, by definition, gets more
utility from the purchase than from hanging on to the money. It is
hardly your place to decide what is crap for a few hundred million
others.

There's an awful lot of brand new unopened stuff at garage sales.

Gifts.........If you don't open them, you can send to someone else.
(The box may be MT. It doesn't matter. * :-)

============

Someone bought those gifts because they felt obligated, not because they had
any idea what was a good gift for the recipient. Happens all the time. In
December, there's a holiday based on this bull****.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Same over here too. My wife and I never buy gifts for one another.
If we want/need something, we just go out and buy it. What can you
buy the woman who has everything?

Wikileaks
 

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:



I think the point is that "royals" actually serve in the military.
Meanwhile, the Bush's kiddies did not, and neither did Chelsea Clinton.
That's what needs to change. Politicians do not consider the consequences of
their decisions, at least not to my satisfaction.

Just out of personal curiousity. How do you feel about the death
penalty?

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Wikileaks
 

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

You seem intent on punishing the kids for the parents job and
outlook.


Our legal system provides consequences for many crimes. Some say our elected
slobs are guilty of murder. I won't go quite that far, but criminal
negligence fits nicely.
But only those crimes perpetrated by the person accused and/or
convicted.



Situation #1:
Elected slob has a 20 minute conference with Bush, Cheney, Rice, Franks &
Tenet. He says "It would be a lot easier to vote for this war if your
intelligence included a smoking gun." He's told there is no smoking gun. He
votes for war anyway, knowing full well that other people's kids will end up
dead. Why? Because it's advantageous to vote that way for some reason.

Situation #2:
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/article...ars/story?id=1
1014785

I view these two situations as identical.
Then we have no common ground for continued discussion.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Wikileaks
 

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

You seem intent on punishing the kids for the parents job and
outlook.


Our legal system provides consequences for many crimes. Some say our
elected
slobs are guilty of murder. I won't go quite that far, but criminal
negligence fits nicely.


But only those crimes perpetrated by the person accused and/or
convicted.


So, you're OK with our elected slobs voting for a war which will have zero
effect on them personally, and then going back to their fancy lunches & golf
games. That's interesting. How do you rationalize that?




Situation #1:
Elected slob has a 20 minute conference with Bush, Cheney, Rice, Franks &
Tenet. He says "It would be a lot easier to vote for this war if your
intelligence included a smoking gun." He's told there is no smoking gun.
He
votes for war anyway, knowing full well that other people's kids will end
up
dead. Why? Because it's advantageous to vote that way for some reason.

Situation #2:
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/article...ars/story?id=1
1014785

I view these two situations as identical.


Then we have no common ground for continued discussion.

Really? The common factor is complete disregard for human life. I'm
surprised you don't see that.

Wikileaks
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

The bill for those wars would've come due no matter who followed
Bush. You know that. Or maybe you don't.

Huh? The domestic spending of the current administrtion (TARP, bailouts,
extension of unemployment, stimulus, etc.) FAR exceed the total cost of both
wars.

The total deficits for 2003 thru 2010 is $4.73 trillion. The total deficit
for those same years without the war is $4.02 trillion. The wars cost about
$700 billion. The "stimulus" comes in at $814 billion

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ke_us_not.html



In the current administration only ONE person has a background in the
private sector (Treasury Secretary Geithner). The rest are from
politics and government (including FIVE governors) or academia.


Where do you think "the rest" should have come from?

From somewhere that the individual could have gained some insight or
experience. Just examples, mind you:

Homeland Security - FBI, CIA, etc. instead of a governor
Interior - Sierra Club, lumberjack, travel agency
Agriculture - A farmer instead of a governor
Commerce - Executive of the National Chamber of Commerce
Labor - High-level executive from Walmart
Health & Human Services - A physician from CDC
Transportation - An airline, rail, or trucking executive
Energy - Someone with more experience than turning on a light switch in a
laboratory

Wikileaks
 

harry wrote:

They want a job. They are the illiterates of American society. The
jobs they might have had were stolen by the Chinese and the greed and
rapacity of the American consumer.

Actually the educational level of military recruits exceeds that of the
general population of the same age range. The overall educational level of
the military also exceeds that of the entire general population.

Wikileaks
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

We NEED a war every ten to fifteen years to keep the tip of the
spear sharp.

