Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default OT-143 days


pyotr filipivich wrote:

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:41:20 -0700
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:27:58 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:24:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit
the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM.


Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor
level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp
of around 99F all day?

A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled
again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed
yet.

But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move

Under similar conditions, the instructions were "Drink the cup of
Gatorade. If it tastes good, keep drinking until it no longer does."

You may substitute you preferred electrolyte rich fluid of choice.

pyotr

"Hydrate or Die!" - to use another old expression.

Indeed. I had a couple in there as well.

Survivalist, remember?


Do you have any idea how many gators go into a gallon of Gatorade?



42


... except in Pomona, where it is 47. Don't ask me, I didn't go
there.



Some were processed before they were full grown.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.
  #122   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 719
Default OT-143 days

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


No it has been said that no alternatives have been proffered.
Wrong. Ron Paul offered up some alternatives, granted not all would
be acceptable or work, but he evened offered a method to fix that:


Ron Paul is a half-baked crackpot who should stay in Arizona, where
nothing destructive that he could do matters very much. If he goes
out in the sun much, maybe he'll be fully baked some day.



LMAO.
You have your crack pots mixed up Ed.
Paul is the Texican one.
McCain is the Arizona crack pot.


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com


  #123   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 719
Default OT-143 days

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...


That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it
stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would
define it, is a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that
their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you
need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos,
he's surely talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform,
because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking
about the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as
explained in detail by Edmund Burke.

I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.

I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you
bully. I
think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic
was a real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative
a thumping by
argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some
names,
like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not
realistic. It's
for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that
we can all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible
ways of making concrete changes all they can come up with is to
throw out the baby with the
bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything
more than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real
alternatives
to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant.
However, as Americans we all have at least some measure of
Libertarian in us though it may be really, really small.

Hawke


Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a
perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking.


Thoughtless impulse is an apt description of Libertarians. It also applies
to teenagers.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com


  #124   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 719
Default OT-143 days

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:37:39 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Ed Huntress" quickly quoth:



That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it
stands today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative
would define it, is a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that
their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you
need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos,
he's surely talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform,
because those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly
talking about the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as
explained in detail by Edmund Burke.

I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.

I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)


Grab your copy of the Constitution, a couple gallons of ethanol and
harass the neighborhood spouting the second amendment at 50 or 60
MPH in your go cart!
You will feel better in no time Ed G

"Stoichiometric", damned Ed, I worked that into so many
conversations the day after seeing it and laughed so hard I can't
believe it. What was really
funny was the number of sage nods there were after weavung the word -
completely senslessly mind you - into a technical discussion of the
project
I'm on right now. I'll surely catch hell shortly but it was worth it.

Stoichiometric!


A good word. Wait 'till you try it at a bar, when trying to describe
to the bartender how to make the perfect Martini.


I go with etropy and endothermic in that setting. Easier to pronounce
dontcha' know.
LOL

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com


  #125   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,355
Default OT-143 days

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:41:20 -0700
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:27:58 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:24:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit
the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM.


Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor
level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp
of around 99F all day?

A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled
again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed
yet.

But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move

Under similar conditions, the instructions were "Drink the cup of
Gatorade. If it tastes good, keep drinking until it no longer does."

You may substitute you preferred electrolyte rich fluid of choice.

pyotr

"Hydrate or Die!" - to use another old expression.

Indeed. I had a couple in there as well.

Survivalist, remember?



Do you have any idea how many gators go into a gallon of Gatorade?



42


... except in Pomona, where it is 47. Don't ask me, I didn't go
there.
--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries


  #126   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,355
Default OT-143 days

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:59:26
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:24:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit
the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM.


Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor
level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp
of around 99F all day?

A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled
again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed
yet.

But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move


Under similar conditions, the instructions were "Drink the cup of
Gatorade. If it tastes good, keep drinking until it no longer does."

You may substitute you preferred electrolyte rich fluid of choice.

pyotr

"Hydrate or Die!" - to use another old expression.


Indeed. I had a couple in there as well.

Survivalist, remember?

G


Yeah, I remember. Which doesn't mean I can't, err, "remind" you
of that tidbit.

Second hand war stories are told due to some "survival" lesson
involved. Usually. Unlike the story about the time Oscar Mendoza
broke his dick.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries
  #127   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 719
Default OT-143 days

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


No it has been said that no alternatives have been proffered.
Wrong. Ron Paul offered up some alternatives, granted not all would
be acceptable or work, but he evened offered a method to fix that:

Ron Paul is a half-baked crackpot who should stay in Arizona, where
nothing destructive that he could do matters very much. If he goes
out in the sun much, maybe he'll be fully baked some day.



LMAO.
You have your crack pots mixed up Ed.
Paul is the Texican one.
McCain is the Arizona crack pot.


Then let him bake in Texas. d8-)

It must be something about too much sun...


I was thinking Freud.


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com


  #128   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


No it has been said that no alternatives have been proffered.
Wrong. Ron Paul offered up some alternatives, granted not all would
be acceptable or work, but he evened offered a method to fix that:


Ron Paul is a half-baked crackpot who should stay in Arizona, where
nothing destructive that he could do matters very much. If he goes
out in the sun much, maybe he'll be fully baked some day.



LMAO.
You have your crack pots mixed up Ed.
Paul is the Texican one.
McCain is the Arizona crack pot.


Then let him bake in Texas. d8-)

It must be something about too much sun...

--
Ed Huntress


  #129   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 733
Default 130

130 shopping days until....
  #130   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,502
Default OT-143 days

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:49:17 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...


That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it
stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would
define it, is a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that
their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you
need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos,
he's surely talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform,
because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking
about the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as
explained in detail by Edmund Burke.

I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.

I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you
bully. I
think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic
was a real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative
a thumping by
argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some
names,
like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not
realistic. It's
for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that
we can all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible
ways of making concrete changes all they can come up with is to
throw out the baby with the
bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything
more than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real
alternatives
to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant.
However, as Americans we all have at least some measure of
Libertarian in us though it may be really, really small.

Hawke


Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a
perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking.


Thoughtless impulse is an apt description of Libertarians. It also applies
to teenagers.


And of course to the Masters of Thoughtless Impulse...Liberals

Gunner

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.


  #131   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default OT-143 days


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it
stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define
it,
is
a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that
their
opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an
agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely
talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform,
because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking
about
the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained
in
detail by Edmund Burke.

I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.

I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you
bully. I
think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic was
a
real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative a
thumping by
argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some
names,
like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not realistic.
It's
for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that we
can
all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible ways of
making
concrete changes all they can come up with is to throw out the baby
with the
bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything
more
than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real
alternatives
to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant.
However,
as Americans we all have at least some measure of Libertarian in us
though
it may be really, really small.

Hawke

Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a
perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking.


Ed: You criticize the Libertarians for the lack of thinking thru their
ideas. Where is there any evidence that the other parties have thought
thru their ideas?


Over 200 years of successful governance. And if you don't think it's been
successful, compare our legal, economic, and other situations with those
of almost any other country.


Well lets see. I've heard that said before. Lets use some measures:
The Human Development Index (HDI) is an index combining normalized measures
of life expectancy, literacy, educational attainment, and GDP per capita for
countries worldwide. It is claimed as a standard means of measuring human
development, a concept that, according to the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP) refers to the process of widening the options of persons,
giving them greater opportunities for education, health care, income,
employment, etc. The basic use of HDI is however to rank countries by level
of "human development" which usually also implies to determine whether a
country is a developed, developing, or underdeveloped country.

The US has been shown as a country that is expeirencing a decreasing HDI In
fact since 1980 the US has never been ranked as the top Nation. Canada,
Norway, Switzerland and even Japan has outranked us. We are sliding down a
slippery slope.



The present method of dealing with problems is called "Knee Jerk". I'll
repeat what has been ignored: Get on the internet and look into the
Democrat and Republican parties. Try to find a statement of philosophy.


Thank God, they really don't have one, beyond a few things that might
better be called attitudes.

A better name is "Situational Ethics". Take our Bill Clinton and his sexual
pecadillos. If I as a Civil Servan had engaged in sex with a subordinate I
would have immediately lost my security clearance because of an increase in
vulnerability to black mail and without the clearance my ability to perform
my job would be severely curtailed and thence probably my career be ended.
Bill as Commander in Chief of the Military allowed others in the Military to
lose their careers for having sex with a subordinant. Yep we have
attitudes.

The Libertarian party is the only one willing to state theirs clearly.


Deliver us from ideologues who have a philosophy. Philosophy is for
college classes and books. When it comes to governance, it's a
prescription for disaster. Every time. No exceptions.




I'm not an registered Libertarian, but I'm sure a supporter of smaller
less intrusive government.


So is 90% of the US population -- until you try to make *their* favorite
project smaller.

Yes I agree here and as the guy said the death of democracy is assured as
soon as the people find that they can vote themselve money. Again since we
are not governed by principles, then the rule is grab what you can for
yourself. Isn't this what you complain about in the big corporations??
Ed: You don't like monopolies. I agree they tend to run away with
themselves in an unbridled manner. The Federal, State, County and to a
lesser extent even City governments are simply monopolies.


No, they're democratically elected governments. That's the exact opposite
of a monopoly. You can get rid of them as easily as by voting them out.
That's our job.

Now this surprises me. It is as naive as a Junior High School student. It
is one hell of a lot more difficult than "easily by voting them out" You
have to compete with the two or is it one political parties who have the
machinery and the money that I don't. The candidates that we get to vote
for are pretty much selected by the parties. I watched Ron Paul get ignored
when he wanted to discuss things like the legitimacy of the governments
foreign policy.

They have no competition.


Of course they do -- every politician who wants their job is a competitor.

They are not held accountable by any other than themselves for their
actions.


That's why we have a tripartite government with a distribution of powers
and an institutionalized system of checks and balances.


God I wish I could have the belief and faith that you apparently have
inspite of all the fraud waste and abuse being done by the governments. I
wish I could just ignore the insane laws and rule makings that I see
everyday.

I wish I had a job where I could vote myself pay raises and create my
own retirement system that someone else pays for.


So do I. d8-)

No it has been said that no alternatives have been proffered. Wrong.
Ron Paul offered up some alternatives, granted not all would be
acceptable or work, but he evened offered a method to fix that:


Ron Paul is a half-baked crackpot who should stay in Arizona, where
nothing destructive that he could do matters very much. If he goes out in
the sun much, maybe he'll be fully baked some day.

Well your light bulb just dimmed. Ron Paul is a Representative from Texas
not Arizona.
Constitutional Amendment. His ideas of restricting the government to
those powers granted by the Constitution would be a big step in the right
direction to at least curtail some of the Federal Governements
monopolistic behaviours presently viewed as the way of doing business.


Bull.

What do the Centrists offer...


Government that works.

...to get us out of our current Morass?


What morass? Are you starving? Are you threatened by some other country?
Did you have to sell your children into slavery? What in the hell are you
talking about, "morass"?

I'm talking about the Morass of restrictive laws and rules such as the FEMA
telling me that I might have to raise my entire 40X72 steel building because
of some bureacratic derived flood plain that there exists no evidence,
historically or otherwise to support. I'm talking about the 3 star general
in charge of the Strategic Defense Command responsible for the Star Wars
stuff getting his hand caught in the cooky jar setting himself up with BDC
for a post retirement job. I'm talking about the 2 star general that
changed a $750M contract scope of work to a cost + award fee effort to
Raytheon in spite of an Army science board paper which stated unequivocally
that the Army did not have anyone technicall qualified to perform an award
fee determination for that effort. I'm talking about two people that I know
who just obtained government funding to produce some three radars using
contract supplied radar pedestals of quality much inferior to those setting
right under their noses in the supply yard. I'm talking about FEMA spending
over $1M producing houses for the Typhoon stricken Marshall Islands. The
houses were fabricated with prest wood with absolutely no studs. With just
a little removing of the blinders example after example of incompetent
government rulings are just obvious. If this and the downward direction of
measures like the HDI above as well as other measures that are readily
available don't constitute a Morass I don't know what is required.
It seems their technique is to wait and see what happens.

Stu


What are you, a radical who has a program for overturning tradition? g
Of course it's to wait and see what happens.

What is it you want, Stu? Is it 6,000-pound, 6-liter SUVs and pickup
trucks forever? A McMansion for everyone, with a 40-mile commute? Didn't
you realize 10 years ago, or even 20 years ago, that we were sliding
downhill on a waterslide into a swamp?

Is this the great society that you were talking about? Which is so much
better than other countries?
I have no idea what you are talking about here. I do not own or think that
an SUV is the car to own but based on statistics it seems that the majority
of the people who are supporting the political parties running the US do.
Another example of thinking things thru.
We get caught by our own wretched excess from time to time. That's the
product of a hot economy and an....uh, expansive attitude. That's the US.
It means we'll swing up and down, and drive ourselves silly, probably
forever. I happen to like the system, and the people in it, silly or not.

I was told that the pendulum swings in the DoD service when I saw them
removing work benches and putting desks in their place. This was in 1975.
The pendulum is still swinging to the crazy extreme. The people that
replaced me in the Navy R&D are all spending their days on airplanes going
to meetings. Meetings that no one can detect the benefit or purpose. Their
"smart buyer" status is being eroded at a fantastic rate. They have no
hands on experience to support their college education. It doesn't take
much listening to them to find the efficacy of the term Morass.
But spare us the talk about "morass." There is no morass. There is only
the roller coaster. Hang on tight.

I wouldn't get on a roller coaster that had no tracks or some effort at
purposeful design. I wouldn't get in an airplane when there was no
statement of the purpose of the flight. I wouldn't get on an airplane where
the pilot just said I'm here to see what is going to happen and our emergeny
plan is based on the widely accepted Knee Jerk method.
Yep we don't have an agreed to destination so where ever the Democrans or
Republicrats are going to take us I guess we are just the kidnapped
passengers and Take us they will.

Stu

--
Ed Huntress



  #132   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 311
Default OT-143 days

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


SNIP

...to get us out of our current Morass?

What morass? Are you starving? Are you threatened by some other country?
Did you have to sell your children into slavery? What in the hell are you
talking about, "morass"?

I'm talking about the Morass of restrictive laws and rules such as the FEMA
telling me that I might have to raise my entire 40X72 steel building because
of some bureacratic derived flood plain that there exists no evidence,
historically or otherwise to support.