Those that died were, to the man or woman, volunteers. They signed
up knowing the risk of death or serious injury, much like a
mountain climber, sky diver, race car driver, or Ralph, the guy
who married my ex-wife. They assumed these risks for the
opportunity to kill people and blow things up (Ralph, are you
listening?). It is, of course, regrettable that they died, but they
died doing
something they loved. Fully 85% of those who have served in Iraq or
Afghanistan re-enlisted at the first opportunity. (The remaining
15% retired, were invalided out, or married harridans.)

These folks are our warrior class. Waging war is what they were
born to do, what they trained to do, what they NEED to do. They do
it for their country's sake, for their family's sake, for honor's
sake, for glory's sake.

This is something the cowards that dwell among us cannot understand
and will not accept.

What a repugnant interpretation. So the lives of thousands of young
Americans can be thrown away for what was at best a mistake, at
worst a calculated lie.

Yes. And the reason doesn't have to be a mistake or lie; it could be
a whim. When Teddy Roosevelt sent the White Fleet around the world,
it was merely a gesture of machismo. When John J. Pershing invaded
Mexico, everybody knew he would never capture the bin Laden of the
time. In both those endeavors, lives were lost in what today's
leftists would call "pointless."

I hold that if the President said, "What the heck, let's invade the
Vatican," the response of the military would be "Saddle up!" or
"Hoo-Rah!" depending on the branch. The Navy, of course, would look
toward refurbishing surplus Swift Boats to navigate the Tiber.

Rational people may disagree over the merits of waging war in some
particular instance, but those opposed simply cannot offer as a
legitimate reason for their opposition the loss or injury of our
combatants.
And you figure that's okay because the bravery of
those who died somehow excuses their pointless sacrifice. Presumably the
tens of thousands wounded (physically and mentally)
and the enormous damage to the military, the national economy, and
national prestige around the world would also be dismissed as
insignificant.

Absolutely correct. You see, their efforts were not "pointless" to
them. Their efforts are "pointless" only to the "This is the World"
and "Kumbya" madrigal singers (and these singers are not working out
of a hymnal).
Needless to say those who dismiss such a waste of life are safe at
home, in no danger of being sent overseas themselves. What's that
phrase? Ah yes, "chicken hawk"--someone who is never dismayed by
the spilling of other people's blood during the sharpening of that
spear....

I am only suggesting that our warriors WANT to go to war. So why not
let them if so doing serves some political goal, no matter how
slight that goal might be?

I agree there probably are "chicken hawks," but I don't know of any.
Personally, I'm too old and feeble to be of much use in today's
conflicts. But back when I was young and strong, I did what I could.



Science says your entire theory is a crock of ****. Have a nice day.

Ah, well, if you say "science" says so, how could one disagree with such
clear, cogent, and convincing arguments.

Wikileaks
 

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

The bill for those wars would've come due no matter who followed
Bush. You know that. Or maybe you don't.

Huh? The domestic spending of the current administrtion (TARP, bailouts,
extension of unemployment, stimulus, etc.) FAR exceed the total cost of
both wars.

That's nice, but those costs do not negate the cost of the war. And by the
way, the TARP program was signed into law by Bush.

Wikileaks
 

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

In the current administration only ONE person has a background in the
private sector (Treasury Secretary Geithner). The rest are from
politics and government (including FIVE governors) or academia.


Where do you think "the rest" should have come from?

From somewhere that the individual could have gained some insight or
experience. Just examples, mind you:


You said you don't like "A", but you can't offer an alternative "B". Pay
attention, old man. I did not ask you where certain people came from. I
asked you where YOU THINK THEY SHOULD COME FROM.

Got it?

Wikileaks
 

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

We NEED a war every ten to fifteen years to keep the tip of the
spear sharp.

Those that died were, to the man or woman, volunteers. They signed
up knowing the risk of death or serious injury, much like a
mountain climber, sky diver, race car driver, or Ralph, the guy
who married my ex-wife. They assumed these risks for the
opportunity to kill people and blow things up (Ralph, are you
listening?). It is, of course, regrettable that they died, but they
died doing
something they loved. Fully 85% of those who have served in Iraq or
Afghanistan re-enlisted at the first opportunity. (The remaining
15% retired, were invalided out, or married harridans.)

These folks are our warrior class. Waging war is what they were
born to do, what they trained to do, what they NEED to do. They do
it for their country's sake, for their family's sake, for honor's
sake, for glory's sake.

This is something the cowards that dwell among us cannot understand
and will not accept.