This sounds strange, are they telling you to move it, or that if you
want to be covered by federal flood insurance, you need to move it? The
gov't has never had a problem with people building in flood areas
before... Maybe you just need to build a 2' high levee around it.


I'm talking about the 3 star general
in charge of the Strategic Defense Command responsible for the Star Wars
stuff getting his hand caught in the cooky jar setting himself up with BDC
for a post retirement job.


Isn't that the libertarian Ideal? Sell himself to the highest bidder?
are you against regulations or for them?

I'm talking about the 2 star general that
changed a $750M contract scope of work to a cost + award fee effort to
Raytheon in spite of an Army science board paper which stated unequivocally
that the Army did not have anyone technicall qualified to perform an award
fee determination for that effort. I'm talking about two people that I know
who just obtained government funding to produce some three radars using
contract supplied radar pedestals of quality much inferior to those setting
right under their noses in the supply yard.


In a libertarian world, low quality means low cost right? Maximize
profits, nobody HAS to stand under them, Freedom Right?


I'm talking about FEMA spending
over $1M producing houses for the Typhoon stricken Marshall Islands. The
houses were fabricated with prest wood with absolutely no studs.


So which great libertarian principle do you want applied here? More
oversight of FEMA? What about the contractor who built the shoddy
product? Why didn't that company, which arguably should know
construction better than some Bush college buddy now running procurement
for FEMA, why didn't they say, "Hey this won't do!, you gotta beef it
up"? were they libertarians, just making what they were told for
maximum profit?

With just
a little removing of the blinders example after example of incompetent
government rulings are just obvious.


I'm not seeing how adding greed and removing oversight will solve it
though....


The other Stuart

Glad to see somebody else who spells it properly!
  #133   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,502
Default OT-143 days

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 23:24:15 -0400, Stuart Wheaton
wrote:


I'm talking about the 3 star general
in charge of the Strategic Defense Command responsible for the Star Wars
stuff getting his hand caught in the cooky jar setting himself up with BDC
for a post retirement job.


Isn't that the libertarian Ideal? Sell himself to the highest bidder?
are you against regulations or for them?

So you think Libertarians are for breaking contracts when it suits
them? The 3 star was under a contract. He broke it.

I'm talking about the 2 star general that
changed a $750M contract scope of work to a cost + award fee effort to
Raytheon in spite of an Army science board paper which stated unequivocally
that the Army did not have anyone technicall qualified to perform an award
fee determination for that effort. I'm talking about two people that I know
who just obtained government funding to produce some three radars using
contract supplied radar pedestals of quality much inferior to those setting
right under their noses in the supply yard.


In a libertarian world, low quality means low cost right? Maximize
profits, nobody HAS to stand under them, Freedom Right?

Dumped on your head? Had to be to have typed that bit of dreck.


I'm talking about FEMA spending
over $1M producing houses for the Typhoon stricken Marshall Islands. The
houses were fabricated with prest wood with absolutely no studs.


So which great libertarian principle do you want applied here? More
oversight of FEMA? What about the contractor who built the shoddy
product? Why didn't that company, which arguably should know
construction better than some Bush college buddy now running procurement
for FEMA, why didn't they say, "Hey this won't do!, you gotta beef it
up"? were they libertarians, just making what they were told for
maximum profit?


More likely it was some Democrat hold over from a previous
administration
They afterall, have no honor or pride.
With just
a little removing of the blinders example after example of incompetent
government rulings are just obvious.


I'm not seeing how adding greed and removing oversight will solve it
though....



You are looking at things from a Democrat perspective, where
everything revolves around greed and corruption, as witnessed by New
Orleans and a host of other sad situations

Say..;hows Chicago doing these days?

Gunner

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
  #134   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


snip

Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a
perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking.

Ed: You criticize the Libertarians for the lack of thinking thru their
ideas. Where is there any evidence that the other parties have thought
thru their ideas?


Over 200 years of successful governance. And if you don't think it's been
successful, compare our legal, economic, and other situations with those
of almost any other country.


Well lets see. I've heard that said before. Lets use some measures:
The Human Development Index (HDI) is an index combining normalized
measures of life expectancy, literacy, educational attainment, and GDP per
capita for countries worldwide. It is claimed as a standard means of
measuring human development, a concept that, according to the United
Nations Development Program (UNDP) refers to the process of widening the
options of persons, giving them greater opportunities for education,
health care, income, employment, etc. The basic use of HDI is however to
rank countries by level of "human development" which usually also implies
to determine whether a country is a developed, developing, or
underdeveloped country.


HDI is another arbitrary UN project that consists of weightings pulled out
of a hat. 'You want to boost the US HDI? Try universal healthcare.
Whoops...that isn't part of the libertarian program, is it?

You can give it another boost by shooting all the cows. But, if you *really
* want to get us on top, the long-term solution is obvious: Bulldoze the
inner cities flat.

HDI is as much a measure of social and political choices as anything. Most
of the things that would boost our HDI are the exact OPPOSITE of what a
libertarian program would lead to: socialized healthcare, more government
employment, etc. I'm surprised you would even bring it up in this context,
Stu. It leads in a direction opposite to the one you're advocating.


The US has been shown as a country that is expeirencing a decreasing HDI
In fact since 1980 the US has never been ranked as the top Nation.


The HDI has only been around since sometime in the early '90s.

Canada, Norway, Switzerland and even Japan has outranked us.


They all have universal healthcare.

We are sliding down a slippery slope.


If there's a slope, it leads in a direction opposite to the one you're
suggesting.


The present method of dealing with problems is called "Knee Jerk". I'll
repeat what has been ignored: Get on the internet and look into the
Democrat and Republican parties. Try to find a statement of philosophy.


Thank God, they really don't have one, beyond a few things that might
better be called attitudes.


A better name is "Situational Ethics". Take our Bill Clinton and his
sexual pecadillos. If I as a Civil Servan had engaged in sex with a
subordinate I would have immediately lost my security clearance because
of an increase in vulnerability to black mail and without the clearance my
ability to perform my job would be severely curtailed and thence probably
my career be ended. Bill as Commander in Chief of the Military allowed
others in the Military to lose their careers for having sex with a
subordinant. Yep we have attitudes.


So what does that have to do with libertarians or Libertarians? Don't they
have sex?


The Libertarian party is the only one willing to state theirs clearly.


Deliver us from ideologues who have a philosophy. Philosophy is for
college classes and books. When it comes to governance, it's a
prescription for disaster. Every time. No exceptions.




I'm not an registered Libertarian, but I'm sure a supporter of smaller
less intrusive government.


So is 90% of the US population -- until you try to make *their* favorite
project smaller.


Yes I agree here and as the guy said the death of democracy is assured as
soon as the people find that they can vote themselve money.


They found that out 200 years ago, but there are still plenty of rich people
around -- more than ever, in fact. I guess the "guy" was full of it, eh?

Again since we are not governed by principles, then the rule is grab what
you can for yourself. Isn't this what you complain about in the big
corporations??


No. It's what I *expect* of greedy and overly ambitious people who are given
the opportunity. My complaint is that we give them too many opportunities,
thanks to our semi-libertarian approach to (de)regulation of business, and
financial business in particular.

Ed: You don't like monopolies. I agree they tend to run away with
themselves in an unbridled manner. The Federal, State, County and to a
lesser extent even City governments are simply monopolies.


No, they're democratically elected governments. That's the exact opposite
of a monopoly. You can get rid of them as easily as by voting them out.
That's our job.


Now this surprises me. It is as naive as a Junior High School student.
It is one hell of a lot more difficult than "easily by voting them out"
You have to compete with the two or is it one political parties who have
the machinery and the money that I don't.


If you want to exert leverage, you join the party you like better and work
within it. I dabbled in that at the state level, becoming a Republican
county delegate. You want to get into the game? You can. First off, you have
to stop bellyaching and make some phone calls.

This is a PARTICIPATORY democracy, not a stage show for critics. And it
isn't a parliamentary system. It's a two-party system with a strong
president. That keeps it a two-party system.

The candidates that we get to vote for are pretty much selected by the
parties.


Then join a party. By the time the candidates are selected and you have to
vote, 90% of the decision-making is done. You're getting into the game too
late. That's why you don't have a hand in making the choices.

I watched Ron Paul get ignored when he wanted to discuss things like the
legitimacy of the governments foreign policy.


As soon as he opened his mouth about "dietary supplements" as a model
solution for our drug industry, I knew he was a crackpot. Then I read more.
Paul is out of his tree.

He's so far into the outfield that it's no surprise he's gotten ignored.
There's a realm of political debate that gets attention. Then there are the
nutballs around the fringes. Because we have free speech and open
candidacies, the nutballs always show up. But we've learned to filter them
out because they're a waste of time. That's why Ron Paul was marginalized.

You may not like this because ideas you favor are among those that are
marginalized. That's a shame. Either find a way to get them considered, or
stand on the sidelines and watch the real game.


They have no competition.


Of course they do -- every politician who wants their job is a
competitor.

They are not held accountable by any other than themselves for their
actions.


That's why we have a tripartite government with a distribution of powers
and an institutionalized system of checks and balances.


God I wish I could have the belief and faith that you apparently have
inspite of all the fraud waste and abuse being done by the governments.


Fraud, waste, and abuse are endemic to large institutions, especially
governments. Oversight helps. Turning your back on it, as Reagan and Bush
have done, and as libertarians would do to an even greater degree, just
makes it worse.

I wish I could just ignore the insane laws and rule makings that I see
everyday.


Your complaints seem to be mostly technical, Stu, but your supposed solution
is essentially to eliminate the problems by ignoring them. That's
libertarianism. It offers a panacea in the form of a government that just
ignores everything. It's like making the trains run on time by turning back
the clocks.

Larry even thinks that libertarians would be more honest. Talk about blind
faith; I know of no reason to believe they would be any more honest. In my
estimation, exactly the opposite would be true. By eliminating regulation
and oversight, you'd may as well be offering the crooks and pirates an
engraved invitation.


I wish I had a job where I could vote myself pay raises and create my
own retirement system that someone else pays for.


So do I. d8-)

No it has been said that no alternatives have been proffered. Wrong.
Ron Paul offered up some alternatives, granted not all would be
acceptable or work, but he evened offered a method to fix that:


Ron Paul is a half-baked crackpot who should stay in Arizona, where
nothing destructive that he could do matters very much. If he goes out in
the sun much, maybe he'll be fully baked some day.

Well your light bulb just dimmed. Ron Paul is a Representative from Texas
not Arizona.


One stinkindesert is as good as the next. d8-)

Constitutional Amendment. His ideas of restricting the government to
those powers granted by the Constitution would be a big step in the
right direction to at least curtail some of the Federal Governements
monopolistic behaviours presently viewed as the way of doing business.


Bull.

What do the Centrists offer...


Government that works.

...to get us out of our current Morass?


What morass? Are you starving? Are you threatened by some other country?
Did you have to sell your children into slavery? What in the hell are you
talking about, "morass"?


I'm talking about the Morass of restrictive laws and rules such as the
FEMA telling me that I might have to raise my entire 40X72 steel building
because of some bureacratic derived flood plain that there exists no
evidence, historically or otherwise to support.


That sounds like your primary gripe.

I'm talking about the 3 star general in charge of the Strategic Defense
Command responsible for the Star Wars stuff getting his hand caught in the
cooky jar setting himself up with BDC for a post retirement job.


How would libertarianism fix that, or any of the other things you've listed?

It all looks like some kind of blind faith. What kind, I have no idea.


What are you, a radical who has a program for overturning tradition? g
Of course it's to wait and see what happens.

What is it you want, Stu? Is it 6,000-pound, 6-liter SUVs and pickup
trucks forever? A McMansion for everyone, with a 40-mile commute? Didn't
you realize 10 years ago, or even 20 years ago, that we were sliding
downhill on a waterslide into a swamp?


Is this the great society that you were talking about? Which is so much
better than other countries?


Even when you look at the biased, often silly, ratings systems from the UN
and others, we're near the top. That, despite a heterogeneous society (note
that the "leaders" in HDI are all homogeneous -- most of them even have the
same hair color) that has much less government involvement in our lives than
they do. The difference in HDI rating between the US and the "leader"
(Iceland), on a 0-1 scale, is 0.017.


I have no idea what you are talking about here. I do not own or think that
an SUV is the car to own but based on statistics it seems that the
majority of the people who are supporting the political parties running
the US do. Another example of thinking things thru.


Talk to Larry. He has a 6,000-pound truck to haul 500 pounds of tools. g

We get caught by our own wretched excess from time to time. That's the
product of a hot economy and an....uh, expansive attitude. That's the US.
It means we'll swing up and down, and drive ourselves silly, probably
forever. I happen to like the system, and the people in it, silly or not.


I was told that the pendulum swings in the DoD service when I saw them
removing work benches and putting desks in their place. This was in 1975.
The pendulum is still swinging to the crazy extreme. The people that
replaced me in the Navy R&D are all spending their days on airplanes going
to meetings. Meetings that no one can detect the benefit or purpose.
Their "smart buyer" status is being eroded at a fantastic rate. They have
no hands on experience to support their college education. It doesn't
take much listening to them to find the efficacy of the term Morass.


Your morass is not my idea of a morass. Even so, I hear nothing from you
that suggests libertarianism would make your morass better. In fact, it
sounds like you'd make it worse.

What is it you want to eliminate here, Stuart? Airplane R&D? Or the Navy?
What is it?

But spare us the talk about "morass." There is no morass. There is only
the roller coaster. Hang on tight.


I wouldn't get on a roller coaster that had no tracks or some effort at
purposeful design. I wouldn't get in an airplane when there was no
statement of the purpose of the flight. I wouldn't get on an airplane
where the pilot just said I'm here to see what is going to happen and our
emergeny plan is based on the widely accepted Knee Jerk method.
Yep we don't have an agreed to destination so where ever the Democrans or
Republicrats are going to take us I guess we are just the kidnapped
passengers and Take us they will.


So, what is it, industrial planning? You want something like Japan's MITI?
Just what is it that you think will cure these "ills"?

--
Ed Huntress


  #135   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default OT-143 days


"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


SNIP

...to get us out of our current Morass?
What morass? Are you starving? Are you threatened by some other country?
Did you have to sell your children into slavery? What in the hell are
you talking about, "morass"?