What a repugnant interpretation. So the lives of thousands of young
Americans can be thrown away for what was at best a mistake, at
worst a calculated lie.

Yes. And the reason doesn't have to be a mistake or lie; it could be
a whim. When Teddy Roosevelt sent the White Fleet around the world,
it was merely a gesture of machismo. When John J. Pershing invaded
Mexico, everybody knew he would never capture the bin Laden of the
time. In both those endeavors, lives were lost in what today's
leftists would call "pointless."

I hold that if the President said, "What the heck, let's invade the
Vatican," the response of the military would be "Saddle up!" or
"Hoo-Rah!" depending on the branch. The Navy, of course, would look
toward refurbishing surplus Swift Boats to navigate the Tiber.

Rational people may disagree over the merits of waging war in some
particular instance, but those opposed simply cannot offer as a
legitimate reason for their opposition the loss or injury of our
combatants.
And you figure that's okay because the bravery of
those who died somehow excuses their pointless sacrifice. Presumably
the tens of thousands wounded (physically and mentally)
and the enormous damage to the military, the national economy, and
national prestige around the world would also be dismissed as
insignificant.

Absolutely correct. You see, their efforts were not "pointless" to
them. Their efforts are "pointless" only to the "This is the World"
and "Kumbya" madrigal singers (and these singers are not working out
of a hymnal).
Needless to say those who dismiss such a waste of life are safe at
home, in no danger of being sent overseas themselves. What's that
phrase? Ah yes, "chicken hawk"--someone who is never dismayed by
the spilling of other people's blood during the sharpening of that
spear....

I am only suggesting that our warriors WANT to go to war. So why not
let them if so doing serves some political goal, no matter how
slight that goal might be?

I agree there probably are "chicken hawks," but I don't know of any.
Personally, I'm too old and feeble to be of much use in today's
conflicts. But back when I was young and strong, I did what I could.



Science says your entire theory is a crock of ****. Have a nice day.

Ah, well, if you say "science" says so, how could one disagree with such
clear, cogent, and convincing arguments.



Until their mid 20s, people are much less able to connect their actions with
consequences. This means that joining the military may seem like a fabulous
idea, but in fact, many young people really don't process the concept fully.

Wikileaks
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
DGDevin wrote:
To liberals, ending the war is the goal (for reasons passing
understanding), so the loss of a few lives is irrelevant.
You mean like the loss of 4,400+ American lives (not to mention those
of allies and Iraqis) for the goal of finding WMDs that didn't exist?
Just how immoral an act is starting a war on false pretenses?
We NEED a war every ten to fifteen years to keep the tip of the spear
sharp.

That's cool. But we need new rules. Any elected slob who votes for a
war - all their eligible living relatives go into combat first, and
they're given the most dangerous possible jobs. The ones no soldier
wants.
Why make the relatives suffer just because they are unlucky enough to have
a politician in the family?


Because I like the idea of treating our elected slobs and their families to
as much heartbreak as possible. I'm nasty that way. I'd add one thing: No
formal visit from the military if a senator's relative is killed in combat.
Instead, they'd get a post card from Disneyworld, inscribed on the back with
"Hi! Your daughter's dead! Have a nice day."

Our elected slobs need to start taking responsibility for their decisions.


You can't punish the KID because Daddy is an asshole. Guilt is not
inheritable.

--
aem sends....

Wikileaks
 

harry wrote:
(snip)
We have a retard here broke into every military computer in the USA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardia...kend7.weekend2

The human lifespan is not long enough to break into every military
computer in the USA. They don't even know how many they have. And they
aren't all linked together, so access to one does not give access to
all- at most it gives access to some in the immediate topological
neighborhood. The US military community is not a big monolith- more like
dozens (or hundreds) of competing fiefdoms, each with their own
back-office and IT infrastructure. While that does reduce risk exposure
to cyber-attacks, it burns through an obscene amount of taxpayer money.

Quit believing all the crap you read in the paper, especially about
technical subject. Most reporters are techno-clueless, and the ones who
aren't, the editors dumb down their copy after they turn it in.

--
aem sends...

Wikileaks
 

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:24:57 -0400, aemeijers wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
DGDevin wrote:
To liberals, ending the war is the goal (for reasons passing
understanding), so the loss of a few lives is irrelevant.
You mean like the loss of 4,400+ American lives (not to mention those
of allies and Iraqis) for the goal of finding WMDs that didn't exist?
Just how immoral an act is starting a war on false pretenses?
We NEED a war every ten to fifteen years to keep the tip of the spear
sharp.