I'm talking about the Morass of restrictive laws and rules such as the
FEMA telling me that I might have to raise my entire 40X72 steel building
because of some bureacratic derived flood plain that there exists no
evidence, historically or otherwise to support.


This sounds strange, are they telling you to move it, or that if you want
to be covered by federal flood insurance, you need to move it? The gov't
has never had a problem with people building in flood areas before...
Maybe you just need to build a 2' high levee around it.

Sounded even stranger to me when I asked just what hazard to the public we
were addressing, they refused to answer. They just said that if my building
extension cost were above some number, I would have to raise the existing
structure 1.5'. There is no signs of any flooding ever occurring in the
area of my house. We are over 6' higher than the local road which is 250'
away. Discussions with local who have lived here 75 years cannot recall any
flooding of any amount where we live. Our house has been here 35 years and
hasn't seen anything other than a couple of puddles in the dirt road. FEMA
has forced local builders to import soil and create areas of extreme dust
storms when the winds blow. There have been hundreds of thousands of
dollars spent in this hauling soil, creating dust storms which load the
neighbors houses up with dirt. I do NOT want flood insurance. I'm not in
any hazard from a flood unless half of California drops off into the
Pacific.

I'm talking about the 3 star general in charge of the Strategic Defense
Command responsible for the Star Wars stuff getting his hand caught in
the cooky jar setting himself up with BDC for a post retirement job.


Isn't that the libertarian Ideal? Sell himself to the highest bidder? are
you against regulations or for them?

This is not the Libertarian Ideal. The Libertarians that I know believe
that the federal government should be restricted to the powers granted to
them by the Constitution. The existing laws should have taken care of the 3
star. Instead he was allowed to retire with full honors and as far as I
know he is now a consultant for some "Beltway Bandit". No we are not
insisting that the laws we already have be inforced. The "Powers that Be"
are ignoring them.
I'm talking about the 2 star general that changed a $750M contract scope
of work to a cost + award fee effort to Raytheon in spite of an Army
science board paper which stated unequivocally that the Army did not have
anyone technicall qualified to perform an award fee determination for
that effort. I'm talking about two people that I know who just obtained
government funding to produce some three radars using contract supplied
radar pedestals of quality much inferior to those setting right under
their noses in the supply yard.


In a libertarian world, low quality means low cost right? Maximize
profits, nobody HAS to stand under them, Freedom Right?

No at least my view of Libertarianism has a much higher demand on personal
ethics. With higher demand on personal ethics, the need for government
regulations decreases. The opportunity to create bureaucratic agencies that
exist primarily for their own existence goes away.

I'm talking about FEMA spending over $1M producing houses for the Typhoon
stricken Marshall Islands. The houses were fabricated with prest wood
with absolutely no studs.


So which great libertarian principle do you want applied here? More
oversight of FEMA? What about the contractor who built the shoddy
product? Why didn't that company, which arguably should know construction
better than some Bush college buddy now running procurement for FEMA, why
didn't they say, "Hey this won't do!, you gotta beef it up"? were they
libertarians, just making what they were told for maximum profit?

Hey I screamed like a stuck pig. I went to San Francisco and complained
about the incompetency being demonstrated by FEMA (one of their "architects"
laid out a repair job for an existing structure and he laid out the studs on
some multiple of 13". He also thought that 2x4s measured 2" x 4"
With just a little removing of the blinders example after example of
incompetent government rulings are just obvious.


I'm not seeing how adding greed and removing oversight will solve it

I don't think that the Libertarian principles that I know would generate
greed. Among the principles for personal accountability and personal ethics
that are necessary for the self regulations of the population, greed would
be a deficiency. If our society as a whole took greed and the need to exert
power over people to be a negative , a lot of what we now see in our
non-libertarian environment would go away. But then that is acting on
principles and not just attitudes and situational ethics.


The other Stuart

Glad to see somebody else who spells it properly!

Those other Stewarts are just wannabees.




  #136   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default OT-143 days


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


snip

Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a
perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking.

Ed: You criticize the Libertarians for the lack of thinking thru their
ideas. Where is there any evidence that the other parties have thought
thru their ideas?

Over 200 years of successful governance. And if you don't think it's
been successful, compare our legal, economic, and other situations with
those of almost any other country.


Well lets see. I've heard that said before. Lets use some measures:
The Human Development Index (HDI) is an index combining normalized
measures of life expectancy, literacy, educational attainment, and GDP
per capita for countries worldwide. It is claimed as a standard means of
measuring human development, a concept that, according to the United
Nations Development Program (UNDP) refers to the process of widening the
options of persons, giving them greater opportunities for education,
health care, income, employment, etc. The basic use of HDI is however to
rank countries by level of "human development" which usually also implies
to determine whether a country is a developed, developing, or
underdeveloped country.


HDI is another arbitrary UN project that consists of weightings pulled out
of a hat. 'You want to boost the US HDI? Try universal healthcare.
Whoops...that isn't part of the libertarian program, is it?

You can give it another boost by shooting all the cows. But, if you
*really * want to get us on top, the long-term solution is obvious:
Bulldoze the inner cities flat.

HDI is as much a measure of social and political choices as anything. Most
of the things that would boost our HDI are the exact OPPOSITE of what a
libertarian program would lead to: socialized healthcare, more government
employment, etc. I'm surprised you would even bring it up in this context,
Stu. It leads in a direction opposite to the one you're advocating.


The US has been shown as a country that is expeirencing a decreasing HDI
In fact since 1980 the US has never been ranked as the top Nation.


The HDI has only been around since sometime in the early '90s.

Canada, Norway, Switzerland and even Japan has outranked us.


They all have universal healthcare.

We are sliding down a slippery slope.


If there's a slope, it leads in a direction opposite to the one you're
suggesting.


The present method of dealing with problems is called "Knee Jerk". I'll
repeat what has been ignored: Get on the internet and look into the
Democrat and Republican parties. Try to find a statement of
philosophy.

Thank God, they really don't have one, beyond a few things that might
better be called attitudes.


A better name is "Situational Ethics". Take our Bill Clinton and his
sexual pecadillos. If I as a Civil Servan had engaged in sex with a
subordinate I would have immediately lost my security clearance because
of an increase in vulnerability to black mail and without the clearance
my ability to perform my job would be severely curtailed and thence
probably my career be ended. Bill as Commander in Chief of the Military
allowed others in the Military to lose their careers for having sex with
a subordinant. Yep we have attitudes.


So what does that have to do with libertarians or Libertarians? Don't they
have sex?


The Libertarian party is the only one willing to state theirs clearly.

Deliver us from ideologues who have a philosophy. Philosophy is for
college classes and books. When it comes to governance, it's a
prescription for disaster. Every time. No exceptions.




I'm not an registered Libertarian, but I'm sure a supporter of smaller
less intrusive government.

So is 90% of the US population -- until you try to make *their* favorite
project smaller.


Yes I agree here and as the guy said the death of democracy is assured as
soon as the people find that they can vote themselve money.


They found that out 200 years ago, but there are still plenty of rich
people around -- more than ever, in fact. I guess the "guy" was full of
it, eh?

Again since we are not governed by principles, then the rule is grab what
you can for yourself. Isn't this what you complain about in the big
corporations??


No. It's what I *expect* of greedy and overly ambitious people who are
given the opportunity. My complaint is that we give them too many
opportunities, thanks to our semi-libertarian approach to (de)regulation
of business, and financial business in particular.

Ed: You don't like monopolies. I agree they tend to run away with
themselves in an unbridled manner. The Federal, State, County and to a
lesser extent even City governments are simply monopolies.

No, they're democratically elected governments. That's the exact
opposite of a monopoly. You can get rid of them as easily as by voting
them out. That's our job.


Now this surprises me. It is as naive as a Junior High School student.
It is one hell of a lot more difficult than "easily by voting them out"
You have to compete with the two or is it one political parties who have
the machinery and the money that I don't.


If you want to exert leverage, you join the party you like better and work
within it. I dabbled in that at the state level, becoming a Republican
county delegate. You want to get into the game? You can. First off, you
have to stop bellyaching and make some phone calls.

This is a PARTICIPATORY democracy, not a stage show for critics. And it
isn't a parliamentary system. It's a two-party system with a strong
president. That keeps it a two-party system.

The candidates that we get to vote for are pretty much selected by the
parties.


Then join a party. By the time the candidates are selected and you have to
vote, 90% of the decision-making is done. You're getting into the game too
late. That's why you don't have a hand in making the choices.

I watched Ron Paul get ignored when he wanted to discuss things like the
legitimacy of the governments foreign policy.


As soon as he opened his mouth about "dietary supplements" as a model
solution for our drug industry, I knew he was a crackpot. Then I read
more. Paul is out of his tree.

He's so far into the outfield that it's no surprise he's gotten ignored.
There's a realm of political debate that gets attention. Then there are
the nutballs around the fringes. Because we have free speech and open
candidacies, the nutballs always show up. But we've learned to filter them
out because they're a waste of time. That's why Ron Paul was marginalized.

You may not like this because ideas you favor are among those that are
marginalized. That's a shame. Either find a way to get them considered, or
stand on the sidelines and watch the real game.


They have no competition.

Of course they do -- every politician who wants their job is a
competitor.

They are not held accountable by any other than themselves for their
actions.

That's why we have a tripartite government with a distribution of powers
and an institutionalized system of checks and balances.


God I wish I could have the belief and faith that you apparently have
inspite of all the fraud waste and abuse being done by the governments.


Fraud, waste, and abuse are endemic to large institutions, especially
governments. Oversight helps. Turning your back on it, as Reagan and Bush
have done, and as libertarians would do to an even greater degree, just
makes it worse.

I wish I could just ignore the insane laws and rule makings that I see
everyday.


Your complaints seem to be mostly technical, Stu, but your supposed
solution is essentially to eliminate the problems by ignoring them. That's
libertarianism. It offers a panacea in the form of a government that just
ignores everything. It's like making the trains run on time by turning
back the clocks.

Larry even thinks that libertarians would be more honest. Talk about blind
faith; I know of no reason to believe they would be any more honest. In my
estimation, exactly the opposite would be true. By eliminating regulation
and oversight, you'd may as well be offering the crooks and pirates an
engraved invitation.


I wish I had a job where I could vote myself pay raises and create my
own retirement system that someone else pays for.

So do I. d8-)

No it has been said that no alternatives have been proffered. Wrong.
Ron Paul offered up some alternatives, granted not all would be
acceptable or work, but he evened offered a method to fix that:

Ron Paul is a half-baked crackpot who should stay in Arizona, where
nothing destructive that he could do matters very much. If he goes out
in the sun much, maybe he'll be fully baked some day.

Well your light bulb just dimmed. Ron Paul is a Representative from
Texas not Arizona.


One stinkindesert is as good as the next. d8-)

Constitutional Amendment. His ideas of restricting the government to
those powers granted by the Constitution would be a big step in the
right direction to at least curtail some of the Federal Governements
monopolistic behaviours presently viewed as the way of doing business.

Bull.

What do the Centrists offer...

Government that works.

...to get us out of our current Morass?

What morass? Are you starving? Are you threatened by some other country?
Did you have to sell your children into slavery? What in the hell are
you talking about, "morass"?


I'm talking about the Morass of restrictive laws and rules such as the
FEMA telling me that I might have to raise my entire 40X72 steel building
because of some bureacratic derived flood plain that there exists no
evidence, historically or otherwise to support.


That sounds like your primary gripe.

I'm talking about the 3 star general in charge of the Strategic Defense
Command responsible for the Star Wars stuff getting his hand caught in
the cooky jar setting himself up with BDC for a post retirement job.


How would libertarianism fix that, or any of the other things you've
listed?

It all looks like some kind of blind faith. What kind, I have no idea.


What are you, a radical who has a program for overturning tradition? g
Of course it's to wait and see what happens.

What is it you want, Stu? Is it 6,000-pound, 6-liter SUVs and pickup
trucks forever? A McMansion for everyone, with a 40-mile commute? Didn't
you realize 10 years ago, or even 20 years ago, that we were sliding
downhill on a waterslide into a swamp?


Is this the great society that you were talking about? Which is so much
better than other countries?


Even when you look at the biased, often silly, ratings systems from the UN
and others, we're near the top. That, despite a heterogeneous society
(note that the "leaders" in HDI are all homogeneous -- most of them even
have the same hair color) that has much less government involvement in our
lives than they do. The difference in HDI rating between the US and the
"leader" (Iceland), on a 0-1 scale, is 0.017.


I have no idea what you are talking about here. I do not own or think
that an SUV is the car to own but based on statistics it seems that the
majority of the people who are supporting the political parties running
the US do. Another example of thinking things thru.


Talk to Larry. He has a 6,000-pound truck to haul 500 pounds of tools. g

We get caught by our own wretched excess from time to time. That's the
product of a hot economy and an....uh, expansive attitude. That's the
US. It means we'll swing up and down, and drive ourselves silly,
probably forever. I happen to like the system, and the people in it,
silly or not.


I was told that the pendulum swings in the DoD service when I saw them
removing work benches and putting desks in their place. This was in
1975. The pendulum is still swinging to the crazy extreme. The people
that replaced me in the Navy R&D are all spending their days on airplanes
going to meetings. Meetings that no one can detect the benefit or
purpose. Their "smart buyer" status is being eroded at a fantastic rate.
They have no hands on experience to support their college education. It
doesn't take much listening to them to find the efficacy of the term
Morass.


Your morass is not my idea of a morass. Even so, I hear nothing from you
that suggests libertarianism would make your morass better. In fact, it
sounds like you'd make it worse.

What is it you want to eliminate here, Stuart? Airplane R&D? Or the Navy?
What is it?

But spare us the talk about "morass." There is no morass. There is only
the roller coaster. Hang on tight.


I wouldn't get on a roller coaster that had no tracks or some effort at
purposeful design. I wouldn't get in an airplane when there was no
statement of the purpose of the flight. I wouldn't get on an airplane
where the pilot just said I'm here to see what is going to happen and our
emergeny plan is based on the widely accepted Knee Jerk method.
Yep we don't have an agreed to destination so where ever the Democrans or
Republicrats are going to take us I guess we are just the kidnapped
passengers and Take us they will.


So, what is it, industrial planning? You want something like Japan's MITI?
Just what is it that you think will cure these "ills"?

--
Ed Huntress

1. Restrict the government to those powers specifically granted by the
Constitution.
2. Regulate the regulators whos ear marks and pork barrels are blatant
examples of abuse of power.
3. Hold an open discussion on our foreign policies. (which by the way have
given us Korea, Viet Nam, the Panama canal farce, the delivering of our
anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran (which we may have to face) the
interference with other societies and attempting to force them to accept our
ideas of how governments are supposed to run) If the American people could
vote on whether the US should be the world policeman, what do think the
outcome would be? I know, I know the people don't know enough to be judges
of our foreign policy....Well after having some drinks with three different
Ambassadors from the Marshal Islands and listening to their opinions of our
foreign policies, we had to agree the Americans were running all around the
world with their arrogance pushing their beliefs ignoring other cultures.
Again force the Federal Government to abide by the Constitution. If the
Constitutiont is dated and not presently affective then Amend it. But don't
just slide into the way of doing business with only "attitudes" as a
justification. Let the people know what the rules are that are to be
followed. Don't have the President fail to obey the same rules that he
enforces on his subordinants. You talk about regulation and control, we
need some regulation and control of our government. That to me is what the
Libertarian movement is about, not free reigning the corporations.

Stu



  #137   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default OT-143 days


"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...


That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it
stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would
define it, is a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that
their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you
need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos,
he's surely talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform,
because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking
about the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as
explained in detail by Edmund Burke.

I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.

I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you
bully. I
think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic
was a real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative
a thumping by
argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some
names,
like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not
realistic. It's
for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that
we can all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible
ways of making concrete changes all they can come up with is to
throw out the baby with the
bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything
more than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real
alternatives
to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant.
However, as Americans we all have at least some measure of
Libertarian in us though it may be really, really small.

Hawke


Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a
perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking.


Thoughtless impulse is an apt description of Libertarians. It also applies
to teenagers.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

Yes John it is the result of the careful thinking of the Republicans and
Democrats that have led us to the world of deficit spending and debts to
China we probably will never pay without devaluing the dollar. Yes the
thoughtful thinking that had us in Viet Nam and now in Iraq and though we
are setting on large oil reserves captives of OPEC. We have governmental
incompetencies to rival just about anything I've ever heard of. Ed seems
to favor the dictatorship where we don't use a code of ethics or are guided
by principles or a working philosophy. He seems to prefer a government run
on the basis of "Attitudes". I have a hard time deciding whether the
current ill defined attitudes are something that I support. He also seems
to think that we either are moving in a positive direction or that somehow
magically we will return to some some more sensible, stable, and productivie
society. This in spite of the downward spiral in our history. You would
have thought that with this great group of thinkers that deny the
libertarians membership, we could have avoided much of the current problems.
The Iraq farce was forecast by a large number of "ignored" non-thinkers.
Thoughtless impulse seems to describe one our Democrat Presidents as much as
any Libertarian that I know of.

Stu


  #138   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default OT-143 days

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:19:48 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

HDI is another arbitrary UN project that consists of weightings pulled out
of a hat. 'You want to boost the US HDI? Try universal healthcare.
Whoops...that isn't part of the libertarian program, is it?


Damned straight, it ain't.


You can give it another boost by shooting all the cows.


Hmm, is it milk or beef which is killing everyone, Ed? Or just the
hormone and antibiotic overdoses?


But, if you *really
* want to get us on top, the long-term solution is obvious: Bulldoze the
inner cities flat.


And house the unwashed masses where?


--snip of more HDI stuff because I'm not up on it--


So what does that have to do with libertarians or Libertarians? Don't they
have sex?


Evidently, most are hetero and have sex only with consenting partners
only. Pretty wild, huh?


They found that out 200 years ago, but there are still plenty of rich people
around -- more than ever, in fact. I guess the "guy" was full of it, eh?

Again since we are not governed by principles, then the rule is grab what
you can for yourself. Isn't this what you complain about in the big
corporations??


No. It's what I *expect* of greedy and overly ambitious people who are given
the opportunity. My complaint is that we give them too many opportunities,
thanks to our semi-libertarian approach to (de)regulation of business, and
financial business in particular.


The libertarian ethos says "do as you like as long as it doesn't screw
with others." Lax Rep and Dem laws allowed the cluster**** that is our
current economy, not libertarians. They're practically non-existent in
the government so far. You can't blame this one on us, Ed.

Yet, anyway.



This is a PARTICIPATORY democracy, not a stage show for critics. And it
isn't a parliamentary system. It's a two-party system with a strong
president. That keeps it a two-party system.


Theoretically, anyway.


Fraud, waste, and abuse are endemic to large institutions, especially
governments. Oversight helps. Turning your back on it, as Reagan and Bush
have done, and as libertarians would do to an even greater degree, just
makes it worse.


That's your theory, right, seeing as no libertarians have been in
enough power to test it?


Larry even thinks that libertarians would be more honest. Talk about blind
faith; I know of no reason to believe they would be any more honest. In my
estimation, exactly the opposite would be true. By eliminating regulation
and oversight, you'd may as well be offering the crooks and pirates an
engraved invitation.




Well your light bulb just dimmed. Ron Paul is a Representative from Texas
not Arizona.


One stinkindesert is as good as the next. d8-)


Two points!


I'm talking about the Morass of restrictive laws and rules such as the
FEMA telling me that I might have to raise my entire 40X72 steel building
because of some bureacratic derived flood plain that there exists no
evidence, historically or otherwise to support.


That sounds like your primary gripe.


Faulty gov't agencies get your attention pretty quickly when they
enter your own life, Ed. Unfortunately, it usually comes in a negative
way.


I'm talking about the 3 star general in charge of the Strategic Defense
Command responsible for the Star Wars stuff getting his hand caught in the
cooky jar setting himself up with BDC for a post retirement job.


How would libertarianism fix that, or any of the other things you've listed?

It all looks like some kind of blind faith. What kind, I have no idea.


Well, how many libertarians have been caught in frauds, sex scandals,
or kickbacks? Gee, it all seems to be Reps and Dems, doesn't it? Or
do excellent track records not figure into your theories against
libertarians? You're awfully hot over this, Ed. Have you looked at
what's affecting your perspective yet? Please do.



I have no idea what you are talking about here. I do not own or think that
an SUV is the car to own but based on statistics it seems that the
majority of the people who are supporting the political parties running
the US do. Another example of thinking things thru.


Talk to Larry. He has a 6,000-pound truck to haul 500 pounds of tools. g


....daily, and frequently hauling sheets of plywood, 8-20' lengths of
tuba fore/six/eight/ten/twelve and 4xX posts, sacks of concrete, rolls
of fencing, ladders, digging bars, table saws, miter saws, trailers,
cement mixers, etc. Check your biases, bubba.

P.S: My Tundra weighs only 4,850 lbs. and can tote an extra 1,750 lbs
in the bed. The beefyness of the truck ensures that it can also haul
more weight safely, 8,500 pounds worth.

--
Jewish Zen:
Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated, already?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Uncomplicated Website Design, here and now.
  #139   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:19:48 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

HDI is another arbitrary UN project that consists of weightings pulled out
of a hat. 'You want to boost the US HDI? Try universal healthcare.
Whoops...that isn't part of the libertarian program, is it?


Damned straight, it ain't.


I notice that you snipped the part where I pointed out that EVERY country
that ranks higher than us DOES have universal healthcare. So, you may not
think much of the value of the HDI (I don't). But don't raise the point
(Stuart) and then turn around and say that universal healthcare isn't a
contibutor to the HDIs of those countries with higher rankings.



You can give it another boost by shooting all the cows.


Hmm, is it milk or beef which is killing everyone, Ed? Or just the
hormone and antibiotic overdoses?


Probably all of the above contribute to a reduced lifespan. This isn't an
arguable point. The epidemiological studies, hundreds of which I've read and
reported on, are unequivocal.



But, if you *really
* want to get us on top, the long-term solution is obvious: Bulldoze the
inner cities flat.


And house the unwashed masses where?


That's your problem. d8-) My job is to raise our HDI. Stuart seems to think
it's important.


--snip of more HDI stuff because I'm not up on it--


So what does that have to do with libertarians or Libertarians? Don't they
have sex?


Evidently, most are hetero and have sex only with consenting partners
only. Pretty wild, huh?


What's your evidence for this? I've seen nothing to support your point.


They found that out 200 years ago, but there are still plenty of rich
people
around -- more than ever, in fact. I guess the "guy" was full of it, eh?

Again since we are not governed by principles, then the rule is grab
what
you can for yourself. Isn't this what you complain about in the big
corporations??


No. It's what I *expect* of greedy and overly ambitious people who are
given
the opportunity. My complaint is that we give them too many opportunities,
thanks to our semi-libertarian approach to (de)regulation of business, and
financial business in particular.


The libertarian ethos says "do as you like as long as it doesn't screw
with others."


Screw your "ethos." Remember when I said a couple of days ago that the
libertarian program is a moralistic one, and you scoffed? Now you're proving
my point. So-called libertarianism isn't a program, or a set of principles
for running a government. It's a cry in the wilderness for people to be more
moral.

Good luck. Both religious and secular leaders have been trying to do that
for thousands of years. By now it should be evident that people's morality
isn't going to change much one way or the other. If you want to design a
system of government that works with people as they really are, forget the
looney-tune philosophies that count on making better people. The object is
better government for the people as they are.

Lax Rep and Dem laws allowed the cluster**** that is our
current economy, not libertarians. They're practically non-existent in
the government so far. You can't blame this one on us, Ed.

Yet, anyway.


The "cluster****" is one of the strongest economies in the world that is on
the downside of a business cycle. Every time the cycle swings down, out come
the Chicken Littles screaming that the sky is falling.

Here's an excercise. Step outdoors. See if the sky is really falling. Check
your refrigerator. Is there food in it? Good. Are there clothes in your
closet? Does your Internet connection still work? Good news.

Welcome to the business cycle. The idiots who said it had been overcome and
eliminated have just been proven to be idiots. That's all.


This is a PARTICIPATORY democracy, not a stage show for critics. And it
isn't a parliamentary system. It's a two-party system with a strong
president. That keeps it a two-party system.


Theoretically, anyway.


Theoretically? Have you noticed how the system actually *works*, in
practice? Screw the theory. It's the practice.


Fraud, waste, and abuse are endemic to large institutions, especially
governments. Oversight helps. Turning your back on it, as Reagan and Bush
have done, and as libertarians would do to an even greater degree, just
makes it worse.


That's your theory, right, seeing as no libertarians have been in
enough power to test it?


There is plenty of evidence right now. Libertarians want to eliminate
regulations on business, except for outright fraud. See how many mortgage
lenders can be proven to have violated the law in the current subprime
crises. They weren't violating the law. They were exploiting a libertarian
program of deregulation that gave them holes big enough to drive a truck
through. And they did.



Larry even thinks that libertarians would be more honest. Talk about blind
faith; I know of no reason to believe they would be any more honest. In my
estimation, exactly the opposite would be true. By eliminating regulation
and oversight, you'd may as well be offering the crooks and pirates an
engraved invitation.




Well your light bulb just dimmed. Ron Paul is a Representative from
Texas
not Arizona.


One stinkindesert is as good as the next. d8-)


Two points!


I'm talking about the Morass of restrictive laws and rules such as the
FEMA telling me that I might have to raise my entire 40X72 steel
building
because of some bureacratic derived flood plain that there exists no
evidence, historically or otherwise to support.


That sounds like your primary gripe.


Faulty gov't agencies get your attention pretty quickly when they
enter your own life, Ed. Unfortunately, it usually comes in a negative
way.


Then fix them. The libertarians sure as hell couldn't do it. They don't even
want to regulate business, fer chrissake.



I'm talking about the 3 star general in charge of the Strategic Defense
Command responsible for the Star Wars stuff getting his hand caught in
the
cooky jar setting himself up with BDC for a post retirement job.


How would libertarianism fix that, or any of the other things you've
listed?

It all looks like some kind of blind faith. What kind, I have no idea.


Well, how many libertarians have been caught in frauds, sex scandals,
or kickbacks?


What libertarians have been in a position to do so? d8-) As I said, it's all
blind faith. You seem to think that libertarians are a different species.

Gee, it all seems to be Reps and Dems, doesn't it?


Duh....they're the ones in power. It's whoever is in power. People being
people, ambitious and greedy people like power. They get into positions of
power if they have the ability. And then some of them exercise their
tendencies to ignore the law and to acquire wealth. The problem is greed for
power and wealth. It's always been a problem.

But you need people who are willing to do the job. So you regulate them, and
watch over them like a hawk, so they can't go on a rampage. You need more
regulation, not less -- because libertarians haven't figured out how to
breed a new species of people.

Or
do excellent track records not figure into your theories against
libertarians? You're awfully hot over this, Ed. Have you looked at
what's affecting your perspective yet? Please do.


What in the hell is that statement supposed to mean? English, please.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I do not own or think
that
an SUV is the car to own but based on statistics it seems that the
majority of the people who are supporting the political parties running
the US do. Another example of thinking things thru.


Talk to Larry. He has a 6,000-pound truck to haul 500 pounds of tools. g


...daily, and frequently hauling sheets of plywood, 8-20' lengths of
tuba fore/six/eight/ten/twelve and 4xX posts, sacks of concrete, rolls
of fencing, ladders, digging bars, table saws, miter saws, trailers,
cement mixers, etc. Check your biases, bubba.

P.S: My Tundra weighs only 4,850 lbs....


Dry weight. You're 98% liquid, and so is your fuel and coolant. d8-)

... and can tote an extra 1,750 lbs
in the bed. The beefyness of the truck ensures that it can also haul
more weight safely, 8,500 pounds worth.


And do you haul 8.500 pounds with it? I thought you said that the most you
carry is 500 pounds of tools, right?

--
Ed Huntress


  #140   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


snip


So, what is it, industrial planning? You want something like Japan's
MITI? Just what is it that you think will cure these "ills"?

--
Ed Huntress

1. Restrict the government to those powers specifically granted by the
Constitution.


Ha-ha! Everybody's "solution." The job is to get five people to agree on
what those powers are, Stu. d8-) "To promote the public welfare," and "to
provide for the common defense," cover a lot of territory in different
peoples' minds.

2. Regulate the regulators whos ear marks and pork barrels are blatant
examples of abuse of power.


More government regulation? Of government regulators, no less? Are you sure
you're a libertarian?