That's cool. But we need new rules. Any elected slob who votes for a
war - all their eligible living relatives go into combat first, and
they're given the most dangerous possible jobs. The ones no soldier
wants.
Why make the relatives suffer just because they are unlucky enough to have
a politician in the family?


Because I like the idea of treating our elected slobs and their families to
as much heartbreak as possible. I'm nasty that way. I'd add one thing: No
formal visit from the military if a senator's relative is killed in combat.
Instead, they'd get a post card from Disneyworld, inscribed on the back with
"Hi! Your daughter's dead! Have a nice day."

Our elected slobs need to start taking responsibility for their decisions.


You can't punish the KID because Daddy is an asshole. Guilt is not
inheritable.

that's the foundation of the christian religion!

Wikileaks
 

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
DGDevin wrote:
To liberals, ending the war is the goal (for reasons passing
understanding), so the loss of a few lives is irrelevant.
You mean like the loss of 4,400+ American lives (not to mention those
of allies and Iraqis) for the goal of finding WMDs that didn't exist?
Just how immoral an act is starting a war on false pretenses?
We NEED a war every ten to fifteen years to keep the tip of the spear
sharp.

That's cool. But we need new rules. Any elected slob who votes for a
war - all their eligible living relatives go into combat first, and
they're given the most dangerous possible jobs. The ones no soldier
wants.
Why make the relatives suffer just because they are unlucky enough to
have a politician in the family?


Because I like the idea of treating our elected slobs and their families
to as much heartbreak as possible. I'm nasty that way. I'd add one thing:
No formal visit from the military if a senator's relative is killed in
combat. Instead, they'd get a post card from Disneyworld, inscribed on
the back with "Hi! Your daughter's dead! Have a nice day."

Our elected slobs need to start taking responsibility for their
decisions.
You can't punish the KID because Daddy is an asshole. Guilt is not
inheritable.

--
aem sends....


The goal is to get our elected slobs to think before they vote, something
they clearly don't do. You'd think 58,000+ dead soldiers in Vietnam (for no
good reason) would be enough of a lesson, wouldn't you? But it's not.

What's your solution?

Wikileaks
 

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Ah, well, if you say "science" says so, how could one disagree with such
clear, cogent, and convincing arguments.

Especially since science indicates they may actually be safer in Iraq.
The ratio of deaths to person-years lived, .00392 or 3.92 per 1000, is
the death rate of military personnel in Iraq (of all ages). In similar
civilian populations the rate of death from homicide was 25 per 100,000
(.25 per 1000) in ages 20-24. Suicide was 7.32 per 100,000 10-24 in
2004(.073 per 1000).

Defense Manpower Data Center through 2004.
National Adolescent Health Information Center, 2007
http://nahic.ucsf.edu/downloads/Violence.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5635a2.htm

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Wikileaks
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
(snip)

Until their mid 20s, people are much less able to connect their actions with
consequences. This means that joining the military may seem like a fabulous
idea, but in fact, many young people really don't process the concept fully.



Bingo! I don't think anyone under 25 or so should be ALLOWED to
volunteer for combat zone duty. They haven't internalized that they are
mortal, yet. As such, they lack the capability to make an informed
decision. Hell, we started requiring POTUS to be 35, back when 50 was an
old man. Biological considerations of brain development aside, the
extended adolescence of modern society means most young military
recruits have never even lived on their own or supported themselves yet.
Lotsa 22 YO teenagers out there.

I know, I know- the military wants them young and gullible. Tell a 30 YO
to do a ridiculous task that may get him killed, and the reaction is
likely to be 'yeah, right.'

Cut off their supply of willing cannon fodder, and the PTB may have no
choice but to only get into wars that are actually necessary.
'Necessary' being defined as a war that actual grownups can be convinced
is worth risking life and limb for. (like WWII)

--
aem sends...



--
aem sends...

Wikileaks
 

On 8/24/2010 5:32 PM, aemeijers wrote:
harry wrote:
(snip)
We have a retard here broke into every military computer in the USA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardia...kend7.weekend2

The human lifespan is not long enough to break into every military
computer in the USA. They don't even know how many they have. And they
aren't all linked together, so access to one does not give access to
all- at most it gives access to some in the immediate topological
neighborhood. The US military community is not a big monolith- more like
dozens (or hundreds) of competing fiefdoms, each with their own
back-office and IT infrastructure. While that does reduce risk exposure
to cyber-attacks, it burns through an obscene amount of taxpayer money.

Quit believing all the crap you read in the paper, especially about
technical subject. Most reporters are techno-clueless, and the ones who
aren't, the editors dumb down their copy after they turn it in.

--
aem sends...



Yea, most reporters believe what they see TV series hackers/crackers
do in a split second as the normal way computer system security is
breached. Those who write for computer magazines are at least more
knowledgeable about computers.

TDD

Wikileaks
 

Wikileaks
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

In the current administration only ONE person has a background in
the private sector (Treasury Secretary Geithner). The rest are from
politics and government (including FIVE governors) or academia.


Where do you think "the rest" should have come from?

From somewhere that the individual could have gained some insight or
experience. Just examples, mind you:


You said you don't like "A", but you can't offer an alternative "B".
Pay attention, old man. I did not ask you where certain people came
from. I asked you where YOU THINK THEY SHOULD COME FROM.

Got it?

Yeah, I got it.

First, I didn't say I didn't like the "A" list, although such could be
fairly inferred.

Second, I provided a list of hunting places for people with the requisite
skills.

For example, I know a guy, lives right here in my town who's currently
unemployed. When Obama was looking for a Secretary of State, you'd think
he'd at least give my guy a call. But no, Obama had to pick someone with
relatively little experience. Here's my guy's resume:

Yale graduate
Navy pilot, war veteran
Precinct chairman
County chairman
U.S. Representative
Director, Council on Foreign Relations
Chairman, Republican National Committee
Chief of Liason Office to the People's Republic of China
United States Ambassador to the United Nations
Director, Central Intelligence
Vice President of the United States
President of the United States

His life should be an example to us all. He came to Texas with a few million
in his jeans and made good.

Wikileaks
 

AZ Nomad wrote:


You can't punish the KID because Daddy is an asshole. Guilt is not
inheritable.

that's the foundation of the christian religion!

No, the foundation of the Christian religion teaches otherwise:

"... visiting the guilt of the parents upon the children, upon the third and
fourth generations..." (Ex 20:5)

"... none of his decendants, even in the tenth generation, shall be admitted
into the congregation of the Lord." (Dt 23:3)

And several dozen other references.

Plus, the FUNDAMENTAL tenant of Christianity is that the guilt of the
original sin is inherited.

Wikileaks
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


The goal is to get our elected slobs to think before they vote,
something they clearly don't do. You'd think 58,000+ dead soldiers in
Vietnam (for no good reason) would be enough of a lesson, wouldn't
you? But it's not.
What's your solution?

To what?

And you display a fundamental misunderstanding of how government works. No
vote by anybody is necessary to wage war.

I agree with you that most of the 58,000 deaths in Vietnam were terrible and
should not have happened. Most of those who died were conscripts who didn't
want to be there and it is an unmitigated shame they suffered.

We did, however, learn our lesson and transitioned to an all-volunteer
military.

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 24, 5:58*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

m...

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

I think the point is that "royals" actually serve in the military.
Meanwhile, the Bush's kiddies did not, and neither did Chelsea Clinton..
That's what needs to change. Politicians do not consider the consequences
of
their decisions, at least not to my satisfaction.

*Just out of personal curiousity. How do you feel about the death
penalty?

For certain situations, I think it's entirely appropriate.

I wish we had it over here too.

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 24, 9:57*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

The bill for those wars would've come due no matter who followed Bush. You
know that. Or maybe you don't.

* * * * *Yeah but the bill would have come due no matter what Bush did
in the Middle East. Most of what we are seeing today is the result of
20+ years of cheap money, overspending by both corporate and private
interests. If anything we are largely victims of our own irrational
exuberance, to coin a phrase. Americans tend to think that "this time is
different" and the gravy train will never end, so too many of us
(government, personal and business) start to act like it.
* * *Government spends thinking that tax rev will grow to the sky,
household borrow for all sorts of strange things, as did corporations,
etc.
* * *We had a very long (and bipartisan) growth spurt where even the
recessions were light. So we, I think largely related to the American
confidence (or overconfidence), got ahead of ourselves.
* * *Much of the recession so far is mathematical in that we are
returning to the mean. If you have a long period of growth, you have to
have a long period of no, limited growth. There is no infinity on either
side of the question.
* * *Every once in awhile, Mr. Greenspan still shows occassional flashes
of brilliance. I think he sized up the situation quite nicely.
* *""They [financial crises] are all different, but they have one
fundamental source," he said. "That is the unquenchable capability of
human beings when confronted with long periods of prosperity to presume
that it will continue."