3. Hold an open discussion on our foreign policies. (which by the way have
given us Korea, Viet Nam, the Panama canal farce, the delivering of our
anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran (which we may have to face) the
interference with other societies and attempting to force them to accept
our ideas of how governments are supposed to run) If the American people
could vote on whether the US should be the world policeman, what do think
the outcome would be? I know, I know the people don't know enough to be
judges of our foreign policy....Well after having some drinks with three
different Ambassadors from the Marshal Islands and listening to their
opinions of our foreign policies, we had to agree the Americans were
running all around the world with their arrogance pushing their beliefs
ignoring other cultures.
Again force the Federal Government to abide by the Constitution. If the
Constitutiont is dated and not presently affective then Amend it. But
don't just slide into the way of doing business with only "attitudes" as
a justification. Let the people know what the rules are that are to be
followed. Don't have the President fail to obey the same rules that he
enforces on his subordinants. You talk about regulation and control, we
need some regulation and control of our government. That to me is what
the Libertarian movement is about, not free reigning the corporations.


With all due respect, Stu, you are no libertarian. That's the opposite of
the entire thrust of libertarianism, with fewer "rules" that "are to be
followed."

I think we have come full circle to what I said in the beginning.
Libertarianism is a system of moralism, not a set of organizational
principles. You want less government and less regulation...except when you
want the government watching the government, and more regulation. The fact
that there are "rules...that are to be followed" tells me you have a
moralistic, authoritarian bent. That's Burkean conservatism, not
libertarianism.

--
Ed Huntress




  #141   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...


That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it
stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would
define it, is a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that
their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you
need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos,
he's surely talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform,
because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking
about the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as
explained in detail by Edmund Burke.

I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.

I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you
bully. I
think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic
was a real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative
a thumping by
argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some
names,
like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not
realistic. It's
for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that
we can all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible
ways of making concrete changes all they can come up with is to
throw out the baby with the
bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything
more than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real
alternatives
to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant.
However, as Americans we all have at least some measure of
Libertarian in us though it may be really, really small.

Hawke

Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a
perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking.


Thoughtless impulse is an apt description of Libertarians. It also
applies
to teenagers.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

Yes John it is the result of the careful thinking of the Republicans and
Democrats that have led us to the world of deficit spending and debts to
China we probably will never pay without devaluing the dollar.


Deficit spending and "debts to China" are two separate issues. The first is
the result of the "starve the beast" policies created by Reagan and his
budget director Stockman, and of which Dick Cheney convinced George Bush.
The debts to China are the result of free-trade globalization, promoted by
Milton Friedman and practiced by conservative economists, who have had the
ear of the last four presidents.

Yes the thoughtful thinking that had us in Viet Nam and now in Iraq and
though we are setting on large oil reserves captives of OPEC. We have
governmental incompetencies to rival just about anything I've ever heard
of.


That's philosophy for you. They read too much Friedrich August von Hayek and
too little John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith had a good eye for people who
would screw you if given half a chance. Hayek was a philosopher. Enough
said.

Ed seems to favor the dictatorship where we don't use a code of ethics or
are guided by principles or a working philosophy.


What a nutty thing to say. What I favor is a government of, by, and for the
people. So, we screw up sometimes. That's the cost of a democratic republic.
At least it's *our* screw-ups.

He seems to prefer a government run on the basis of "Attitudes".


'Beats the hell out of a government by philosophers. See Hayek, Friedrich,
and Ancient Greece, Collapse of. When you're done, see _Reflections on the
Revolution in France_, by Edmund Burke.

I have a hard time deciding whether the current ill defined attitudes are
something that I support. He also seems to think that we either are
moving in a positive direction or that somehow magically we will return to
some some more sensible, stable, and productivie society.


Who said "sensible"? Who said "stable"? Those are the words of
conservatives. I'm all for the messy, but generally effective way it
actually works.

This in spite of the downward spiral in our history.


Jesus Christ, Stu. What "downward spiral"? Put some numbers on it. If you're
going to tell me that it's not a question of numbers, then just come out
with it and admit you're a moralist who doesn't like other peoples' moral
judgments.

You would have thought that with this great group of thinkers that deny
the libertarians membership, we could have avoided much of the current
problems.


The question is, how would libertarians have improved the situation? With
their position on less government regulation, it looks like they just would
have made it worse.

The Iraq farce was forecast by a large number of "ignored" non-thinkers.
Thoughtless impulse seems to describe one our Democrat Presidents as much
as any Libertarian that I know of.


Well, here's a reality check for you. Go back in the Google archives a few
years and see how many of the self-proclaimed libertarians here opposed the
Iraq war. They were among its biggest supporters -- some of them still are.
Then come back and we can talk seriously, OK?

--
Ed Huntress


  #142   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default OT-143 days


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


snip

Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a
perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking.

Ed: You criticize the Libertarians for the lack of thinking thru their
ideas. Where is there any evidence that the other parties have thought
thru their ideas?

Over 200 years of successful governance. And if you don't think it's
been successful, compare our legal, economic, and other situations with
those of almost any other country.


Well lets see. I've heard that said before. Lets use some measures:
The Human Development Index (HDI) is an index combining normalized
measures of life expectancy, literacy, educational attainment, and GDP
per capita for countries worldwide. It is claimed as a standard means of
measuring human development, a concept that, according to the United
Nations Development Program (UNDP) refers to the process of widening the
options of persons, giving them greater opportunities for education,
health care, income, employment, etc. The basic use of HDI is however to
rank countries by level of "human development" which usually also implies
to determine whether a country is a developed, developing, or
underdeveloped country.


HDI is another arbitrary UN project that consists of weightings pulled out
of a hat. 'You want to boost the US HDI? Try universal healthcare.
Whoops...that isn't part of the libertarian program, is it?

You can give it another boost by shooting all the cows. But, if you
*really * want to get us on top, the long-term solution is obvious:
Bulldoze the inner cities flat.

HDI is as much a measure of social and political choices as anything. Most
of the things that would boost our HDI are the exact OPPOSITE of what a
libertarian program would lead to: socialized healthcare, more government
employment, etc. I'm surprised you would even bring it up in this context,
Stu. It leads in a direction opposite to the one you're advocating.


The US has been shown as a country that is expeirencing a decreasing HDI
In fact since 1980 the US has never been ranked as the top Nation.


The HDI has only been around since sometime in the early '90s.

Canada, Norway, Switzerland and even Japan has outranked us.


They all have universal healthcare.

We are sliding down a slippery slope.


If there's a slope, it leads in a direction opposite to the one you're
suggesting.


The present method of dealing with problems is called "Knee Jerk". I'll
repeat what has been ignored: Get on the internet and look into the
Democrat and Republican parties. Try to find a statement of
philosophy.

Thank God, they really don't have one, beyond a few things that might
better be called attitudes.


A better name is "Situational Ethics". Take our Bill Clinton and his
sexual pecadillos. If I as a Civil Servan had engaged in sex with a
subordinate I would have immediately lost my security clearance because
of an increase in vulnerability to black mail and without the clearance
my ability to perform my job would be severely curtailed and thence
probably my career be ended. Bill as Commander in Chief of the Military
allowed others in the Military to lose their careers for having sex with
a subordinant. Yep we have attitudes.


So what does that have to do with libertarians or Libertarians? Don't they
have sex?


The Libertarian party is the only one willing to state theirs clearly.

Deliver us from ideologues who have a philosophy. Philosophy is for
college classes and books. When it comes to governance, it's a
prescription for disaster. Every time. No exceptions.




I'm not an registered Libertarian, but I'm sure a supporter of smaller
less intrusive government.

So is 90% of the US population -- until you try to make *their* favorite
project smaller.


Yes I agree here and as the guy said the death of democracy is assured as
soon as the people find that they can vote themselve money.


They found that out 200 years ago, but there are still plenty of rich
people around -- more than ever, in fact. I guess the "guy" was full of
it, eh?

Again since we are not governed by principles, then the rule is grab what
you can for yourself. Isn't this what you complain about in the big
corporations??


No. It's what I *expect* of greedy and overly ambitious people who are
given the opportunity. My complaint is that we give them too many
opportunities, thanks to our semi-libertarian approach to (de)regulation
of business, and financial business in particular.

Ed: You don't like monopolies. I agree they tend to run away with
themselves in an unbridled manner. The Federal, State, County and to a
lesser extent even City governments are simply monopolies.

No, they're democratically elected governments. That's the exact
opposite of a monopoly. You can get rid of them as easily as by voting
them out. That's our job.


Now this surprises me. It is as naive as a Junior High School student.
It is one hell of a lot more difficult than "easily by voting them out"
You have to compete with the two or is it one political parties who have
the machinery and the money that I don't.


If you want to exert leverage, you join the party you like better and work
within it. I dabbled in that at the state level, becoming a Republican
county delegate. You want to get into the game? You can. First off, you
have to stop bellyaching and make some phone calls.

This is a PARTICIPATORY democracy, not a stage show for critics. And it
isn't a parliamentary system. It's a two-party system with a strong
president. That keeps it a two-party system.

The candidates that we get to vote for are pretty much selected by the
parties.


Then join a party. By the time the candidates are selected and you have to
vote, 90% of the decision-making is done. You're getting into the game too
late. That's why you don't have a hand in making the choices.

I watched Ron Paul get ignored when he wanted to discuss things like the
legitimacy of the governments foreign policy.


As soon as he opened his mouth about "dietary supplements" as a model
solution for our drug industry, I knew he was a crackpot. Then I read
more. Paul is out of his tree.

He's so far into the outfield that it's no surprise he's gotten ignored.
There's a realm of political debate that gets attention. Then there are
the nutballs around the fringes. Because we have free speech and open
candidacies, the nutballs always show up. But we've learned to filter them
out because they're a waste of time. That's why Ron Paul was marginalized.

You may not like this because ideas you favor are among those that are
marginalized. That's a shame. Either find a way to get them considered, or
stand on the sidelines and watch the real game.


They have no competition.

Of course they do -- every politician who wants their job is a
competitor.

They are not held accountable by any other than themselves for their
actions.

That's why we have a tripartite government with a distribution of powers
and an institutionalized system of checks and balances.


God I wish I could have the belief and faith that you apparently have
inspite of all the fraud waste and abuse being done by the governments.


Fraud, waste, and abuse are endemic to large institutions, especially
governments. Oversight helps. Turning your back on it, as Reagan and Bush
have done, and as libertarians would do to an even greater degree, just
makes it worse.

I wish I could just ignore the insane laws and rule makings that I see
everyday.


Your complaints seem to be mostly technical, Stu, but your supposed
solution is essentially to eliminate the problems by ignoring them. That's
libertarianism. It offers a panacea in the form of a government that just
ignores everything. It's like making the trains run on time by turning
back the clocks.

Larry even thinks that libertarians would be more honest. Talk about blind
faith; I know of no reason to believe they would be any more honest. In my
estimation, exactly the opposite would be true. By eliminating regulation
and oversight, you'd may as well be offering the crooks and pirates an
engraved invitation.


I wish I had a job where I could vote myself pay raises and create my
own retirement system that someone else pays for.

So do I. d8-)

No it has been said that no alternatives have been proffered. Wrong.
Ron Paul offered up some alternatives, granted not all would be
acceptable or work, but he evened offered a method to fix that:

Ron Paul is a half-baked crackpot who should stay in Arizona, where
nothing destructive that he could do matters very much. If he goes out
in the sun much, maybe he'll be fully baked some day.

Well your light bulb just dimmed. Ron Paul is a Representative from
Texas not Arizona.


One stinkindesert is as good as the next. d8-)

Constitutional Amendment. His ideas of restricting the government to
those powers granted by the Constitution would be a big step in the
right direction to at least curtail some of the Federal Governements
monopolistic behaviours presently viewed as the way of doing business.

Bull.

What do the Centrists offer...

Government that works.

...to get us out of our current Morass?

What morass? Are you starving? Are you threatened by some other country?
Did you have to sell your children into slavery? What in the hell are
you talking about, "morass"?


I'm talking about the Morass of restrictive laws and rules such as the
FEMA telling me that I might have to raise my entire 40X72 steel building
because of some bureacratic derived flood plain that there exists no
evidence, historically or otherwise to support.


That sounds like your primary gripe.

Ed: For a person of obvious articulatory skills you seem to have a problem
identifying examples and choose to ignore the ramifications of a government
agency enforcing entirely stupid rules. The FEMA thing is just a single
concrete example of which I have written proof. I've already successfully
ignored them. Their rules still exist and have no blockage for getting
worse. I'm sure that if you were the victim of similar kinds of BS, your
skills with the written word would come forth. However, you seem to be
comfortable with the ramification of the examples that I have put forth that
have come from my personal experience and I guess you seem to think that
these examples are to be expected in the current non-libertarian government
that we have. And even more comfortable forecasting what ifs that aren't
based on actual fact but on your opinions and personal biases.
Labels like Edwardian, Conservatives, Libertarian, Centrist etc. etc. I
guess serve some purpose. However when the tire is flat, you can call it a
chicken fart if you want to but the tire remains flat. We have a bunch of
flat tires right now and our old ways of dealing with them by saying let the
Federal Government solve them hasn't worked. Most of the flat tires have
been caused by government getting involved, making thoughtless decisions
that have created long lived agencies that are expensive and don't really
provide much bang for the buck.
I'm talking about the 3 star general in charge of the Strategic Defense
Command responsible for the Star Wars stuff getting his hand caught in
the cooky jar setting himself up with BDC for a post retirement job.


How would libertarianism fix that, or any of the other things you've
listed?

To start with the laws and rules that already exist would be enforced. I
was restricted to a certain time (IFIRC 2 years) from entering into
employment with any contractor with whom I had business during my career.
Those are being enforced at the lower levels but certainly not at the
higher.
It all looks like some kind of blind faith. What kind, I have no idea.


What are you, a radical who has a program for overturning tradition?