--
* I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Well said. The only part I would disagree with is that is economic
cycles are not an American phenomenon. There have been cycles of boom
and bust going back hundreds of years in every free market economy.
Kondratieff, a Russian economist, researched and wrote about these
cycles. He identified not only the shorter, typical cycles we call
recessions, but also the long wave cycles of depressions which occur
on average every 60 years or so. His excellent research got him
banished to the forced labor camps by Stalin.

The sad thing is, in the mainstream news, you never hear any
discussion about this. It's all about whether the current recession
is to be blamed on Bush, Obama, Congress, corportations, etc. As if
they haven't always occured, regardless of who is in charge.

Wikileaks
 

"HeyBub" wrote:

-snip-

I agree with you that most of the 58,000 deaths in Vietnam were terrible and
should not have happened. Most of those who died were conscripts who didn't
want to be there and it is an unmitigated shame they suffered.

Just for the record-- 1 in 4 Vietnam Vets were drafted-- 1 in 3 on
the Wall were drafted.
http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html


We did, however, learn our lesson and transitioned to an all-volunteer
military.


For better or worse.

Jim

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 25, 1:03*pm, wrote:
On Aug 24, 9:57*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:





In article ,

*"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

The bill for those wars would've come due no matter who followed Bush.. You
know that. Or maybe you don't.

* * * * *Yeah but the bill would have come due no matter what Bush did
in the Middle East. Most of what we are seeing today is the result of
20+ years of cheap money, overspending by both corporate and private
interests. If anything we are largely victims of our own irrational
exuberance, to coin a phrase. Americans tend to think that "this time is
different" and the gravy train will never end, so too many of us
(government, personal and business) start to act like it.
* * *Government spends thinking that tax rev will grow to the sky,
household borrow for all sorts of strange things, as did corporations,
etc.
* * *We had a very long (and bipartisan) growth spurt where even the
recessions were light. So we, I think largely related to the American
confidence (or overconfidence), got ahead of ourselves.
* * *Much of the recession so far is mathematical in that we are
returning to the mean. If you have a long period of growth, you have to
have a long period of no, limited growth. There is no infinity on either
side of the question.
* * *Every once in awhile, Mr. Greenspan still shows occassional flashes
of brilliance. I think he sized up the situation quite nicely.
* *""They [financial crises] are all different, but they have one
fundamental source," he said. "That is the unquenchable capability of
human beings when confronted with long periods of prosperity to presume
that it will continue."

--
* I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Well said. * The only part I would disagree with is that is economic
cycles are not an American phenomenon. *There have been cycles of boom
and bust going back hundreds of years in every free market economy.
Kondratieff, a Russian economist, researched and wrote about these
cycles. *He identified not only the shorter, typical cycles we call
recessions, but also the long wave cycles of depressions which occur
on average every 60 years or so. * His excellent research got him
banished to the forced labor camps by Stalin.

The sad thing is, in the mainstream news, you never hear any
discussion about this. *It's all about whether the current recession
is to be blamed on Bush, Obama, Congress, corportations, etc. * As if
they haven't always occured, regardless of who is in charge.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We're supposed tbe smarter now with mathematical models, statistics
and computers. But you can't beat greed and short termism/. This is
where the controlled economy should work better but doesn't. You need
greed to drive an economy.

Wikileaks
 

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


The goal is to get our elected slobs to think before they vote,
something they clearly don't do. You'd think 58,000+ dead soldiers in
Vietnam (for no good reason) would be enough of a lesson, wouldn't
you? But it's not.
What's your solution?

To what?

And you display a fundamental misunderstanding of how government works.

Gee...ya think? You display a hilarious misunderstanding of how politics
works.


No vote by anybody is necessary to wage war.

Legally, you're right. Politically, you're wrong. Bush and his gang could
never have started the cluster **** in Iraq without the symbolic vote from
congress and the U.N. resolution. He used those as his moral authority, and
as a way to spread the blame when the inevitable criticism began. The plan
worked.


I agree with you that most of the 58,000 deaths in Vietnam were terrible
and should not have happened. Most of those who died were conscripts who
didn't want to be there and it is an unmitigated shame they suffered.

We did, however, learn our lesson and transitioned to an all-volunteer
military.


If you think that was the lesson from Vietnam, you're even dumber than I
previously thought.

Wikileaks
 

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote:

-snip-

I agree with you that most of the 58,000 deaths in Vietnam were terrible and
should not have happened. Most of those who died were conscripts who didn't
want to be there and it is an unmitigated shame they suffered.

Just for the record-- 1 in 4 Vietnam Vets were drafted-- 1 in 3 on
the Wall were drafted.
http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html

But also for the record that stat is somewhat blurred. Many
volunteered AFTER getting a draft notice to get a billet they wanted
instead of ground pounder. So, many of the volunteers in VN were shall
we say "motivated" volunteers.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Wikileaks
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Gee...ya think? You display a hilarious misunderstanding of how
politics works.

Hardly. I served, in my youth, as an Administrative Assistant to a United
States Senator. I've attended campaign management schools, been elected to
(minor) public office, been a delegate to state and national conventions,
and was, in 1968, an alternate elector. I've served on candidate recruitment
committees, ballot-security teams, and so on. I have a finely-honed sense of
how the political system works.



No vote by anybody is necessary to wage war.

Legally, you're right. Politically, you're wrong. Bush and his gang
could never have started the cluster **** in Iraq without the
symbolic vote from congress and the U.N. resolution. He used those as
his moral authority, and as a way to spread the blame when the
inevitable criticism began. The plan worked.

You are correct - it was a "symbolic" vote. Remember, Bill Clinton waged war
on more countries than anybody since WWII (Bosnia, Haiti, Serbia,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, and Albania). All without ANY kind of
vote.



I agree with you that most of the 58,000 deaths in Vietnam were
terrible and should not have happened. Most of those who died were
conscripts who didn't want to be there and it is an unmitigated
shame they suffered. We did, however, learn our lesson and transitioned
to an
all-volunteer military.


If you think that was the lesson from Vietnam, you're even dumber
than I previously thought.

I misspoke if I gave the impression that conscription was THE lesson
learned. Better would be "We learned A lesson..." An all-volunteer army was
only one of the lessons we learned. Another was that political leaders (like
LBJ and, earlier, Hitler) should leave a war up to the generals and refrain
from meddling in unit tactics.

The issue, as I recall, at the time, was not whether we could win in Viet
Nam, but why was it taking so long.

At least we didn't lose the war.

Wikileaks
 

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote:

-snip-

I agree with you that most of the 58,000 deaths in Vietnam were terrible and
should not have happened. Most of those who died were conscripts who didn't
want to be there and it is an unmitigated shame they suffered.

Just for the record-- 1 in 4 Vietnam Vets were drafted-- 1 in 3 on
the Wall were drafted.
http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html

But also for the record that stat is somewhat blurred. Many
volunteered AFTER getting a draft notice to get a billet they wanted
instead of ground pounder. So, many of the volunteers in VN were shall
we say "motivated" volunteers.

I suppose-- Our corpsman used to joke that he dodged the draft by
enlisting in the Navy-- and ended up a Corpsman for a grunt Bn in VN.

For that matter. I was already *in* Vietnam when the draft board
called my house to see why I hadn't signed up. My mom told the guy on
the phone, that if he promised to go get me, she'd tell him *exactly*
where I was.

Jim

Wikileaks
 

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Gee...ya think? You display a hilarious misunderstanding of how
politics works.

Hardly. I served, in my youth, as an Administrative Assistant to a United
States Senator. I've attended campaign management schools, been elected to
(minor) public office, been a delegate to state and national conventions,
and was, in 1968, an alternate elector. I've served on candidate
recruitment
committees, ballot-security teams, and so on. I have a finely-honed sense
of
how the political system works.



No vote by anybody is necessary to wage war.

Legally, you're right. Politically, you're wrong. Bush and his gang
could never have started the cluster **** in Iraq without the
symbolic vote from congress and the U.N. resolution. He used those as
his moral authority, and as a way to spread the blame when the
inevitable criticism began. The plan worked.

You are correct - it was a "symbolic" vote. Remember, Bill Clinton waged
war
on more countries than anybody since WWII (Bosnia, Haiti, Serbia,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, and Albania). All without ANY kind of
vote.


Yes, but he didn't start wars based on faith, a motivation which appeals not
to logic but to the most basic animal instincts.