Of course not tradition should be worshiped and never examined for
applicability. "Thats the way we've always done it" is just an outstanding
justification for doing things. The traditional stuff I was told when I
went to work for the Government turned out to be mainly eyewash. The real
rules and values were involved in how to get your ass up the ladder and make
as much as you could. Another personal example: High ranking DoD official
told me that he needed a $450M project started next year. I asked him for
some details, sinch as an engineer I might be able to help. His response
was: "I don't know what it will be but that is the funding level of a
project that I need under my control to get the Senior Executive Service
position". This guy certainly did think his process thru. From my point of
view looking into a non-libertarian run government, this kind of thing needs
to be changed. Our current government service of just laying on another
"watch dog" agency. Won't work. Hell here is another: GAO audited my
group at the Kwajalein Missile Range. We were audited to determine whether
we were providing a useful function. Sounds good doesn't it. They also
audited another group where my wife worked. AAH!! The government is really
accountable and taking care of business. There auditing technique for my
branch consisted almost entirely of MEASURING THE VOLUME OF OUR FILE
CABINETS. They could have been empty file cabinets. What we did and how
many people were required to do it never entered into the questions. I even
suggested that they ask us what our plans for the year were and what we
expected to produce. I was ignored.
Yes Ed the libertarians don't think their process thru like the current
thoughtful government. These aren't opinions of what would happen if. They
are factual experiences that I've had with the current operation of the
Government. If changing to Libertarian would help correct some of these I'm
all for it. I have absolutely no faith that either Obama or McCain are
going to change any of the above. At least Ron Paul talked about reigning
in the Feds and stopping the deficit spending. Ron Paul wanted to debate
the foreign policy and the negative effects it was creating. Whether you
agreed with his opinions or not it would have certainly put our policies out
for a badly needed review.

Stu



Of course it's to wait and see what happens.

What is it you want, Stu? Is it 6,000-pound, 6-liter SUVs and pickup
trucks forever? A McMansion for everyone, with a 40-mile commute? Didn't
you realize 10 years ago, or even 20 years ago, that we were sliding
downhill on a waterslide into a swamp?


Is this the great society that you were talking about? Which is so much
better than other countries?


Even when you look at the biased, often silly, ratings systems from the UN
and others, we're near the top. That, despite a heterogeneous society
(note that the "leaders" in HDI are all homogeneous -- most of them even
have the same hair color) that has much less government involvement in our
lives than they do. The difference in HDI rating between the US and the
"leader" (Iceland), on a 0-1 scale, is 0.017.


I have no idea what you are talking about here. I do not own or think
that an SUV is the car to own but based on statistics it seems that the
majority of the people who are supporting the political parties running
the US do. Another example of thinking things thru.


Talk to Larry. He has a 6,000-pound truck to haul 500 pounds of tools. g

We get caught by our own wretched excess from time to time. That's the
product of a hot economy and an....uh, expansive attitude. That's the
US. It means we'll swing up and down, and drive ourselves silly,
probably forever. I happen to like the system, and the people in it,
silly or not.


I was told that the pendulum swings in the DoD service when I saw them
removing work benches and putting desks in their place. This was in
1975. The pendulum is still swinging to the crazy extreme. The people
that replaced me in the Navy R&D are all spending their days on airplanes
going to meetings. Meetings that no one can detect the benefit or
purpose. Their "smart buyer" status is being eroded at a fantastic rate.
They have no hands on experience to support their college education. It
doesn't take much listening to them to find the efficacy of the term
Morass.


Your morass is not my idea of a morass. Even so, I hear nothing from you
that suggests libertarianism would make your morass better. In fact, it
sounds like you'd make it worse.

What is it you want to eliminate here, Stuart? Airplane R&D? Or the Navy?
What is it?

But spare us the talk about "morass." There is no morass. There is only
the roller coaster. Hang on tight.


I wouldn't get on a roller coaster that had no tracks or some effort at
purposeful design. I wouldn't get in an airplane when there was no
statement of the purpose of the flight. I wouldn't get on an airplane
where the pilot just said I'm here to see what is going to happen and our
emergeny plan is based on the widely accepted Knee Jerk method.
Yep we don't have an agreed to destination so where ever the Democrans or
Republicrats are going to take us I guess we are just the kidnapped
passengers and Take us they will.


So, what is it, industrial planning? You want something like Japan's MITI?
Just what is it that you think will cure these "ills"?

--
Ed Huntress



  #143   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default OT-143 days

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 09:39:05 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:19:48 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

HDI is another arbitrary UN project that consists of weightings pulled out
of a hat. 'You want to boost the US HDI? Try universal healthcare.
Whoops...that isn't part of the libertarian program, is it?


Damned straight, it ain't.


I notice that you snipped the part where I pointed out that EVERY country
that ranks higher than us DOES have universal healthcare. So, you may not
think much of the value of the HDI (I don't). But don't raise the point
(Stuart) and then turn around and say that universal healthcare isn't a
contibutor to the HDIs of those countries with higher rankings.


I snipped a lot more than just that, as I did with this reply. g No,
I don't think of the HDI as a handbook, just another guide to stats
from what I've seen so far.


You can give it another boost by shooting all the cows.


Hmm, is it milk or beef which is killing everyone, Ed? Or just the
hormone and antibiotic overdoses?


Probably all of the above contribute to a reduced lifespan. This isn't an
arguable point. The epidemiological studies, hundreds of which I've read and
reported on, are unequivocal.


Pardon me. I forgot the implications of cow farts and the ozone. I'm
curious as to what the figures are, though. Does it contrast organic
vs. commercial cattle products and lifespan? THAT could be an eye
opener.


But, if you *really
* want to get us on top, the long-term solution is obvious: Bulldoze the
inner cities flat.


And house the unwashed masses where?


That's your problem. d8-) My job is to raise our HDI. Stuart seems to think
it's important.


So we should fake more stats, right?


--snip of more HDI stuff because I'm not up on it--


So what does that have to do with libertarians or Libertarians? Don't they
have sex?


Evidently, most are hetero and have sex only with consenting partners
only. Pretty wild, huh?


What's your evidence for this? I've seen nothing to support your point.


The proof is self-evident. There are no criminal reports or scandals.


This is a PARTICIPATORY democracy, not a stage show for critics. And it
isn't a parliamentary system. It's a two-party system with a strong
president. That keeps it a two-party system.


Theoretically, anyway.


Theoretically? Have you noticed how the system actually *works*, in
practice? Screw the theory. It's the practice.


Shrub is a strong President?


Fraud, waste, and abuse are endemic to large institutions, especially
governments. Oversight helps. Turning your back on it, as Reagan and Bush
have done, and as libertarians would do to an even greater degree, just
makes it worse.


That's your theory, right, seeing as no libertarians have been in
enough power to test it?


There is plenty of evidence right now. Libertarians want to eliminate
regulations on business, except for outright fraud. See how many mortgage
lenders can be proven to have violated the law in the current subprime
crises. They weren't violating the law. They were exploiting a libertarian
program of deregulation that gave them holes big enough to drive a truck
through. And they did.


Which particular powerful Libertarian pushed through that loophole in
the money game, Ed?


Well, how many libertarians have been caught in frauds, sex scandals,
or kickbacks?


What libertarians have been in a position to do so? d8-) As I said, it's all
blind faith. You seem to think that libertarians are a different species.


I don't see any libertarian business owners, city councilors, mayors,
or governors being indicted, Ed.


Or
do excellent track records not figure into your theories against
libertarians? You're awfully hot over this, Ed. Have you looked at
what's affecting your perspective yet? Please do.


What in the hell is that statement supposed to mean? English, please.


You seem to have a real "thing" against libertarians and you can't
provide any hard evidence against them when I ask for your
clarifications about your future predictions. So, what is it that is
affecting your perspective? Did a Libertarian scare your mother when
she was pregnant with you, or something?


I have no idea what you are talking about here. I do not own or think
that
an SUV is the car to own but based on statistics it seems that the
majority of the people who are supporting the political parties running
the US do. Another example of thinking things thru.

Talk to Larry. He has a 6,000-pound truck to haul 500 pounds of tools. g


...daily, and frequently hauling sheets of plywood, 8-20' lengths of
tuba fore/six/eight/ten/twelve and 4xX posts, sacks of concrete, rolls
of fencing, ladders, digging bars, table saws, miter saws, trailers,
cement mixers, etc. Check your biases, bubba.

P.S: My Tundra weighs only 4,850 lbs....


Dry weight. You're 98% liquid, and so is your fuel and coolant. d8-)


Yeah, I foud that out this morning when I took down my 9x9' boxwood
tree/shrub. DAMN those things are heavy. My 6-ounce t-shirt weighed
over two pounds with my externalized liquid during that hour of work.
Now I have a bigass stump. I think I'll ask my neighbor if I can
borrow his little trencher/backhoe for half an hour.

I also have a holly tree whose stump/trunk was about a foot in
diameter and whose rootball is over 2' in diameter. I've dug down a
foot and a half, severed all side roots, and it still isn't budging.


... and can tote an extra 1,750 lbs
in the bed. The beefyness of the truck ensures that it can also haul
more weight safely, 8,500 pounds worth.


And do you haul 8.500 pounds with it? I thought you said that the most you
carry is 500 pounds of tools, right?


No, I've hauled trailers, mixers, and welders with it and I use the
receiver hitch for helping pull stumps, etc.

What I said was that I always have 500 pounds of my tools with me. I
add up to half a ton of lumber and extra power tools as each job
demands. I'm USING my truck, though a Tacoma might have sufficed.

--
Jewish Zen:
Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated, already?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Uncomplicated Website Design, here and now.
  #144   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 719
Default OT-143 days

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


snip

Yes Ed the libertarians don't think their process thru like the
current thoughtful government. These aren't opinions of what would
happen if. They are factual experiences that I've had with the
current operation of the Government. If changing to Libertarian
would help correct some of these I'm all for it.


There will be about one hundred and fifty Libertarian candidates on the
ballot here in California this November.


I have absolutely
no faith that either Obama or McCain are going to change any of the
above. At least Ron Paul talked about reigning in the Feds and
stopping the deficit spending.


He did and when asked to explain himself sounded like a complete lunatic.


Ron Paul wanted to debate the foreign
policy and the negative effects it was creating. Whether you agreed
with his opinions or not it would have certainly put our policies out
for a badly needed review.


Ron was a little behind the curve. The review he wanted has already been
done and not in the Congress but by the public. We'll see what the result of
that review is in November. Maybe Bob Barr will be our next President.


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com


  #145   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 719
Default OT-143 days

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 09:39:05 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:19:48 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


There is plenty of evidence right now. Libertarians want to eliminate
regulations on business, except for outright fraud. See how many
mortgage lenders can be proven to have violated the law in the
current subprime crises. They weren't violating the law. They were
exploiting a libertarian program of deregulation that gave them
holes big enough to drive a truck through. And they did.


Which particular powerful Libertarian pushed through that loophole in
the money game, Ed?


Phil Graham. A guy who has always considered himself a libertarian, free
market brand of Republican.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com




  #146   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 09:39:05 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:19:48 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

HDI is another arbitrary UN project that consists of weightings pulled
out
of a hat. 'You want to boost the US HDI? Try universal healthcare.
Whoops...that isn't part of the libertarian program, is it?

Damned straight, it ain't.


I notice that you snipped the part where I pointed out that EVERY country
that ranks higher than us DOES have universal healthcare. So, you may not
think much of the value of the HDI (I don't). But don't raise the point
(Stuart) and then turn around and say that universal healthcare isn't a
contibutor to the HDIs of those countries with higher rankings.


I snipped a lot more than just that, as I did with this reply. g No,
I don't think of the HDI as a handbook, just another guide to stats
from what I've seen so far.


You can give it another boost by shooting all the cows.

Hmm, is it milk or beef which is killing everyone, Ed? Or just the
hormone and antibiotic overdoses?


Probably all of the above contribute to a reduced lifespan. This isn't an
arguable point. The epidemiological studies, hundreds of which I've read
and
reported on, are unequivocal.


Pardon me. I forgot the implications of cow farts and the ozone. I'm
curious as to what the figures are, though. Does it contrast organic
vs. commercial cattle products and lifespan? THAT could be an eye
opener.


I doubt if there are any such studies. You have to coordinate studies that
show triglycerides and other lipid levels that correspond to eating a lot of
beef, and the cardio studies that coordinate those levels with mortality. It
takes some work and some knowledge of stats, but it's there.

Not that it keeps me from eating beef. But thanks to wonder drugs, my total
cholesterol is 81. d8-)



But, if you *really
* want to get us on top, the long-term solution is obvious: Bulldoze the
inner cities flat.

And house the unwashed masses where?


That's your problem. d8-) My job is to raise our HDI. Stuart seems to
think
it's important.


So we should fake more stats, right?


Stuart seems to like those HDI stats. I think they're pretty arbitrary and
don't measure much that's useful in this context.

--snip of more HDI stuff because I'm not up on it--


So what does that have to do with libertarians or Libertarians? Don't
they
have sex?

Evidently, most are hetero and have sex only with consenting partners
only. Pretty wild, huh?


What's your evidence for this? I've seen nothing to support your point.


The proof is self-evident. There are no criminal reports or scandals.


Of what? How do you know if a criminal is a libertarian?

If you're talking about Libertarian officials, there aren't enough to
produce any statistics.




This is a PARTICIPATORY democracy, not a stage show for critics. And it
isn't a parliamentary system. It's a two-party system with a strong
president. That keeps it a two-party system.

Theoretically, anyway.


Theoretically? Have you noticed how the system actually *works*, in
practice? Screw the theory. It's the practice.


Shrub is a strong President?


He's a twit who currently holds a powerful office. That makes him something
like a teenager with booze and the keys to your car.



Fraud, waste, and abuse are endemic to large institutions, especially
governments. Oversight helps. Turning your back on it, as Reagan and
Bush
have done, and as libertarians would do to an even greater degree, just
makes it worse.

That's your theory, right, seeing as no libertarians have been in
enough power to test it?


There is plenty of evidence right now. Libertarians want to eliminate
regulations on business, except for outright fraud. See how many mortgage
lenders can be proven to have violated the law in the current subprime
crises. They weren't violating the law. They were exploiting a libertarian
program of deregulation that gave them holes big enough to drive a truck
through. And they did.


Which particular powerful Libertarian pushed through that loophole in
the money game, Ed?


Dumb comeback, Larry. What additional regulations would a Libertarian have
voted for? Since they oppose vitually all of them: "We favor free-market
banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository
institutions of all types," it appears they not only would have voted
against new regulations, but they would have actively worked to strip those
few regulations that exist.


Well, how many libertarians have been caught in frauds, sex scandals,
or kickbacks?


What libertarians have been in a position to do so? d8-) As I said, it's
all
blind faith. You seem to think that libertarians are a different species.