Wikileaks
 

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


The issue, as I recall, at the time, was not whether we could win in Viet
Nam, but why was it taking so long.

At least we didn't lose the war.


We didn't lose? It's a communist country and we buy shirts from them.

We have a funny habit of attacking countries which posed no threat to us.
The Spanish-American war was the first major example. Vietnam came next, and
now, Iraq.

Wikileaks
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


I think the point is that "royals" actually serve in the military.
Meanwhile, the Bush's kiddies did not, and neither did Chelsea
Clinton. That's what needs to change. Politicians do not consider the
consequences of their decisions, at least not to my satisfaction.

Ah, but:
George Bush the Younger served (Air National Guard)
George Bush the Elder served (U.S. Naval Reserve)*
Gerald Ford served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
Ronald Reagan served (U.S. Army & U.S. Army Air Corps)

And
Jimmy Carter served (U.S. Navy)
Lyndon Johnson served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
John F. Kennedy served (U.S. Naval Reserve)

Now which recent president(s) are missing from the list?

---
* Bush the Elder's father, Prescott Bush, served in the American
Expeditionary Forces in WWI.

Wikileaks
 

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


I think the point is that "royals" actually serve in the military.
Meanwhile, the Bush's kiddies did not, and neither did Chelsea
Clinton. That's what needs to change. Politicians do not consider the
consequences of their decisions, at least not to my satisfaction.

Ah, but:
George Bush the Younger served (Air National Guard)
George Bush the Elder served (U.S. Naval Reserve)*
Gerald Ford served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
Ronald Reagan served (U.S. Army & U.S. Army Air Corps)

And
Jimmy Carter served (U.S. Navy)
Lyndon Johnson served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
John F. Kennedy served (U.S. Naval Reserve)

Now which recent president(s) are missing from the list?


When you can name 50,000 more politicians' kids who served in either Vietnam
or Iraq, you'll have something. Good luck.

Wikileaks
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I think the point is that "royals" actually serve in the military.
Meanwhile, the Bush's kiddies did not, and neither did Chelsea
Clinton. That's what needs to change. Politicians do not consider the
consequences of their decisions, at least not to my satisfaction.
Ah, but:
George Bush the Younger served (Air National Guard)
George Bush the Elder served (U.S. Naval Reserve)*
Gerald Ford served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
Ronald Reagan served (U.S. Army & U.S. Army Air Corps)

And
Jimmy Carter served (U.S. Navy)
Lyndon Johnson served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
John F. Kennedy served (U.S. Naval Reserve)

Now which recent president(s) are missing from the list?


When you can name 50,000 more politicians' kids who served in either Vietnam
or Iraq, you'll have something. Good luck.



Get it through your head- kids have NO obligation to put themselves at
risk based on things their parent may or may not do. Kids are not
property. English royals (and the Kennedy clan, which is an apple that
didn't fall far from the English tree, there in New England) are
brainwashed at an early age about 'noblesse oblige' and all that caste
bull****. Notice that when privileged class joins up, it is almost
always as officers? There is a reason 'sir' is an honorific restricted
to officers- turn the clock back a few centuries, and most officers WERE
'Sirs', or grew up next to one. In western society, the military is one
of the few areas where the old European caste system is preserved nearly
intact.

--
aem sends...

Wikileaks
 

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:49:14 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

Get it through your head- kids have NO obligation to put themselves at
risk based on things their parent may or may not do. Kids are not

Of course. They can just live on the street and starve to death.

Wikileaks
 

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I think the point is that "royals" actually serve in the military.
Meanwhile, the Bush's kiddies did not, and neither did Chelsea
Clinton. That's what needs to change. Politicians do not consider the
consequences of their decisions, at least not to my satisfaction.
Ah, but:
George Bush the Younger served (Air National Guard)
George Bush the Elder served (U.S. Naval Reserve)*
Gerald Ford served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
Ronald Reagan served (U.S. Army & U.S. Army Air Corps)

And
Jimmy Carter served (U.S. Navy)
Lyndon Johnson served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
John F. Kennedy served (U.S. Naval Reserve)

Now which recent president(s) are missing from the list?


When you can name 50,000 more politicians' kids who served in either
Vietnam or Iraq, you'll have something. Good luck.

Get it through your head- kids have NO obligation to put themselves at
risk based on things their parent may or may not do.

When there was a draft, kids were obligated to put themselves at risk for
what total strangers did. Parents or not, kids were the property of the
government.