I don't see any libertarian business owners, city councilors, mayors,
or governors being indicted, Ed.


How do you know which business owners are libertarians? Is it something that
comes up in court? g And how about those statistics on all those
Libertarian government officials? Do you have percentages with meaningful
stats?


Or
do excellent track records not figure into your theories against
libertarians? You're awfully hot over this, Ed. Have you looked at
what's affecting your perspective yet? Please do.


What in the hell is that statement supposed to mean? English, please.


You seem to have a real "thing" against libertarians and you can't
provide any hard evidence against them when I ask for your
clarifications about your future predictions.


First off, some of my best friends are liberatarians. They aren't my
smartest friends, but they're friends.

Secondly, the evidence is what businesses like Enron and financial
businesses like hedge funds have been doing to screw us in recent years.
They can screw us because the lack of regulations allow them to.
Libertarians want even fewer regulations: "The only proper role of
government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate
disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is
protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control
or manage trade, are improper in a free society." If that isn't enough
evidence for you of the "future predictions" that would come true if we had
even FEWER regulations, then you truly are off in a cloud of wishful
thinking.

Thirdly, it's just fun to tweak your nose. d8-)

So, what is it that is
affecting your perspective? Did a Libertarian scare your mother when
she was pregnant with you, or something?


There aren't enough libertarians around to matter much regarding anything.
There are people who call themselves libertarians, but, like Stuart, most of
them turn out to be moralists with an authoritarian streak who just want
people to behave better than they do. More wishful thinking.



I have no idea what you are talking about here. I do not own or think
that
an SUV is the car to own but based on statistics it seems that the
majority of the people who are supporting the political parties
running
the US do. Another example of thinking things thru.

Talk to Larry. He has a 6,000-pound truck to haul 500 pounds of tools.
g

...daily, and frequently hauling sheets of plywood, 8-20' lengths of
tuba fore/six/eight/ten/twelve and 4xX posts, sacks of concrete, rolls
of fencing, ladders, digging bars, table saws, miter saws, trailers,
cement mixers, etc. Check your biases, bubba.

P.S: My Tundra weighs only 4,850 lbs....


Dry weight. You're 98% liquid, and so is your fuel and coolant. d8-)


Yeah, I foud that out this morning when I took down my 9x9' boxwood
tree/shrub. DAMN those things are heavy. My 6-ounce t-shirt weighed
over two pounds with my externalized liquid during that hour of work.
Now I have a bigass stump. I think I'll ask my neighbor if I can
borrow his little trencher/backhoe for half an hour.


Stump grinders do a good job with a hell of a lot less work. They'll grind
it down a few inches below ground level and you can just cover them with
dirt. As they rot out, you just top-dress the area with an inch or two of
dirt every year.

You can rent stump grinders at Home Depot and other tool rentals. Nobody
digs out big stumps and roots anymore.


I also have a holly tree whose stump/trunk was about a foot in
diameter and whose rootball is over 2' in diameter. I've dug down a
foot and a half, severed all side roots, and it still isn't budging.


You're bringing back horrible memories from my youth. I HATE stumps. My
grandfather used to dynamite them, but he had ten acres and it was a
different time. His ten acres were inside the town limits. d8-)

... and can tote an extra 1,750 lbs
in the bed. The beefyness of the truck ensures that it can also haul
more weight safely, 8,500 pounds worth.


And do you haul 8.500 pounds with it? I thought you said that the most you
carry is 500 pounds of tools, right?


No, I've hauled trailers, mixers, and welders with it and I use the
receiver hitch for helping pull stumps, etc.


Well, then, if you really need it, you're screwed. That is, unless you can
raise your prices enough to pay for the fuel.

--
Ed Huntress


  #147   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default OT-143 days

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 17:52:32 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

I said:
Pardon me. I forgot the implications of cow farts and the ozone. I'm
curious as to what the figures are, though. Does it contrast organic
vs. commercial cattle products and lifespan? THAT could be an eye
opener.


I doubt if there are any such studies. You have to coordinate studies that
show triglycerides and other lipid levels that correspond to eating a lot of
beef, and the cardio studies that coordinate those levels with mortality. It
takes some work and some knowledge of stats, but it's there.

Not that it keeps me from eating beef. But thanks to wonder drugs, my total
cholesterol is 81. d8-)


I had mine tested once. It was 231. I went on a "cholesterol-free"
diet for six months and was retested at 219. I said "FTN" and stopped
worrying.



Evidently, most are hetero and have sex only with consenting partners
only. Pretty wild, huh?

What's your evidence for this? I've seen nothing to support your point.


The proof is self-evident. There are no criminal reports or scandals.


Of what? How do you know if a criminal is a libertarian?


"Mr. X, libertarian councilman, was arrested today..."


If you're talking about Libertarian officials, there aren't enough to
produce any statistics.


So WTF are you so terrified about?


Shrub is a strong President?


He's a twit who currently holds a powerful office. That makes him something
like a teenager with booze and the keys to your car.


Yeah, and we know what PJ O'Rourke said about that combination...


Which particular powerful Libertarian pushed through that loophole in
the money game, Ed?


Dumb comeback, Larry. What additional regulations would a Libertarian have
voted for? Since they oppose vitually all of them: "We favor free-market
banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository
institutions of all types," it appears they not only would have voted
against new regulations, but they would have actively worked to strip those
few regulations that exist.


We don't see all regulation as bad, Ed. Just most.


I don't see any libertarian business owners, city councilors, mayors,
or governors being indicted, Ed.


How do you know which business owners are libertarians? Is it something that
comes up in court? g And how about those statistics on all those
Libertarian government officials? Do you have percentages with meaningful
stats?


According to you and our wonderful news media, being a libertarian is
akin to being labeled a KKKer or radical Muslim. Every time one makes
the news, which isn't very damned often (Even the arrest of a
Presidential candidate at the debates didn't make the national news
the same day in Badnarik's case) it's a miracle.


Or
do excellent track records not figure into your theories against
libertarians? You're awfully hot over this, Ed. Have you looked at
what's affecting your perspective yet? Please do.

What in the hell is that statement supposed to mean? English, please.


You seem to have a real "thing" against libertarians and you can't
provide any hard evidence against them when I ask for your
clarifications about your future predictions.


First off, some of my best friends are liberatarians. They aren't my
smartest friends, but they're friends.


Asswipe.


Secondly, the evidence is what businesses like Enron and financial
businesses like hedge funds have been doing to screw us in recent years.
They can screw us because the lack of regulations allow them to.
Libertarians want even fewer regulations: "The only proper role of
government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate
disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is
protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control
or manage trade, are improper in a free society." If that isn't enough
evidence for you of the "future predictions" that would come true if we had
even FEWER regulations, then you truly are off in a cloud of wishful
thinking.

Thirdly, it's just fun to tweak your nose. d8-)


AHA! The truth finally comes out.


So, what is it that is
affecting your perspective? Did a Libertarian scare your mother when
she was pregnant with you, or something?


There aren't enough libertarians around to matter much regarding anything.
There are people who call themselves libertarians, but, like Stuart, most of
them turn out to be moralists with an authoritarian streak who just want
people to behave better than they do. More wishful thinking.


shrug


P.S: My Tundra weighs only 4,850 lbs....

Dry weight. You're 98% liquid, and so is your fuel and coolant. d8-)


Yeah, I foud that out this morning when I took down my 9x9' boxwood
tree/shrub. DAMN those things are heavy. My 6-ounce t-shirt weighed
over two pounds with my externalized liquid during that hour of work.
Now I have a bigass stump. I think I'll ask my neighbor if I can
borrow his little trencher/backhoe for half an hour.


Stump grinders do a good job with a hell of a lot less work. They'll grind
it down a few inches below ground level and you can just cover them with
dirt. As they rot out, you just top-dress the area with an inch or two of
dirt every year.


I wish I'd thought of that. I haven't seen one in two decades.


You can rent stump grinders at Home Depot and other tool rentals. Nobody
digs out big stumps and roots anymore.


The last time I had someone use one of those, it was in my yard in CA.
They ground up 6 yucca stumps. Let me warn you that if you ever have a
yucca stump ground in your yard, you'd better hold a freakin' shotgun
to the guy's head until he has cleaned up every last ounce of chipped
yucca from your yard and hauled it off. I was on the phone every day
for two weeks to get the guy to come haul off what smelled like dead
dog meat out there. It was absolutely ungodly.


I also have a holly tree whose stump/trunk was about a foot in
diameter and whose rootball is over 2' in diameter. I've dug down a
foot and a half, severed all side roots, and it still isn't budging.


You're bringing back horrible memories from my youth. I HATE stumps. My


I don't mind small stumps and shrub rootball clusters, which is most
of my work around here. But large tree roots like the two in my yard
are proving to be a lot tougher. I'll see if my shop crane will hoist
those stumps out, and if not, I'll see about that grinder. Good call.
I forgot they existed, probably due to my last experience with one. I
hate that MF to this day.


grandfather used to dynamite them, but he had ten acres and it was a
different time. His ten acres were inside the town limits. d8-)


I'd love to use dynamite on these but I don't think that's in the
cards. My water line from my pumphouse is about 3' away from the holly
stump. The gas line feeding my house is about 4' away from the boxwood
stump, too. g


... and can tote an extra 1,750 lbs
in the bed. The beefyness of the truck ensures that it can also haul
more weight safely, 8,500 pounds worth.

And do you haul 8.500 pounds with it? I thought you said that the most you
carry is 500 pounds of tools, right?


No, I've hauled trailers, mixers, and welders with it and I use the
receiver hitch for helping pull stumps, etc.


Well, then, if you really need it, you're screwed. That is, unless you can
raise your prices enough to pay for the fuel.


Yeah. Wish me luck in that!

--
Jewish Zen:
Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated, already?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Uncomplicated Website Design, here and now.
  #148   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default OT-143 days


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...


That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it
stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would
define it, is a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that
their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you
need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos,
he's surely talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform,
because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking
about the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as
explained in detail by Edmund Burke.

I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.

I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you
bully. I
think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic
was a real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative
a thumping by
argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some
names,
like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not
realistic. It's
for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that
we can all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible
ways of making concrete changes all they can come up with is to
throw out the baby with the
bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything
more than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real
alternatives
to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant.
However, as Americans we all have at least some measure of
Libertarian in us though it may be really, really small.

Hawke

Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a
perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking.

Thoughtless impulse is an apt description of Libertarians. It also
applies
to teenagers.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

Yes John it is the result of the careful thinking of the Republicans and
Democrats that have led us to the world of deficit spending and debts to
China we probably will never pay without devaluing the dollar.


Deficit spending and "debts to China" are two separate issues. The first
is the result of the "starve the beast" policies created by Reagan and his
budget director Stockman, and of which Dick Cheney convinced George Bush.
The debts to China are the result of free-trade globalization, promoted by
Milton Friedman and practiced by conservative economists, who have had the
ear of the last four presidents.

Yes the thoughtful thinking that had us in Viet Nam and now in Iraq and
though we are setting on large oil reserves captives of OPEC. We have
governmental incompetencies to rival just about anything I've ever heard
of.


That's philosophy for you. They read too much Friedrich August von Hayek
and too little John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith had a good eye for people
who would screw you if given half a chance. Hayek was a philosopher.
Enough said.

Ed seems to favor the dictatorship where we don't use a code of ethics or
are guided by principles or a working philosophy.


What a nutty thing to say. What I favor is a government of, by, and for
the people. So, we screw up sometimes. That's the cost of a democratic
republic. At least it's *our* screw-ups.

He seems to prefer a government run on the basis of "Attitudes".


'Beats the hell out of a government by philosophers. See Hayek, Friedrich,
and Ancient Greece, Collapse of. When you're done, see _Reflections on the
Revolution in France_, by Edmund Burke.

I have a hard time deciding whether the current ill defined attitudes
are something that I support. He also seems to think that we either are
moving in a positive direction or that somehow magically we will return
to some some more sensible, stable, and productivie society.


Who said "sensible"? Who said "stable"? Those are the words of
conservatives. I'm all for the messy, but generally effective way it
actually works.

This in spite of the downward spiral in our history.


Jesus Christ, Stu. What "downward spiral"? Put some numbers on it. If
you're going to tell me that it's not a question of numbers, then just
come out with it and admit you're a moralist who doesn't like other
peoples' moral judgments.

You would have thought that with this great group of thinkers that deny
the libertarians membership, we could have avoided much of the current
problems.


The question is, how would libertarians have improved the situation? With
their position on less government regulation, it looks like they just
would have made it worse.

The Iraq farce was forecast by a large number of "ignored" non-thinkers.
Thoughtless impulse seems to describe one our Democrat Presidents as much
as any Libertarian that I know of.


Well, here's a reality check for you. Go back in the Google archives a few
years and see how many of the self-proclaimed libertarians here opposed
the Iraq war. They were among its biggest supporters -- some of them still
are. Then come back and we can talk seriously, OK?

--
Ed Huntress

Naw This is just a waste of time and keystrokes. I haven't learned anything
new and I would bet a bunch neither have you. All this energy with no yield
is definitely a waste of time.

Stu



  #149   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,502
Default OT-143 days

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:13:08 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

I don't mind small stumps and shrub rootball clusters, which is most
of my work around here. But large tree roots like the two in my yard
are proving to be a lot tougher. I'll see if my shop crane will hoist
those stumps out, and if not, I'll see about that grinder. Good call.
I forgot they existed, probably due to my last experience with one. I
hate that MF to this day.



I pulled a peach stump last year with my forklift.

Easy as can be.

G



Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
  #150   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


snip

What morass? Are you starving? Are you threatened by some other
country? Did you have to sell your children into slavery? What in the
hell are you talking about, "morass"?


I'm talking about the Morass of restrictive laws and rules such as the
FEMA telling me that I might have to raise my entire 40X72 steel
building because of some bureacratic derived flood plain that there
exists no evidence, historically or otherwise to support.


That sounds like your primary gripe.


Ed: For a person of obvious articulatory skills you seem to have a
problem identifying examples and choose to ignore the ramifications of a
government agency enforcing entirely stupid rules. The FEMA thing is
just a single concrete example of which I have written proof. I've already
successfully ignored them. Their rules still exist and have no blockage
for getting worse. I'm sure that if you were the victim of similar kinds
of BS, your skills with the written word would come forth. However, you
seem to be comfortable with the ramification of the examples that I have
put forth that have come from my personal experience and I guess you seem
to think that these examples are to be expected in the current
non-libertarian government that we have.


There always are some infuriating examples of bureaucracy, and nobody likes
them. I don't think you'll ever eliminate them as long as you have
government. I've had outrageous examples in dealing with police. Do you want
to get rid of them, too?

But thinking that libertarian policies will eliminate them, without
simultaneously turning the dogs loose in finance and opening the door to
collusion and monopoly in business is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, Stu.
We already know what happens when those excesses are unregulated.

And even more comfortable forecasting what ifs that aren't based on actual
fact but on your opinions and personal biases.


No. Based on the only evidence that's available, and thousands of years of
history. Libertarians see a panacea in just doing away with things, as if
that alone will create a new kind of man. What lunacy! If it was 180 years
ago, you guys would be the ones starting utopian communes in the wilderness.
That's the same mentality -- and the same denial of human nature. It's
something you share with communists, socialists, religious utopians and
other philosophy-based movements. You seem to think that people will play
nicer if you just change the rules.

You're the one who has no supporting history or facts, Stu. You're off in
cloud-cuckooland.

Labels like Edwardian, Conservatives, Libertarian, Centrist etc. etc. I
guess serve some purpose. However when the tire is flat, you can call it
a chicken fart if you want to but the tire remains flat. We have a bunch
of flat tires right now and our old ways of dealing with them by saying
let the Federal Government solve them hasn't worked. Most of the flat
tires have been caused by government getting involved, making thoughtless
decisions that have created long lived agencies that are expensive and
don't really provide much bang for the buck.


Nonsense. That's your conclusion. And your solution is just to do away with
them. Some solution! The problems are still there. Under your program, the
difference is that they won't be dealt with at all.


I'm talking about the 3 star general in charge of the Strategic Defense
Command responsible for the Star Wars stuff getting his hand caught in
the cooky jar setting himself up with BDC for a post retirement job.


How would libertarianism fix that, or any of the other things you've
listed?


To start with the laws and rules that already exist would be enforced. I
was restricted to a certain time (IFIRC 2 years) from entering into
employment with any contractor with whom I had business during my career.
Those are being enforced at the lower levels but certainly not at the
higher.


Wait a minute. I thought that libertarians wanted to *reduce* the laws and
rules. Now you're talking about stricter enforcement. Is this just a call
for stricter authoritarianism, after all? It sounds like it.

It all looks like some kind of blind faith. What kind, I have no idea.


What are you, a radical who has a program for overturning tradition?


Of course not tradition should be worshiped and never examined for
applicability. "Thats the way we've always done it" is just an outstanding
justification for doing things. The traditional stuff I was told when I
went to work for the Government turned out to be mainly eyewash. The real
rules and values were involved in how to get your ass up the ladder and
make as much as you could. Another personal example: High ranking DoD
official told me that he needed a $450M project started next year. I
asked him for some details, sinch as an engineer I might be able to help.
His response was: "I don't know what it will be but that is the funding
level of a project that I need under my control to get the Senior
Executive Service position". This guy certainly did think his process
thru. From my point of view looking into a non-libertarian run
government, this kind of thing needs to be changed. Our current
government service of just laying on another "watch dog" agency. Won't
work. Hell here is another: GAO audited my group at the Kwajalein
Missile Range. We were audited to determine whether we were providing a
useful function. Sounds good doesn't it. They also audited another group
where my wife worked. AAH!! The government is really accountable and
taking care of business. There auditing technique for my branch consisted
almost entirely of MEASURING THE VOLUME OF OUR FILE CABINETS. They could
have been empty file cabinets. What we did and how many people were
required to do it never entered into the questions. I even suggested that
they ask us what our plans for the year were and what we expected to
produce. I was ignored.


Let me ask again: What is there about the libertarian program that would fix
this problem? It sounds like you want better government. Libertarians want
as little government as possible. Those aren't the same thing. In fact,
they're close to being opposites.


Yes Ed the libertarians don't think their process thru like the current
thoughtful government. These aren't opinions of what would happen if.
They are factual experiences that I've had with the current operation of
the Government. If changing to Libertarian would help correct some of
these I'm all for it.


I would be, too. But there is nothing in the party platform, and nothing
I've seen in the writings of Ron Paul and the other nutballs, that would do
one damned thing to correct it.

I have absolutely no faith that either Obama or McCain are going to
change any of the above. At least Ron Paul talked about reigning in the
Feds and stopping the deficit spending. Ron Paul wanted to debate the
foreign policy and the negative effects it was creating. Whether you
agreed with his opinions or not it would have certainly put our policies
out for a badly needed review.


His idea of "review" is to promote his wacky ideas. He wants to de-regulate
pharmaceuticals. He wants to do away with the FDA. Does the man have no
knowledge of history whatsoever? Doesn't he know what happened when drugs
were unregulated? Have you ever seen the early trial results on new drugs,
where they kill rats and dogs, and often a few humans, trying to figure out
what is safe?

He's a nut, Stu. And so is the whole libertatian program -- a nutty solution
to complicated problems. It pretends that you can just make a problem go
away by ignoring it. Nutty ideas for nutty people, like Ron Paul.

--
Ed Huntress




  #151   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Naw This is just a waste of time and keystrokes. I haven't learned
anything new and I would bet a bunch neither have you. All this energy
with no yield is definitely a waste of time.


I'll go along with that, but what I take from this is that I've heard not
one idea from you, Larry, or any other self-proclaimed libertarian that
would solve a single problem you've brought up, except to ignore it and hope
it goes away. I really don't get how grown people can swallow this nonsense.
And it is nonsense -- a utopian idea that people will get better, and things
will get better, if you just ignore them.

And most people recognize it, Stu. That's why Ron Paul and the other crazies
are going to be marginalized as long as they promote ideas that have no
basis in history or experience, and no logic to support the idea that they
will do something positive. It's all just an expression of frustration with
the imperfection of people and the messiness of government in general.

--
Ed Huntress


  #152   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 17:52:32 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

I said:
Pardon me. I forgot the implications of cow farts and the ozone. I'm
curious as to what the figures are, though. Does it contrast organic
vs. commercial cattle products and lifespan? THAT could be an eye
opener.


I doubt if there are any such studies. You have to coordinate studies that
show triglycerides and other lipid levels that correspond to eating a lot
of
beef, and the cardio studies that coordinate those levels with mortality.
It
takes some work and some knowledge of stats, but it's there.

Not that it keeps me from eating beef. But thanks to wonder drugs, my
total
cholesterol is 81. d8-)


I had mine tested once. It was 231. I went on a "cholesterol-free"
diet for six months and was retested at 219. I said "FTN" and stopped
worrying.


I don't have a lot of choice, so I'm on the drugs. They dropped me from
around 215 to 81. Yike.




Evidently, most are hetero and have sex only with consenting partners
only. Pretty wild, huh?

What's your evidence for this? I've seen nothing to support your point.

The proof is self-evident. There are no criminal reports or scandals.


Of what? How do you know if a criminal is a libertarian?


"Mr. X, libertarian councilman, was arrested today..."


If you're talking about Libertarian officials, there aren't enough to
produce any statistics.


So WTF are you so terrified about?


Who's terrified? I find libertarians annoying, but not terrifying.



Shrub is a strong President?


He's a twit who currently holds a powerful office. That makes him
something
like a teenager with booze and the keys to your car.


Yeah, and we know what PJ O'Rourke said about that combination...


Which particular powerful Libertarian pushed through that loophole in
the money game, Ed?


Dumb comeback, Larry. What additional regulations would a Libertarian have
voted for? Since they oppose vitually all of them: "We favor free-market
banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository
institutions of all types," it appears they not only would have voted
against new regulations, but they would have actively worked to strip
those
few regulations that exist.


We don't see all regulation as bad, Ed. Just most.


And the ones out of favor seem to change, depending on whose ox is being
gored. For example, who would have thought that FEMA's flood-plain building
regulations are going to bring the United States to its knees?


I don't see any libertarian business owners, city councilors, mayors,
or governors being indicted, Ed.


How do you know which business owners are libertarians? Is it something
that
comes up in court? g And how about those statistics on all those
Libertarian government officials? Do you have percentages with meaningful
stats?


According to you and our wonderful news media, being a libertarian is
akin to being labeled a KKKer or radical Muslim.


Nonsense. It's more like being a hog farmer in Brooklyn.

Every time one makes
the news, which isn't very damned often (Even the arrest of a
Presidential candidate at the debates didn't make the national news
the same day in Badnarik's case) it's a miracle.


Or
do excellent track records not figure into your theories against
libertarians? You're awfully hot over this, Ed. Have you looked at
what's affecting your perspective yet? Please do.

What in the hell is that statement supposed to mean? English, please.

You seem to have a real "thing" against libertarians and you can't
provide any hard evidence against them when I ask for your
clarifications about your future predictions.


First off, some of my best friends are liberatarians. They aren't my
smartest friends, but they're friends.


Asswipe.


Secondly, the evidence is what businesses like Enron and financial
businesses like hedge funds have been doing to screw us in recent years.
They can screw us because the lack of regulations allow them to.
Libertarians want even fewer regulations: "The only proper role of
government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate
disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is
protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control
or manage trade, are improper in a free society." If that isn't enough
evidence for you of the "future predictions" that would come true if we
had
even FEWER regulations, then you truly are off in a cloud of wishful
thinking.

Thirdly, it's just fun to tweak your nose. d8-)


AHA! The truth finally comes out.


So, what is it that is
affecting your perspective? Did a Libertarian scare your mother when
she was pregnant with you, or something?


There aren't enough libertarians around to matter much regarding anything.
There are people who call themselves libertarians, but, like Stuart, most
of
them turn out to be moralists with an authoritarian streak who just want
people to behave better than they do. More wishful thinking.


shrug


P.S: My Tundra weighs only 4,850 lbs....

Dry weight. You're 98% liquid, and so is your fuel and coolant. d8-)

Yeah, I foud that out this morning when I took down my 9x9' boxwood
tree/shrub. DAMN those things are heavy. My 6-ounce t-shirt weighed
over two pounds with my externalized liquid during that hour of work.
Now I have a bigass stump. I think I'll ask my neighbor if I can
borrow his little trencher/backhoe for half an hour.


Stump grinders do a good job with a hell of a lot less work. They'll grind
it down a few inches below ground level and you can just cover them with
dirt. As they rot out, you just top-dress the area with an inch or two of
dirt every year.


I wish I'd thought of that. I haven't seen one in two decades.


You can rent stump grinders at Home Depot and other tool rentals. Nobody
digs out big stumps and roots anymore.


The last time I had someone use one of those, it was in my yard in CA.
They ground up 6 yucca stumps. Let me warn you that if you ever have a
yucca stump ground in your yard, you'd better hold a freakin' shotgun
to the guy's head until he has cleaned up every last ounce of chipped
yucca from your yard and hauled it off. I was on the phone every day
for two weeks to get the guy to come haul off what smelled like dead
dog meat out there. It was absolutely ungodly.


Yucc.

I also have a holly tree whose stump/trunk was about a foot in
diameter and whose rootball is over 2' in diameter. I've dug down a
foot and a half, severed all side roots, and it still isn't budging.


You're bringing back horrible memories from my youth. I HATE stumps. My


I don't mind small stumps and shrub rootball clusters, which is most
of my work around here. But large tree roots like the two in my yard
are proving to be a lot tougher. I'll see if my shop crane will hoist
those stumps out, and if not, I'll see about that grinder. Good call.
I forgot they existed, probably due to my last experience with one. I
hate that MF to this day.


A wild cherry tree that was too close to my garage got cut down (sawing
boards for boxes from it gave my bandsaw a workout -- after I split it two
ways to get it on the saw) and stump-ground around 25 years ago. I had to
top-dress for around six or seven years (it was one big mutha of a cherry)
and then it stopped subsiding. Now the spot grows great hastas.

We just ground down four maples on the property line with my neighbor,
around a month ago. The new grass already looks great. And I may get a
chance to try it on the maple in my front yard soon. I already got an
estimate on the job. The maple is 84 years old and over three feet in
diameter, but it's getting hollow inside and it's vulnerable -- and it could
land right on my house.


grandfather used to dynamite them, but he had ten acres and it was a
different time. His ten acres were inside the town limits. d8-)


I'd love to use dynamite on these but I don't think that's in the
cards. My water line from my pumphouse is about 3' away from the holly
stump. The gas line feeding my house is about 4' away from the boxwood
stump, too. g


At least the water would put the fire out.

... and can tote an extra 1,750 lbs
in the bed. The beefyness of the truck ensures that it can also haul
more weight safely, 8,500 pounds worth.

And do you haul 8.500 pounds with it? I thought you said that the most
you
carry is 500 pounds of tools, right?

No, I've hauled trailers, mixers, and welders with it and I use the
receiver hitch for helping pull stumps, etc.


Well, then, if you really need it, you're screwed. That is, unless you can
raise your prices enough to pay for the fuel.


Yeah. Wish me luck in that!


Luck.

--
Ed Huntress


  #153   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default OT-143 days

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:58:59 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
. ..

snip

Naw This is just a waste of time and keystrokes. I haven't learned
anything new and I would bet a bunch neither have you. All this energy
with no yield is definitely a waste of time.


I'll go along with that, but what I take from this is that I've heard not
one idea from you, Larry, or any other self-proclaimed libertarian that
would solve a single problem you've brought up, except to ignore it and hope
it goes away. I really don't get how grown people can swallow this nonsense.
And it is nonsense -- a utopian idea that people will get better, and things
will get better, if you just ignore them.

And most people recognize it, Stu. That's why Ron Paul and the other crazies
are going to be marginalized as long as they promote ideas that have no
basis in history or experience, and no logic to support the idea that they
will do something positive. It's all just an expression of frustration with
the imperfection of people and the messiness of government in general.


Ed, if we simply tossed out a few thousand of our superfluous laws
(TBD) and enforced the truly valid ones, things would immediately
improve.

People would feel less abused, cops would get a helluva lot more
respect, and courts might get the time they need to give proper
handling to criminals.

----------------------------------
VIRTUE...is its own punishment
==================================
  #154   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:58:59 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
...

snip

Naw This is just a waste of time and keystrokes. I haven't learned
anything new and I would bet a bunch neither have you. All this energy
with no yield is definitely a waste of time.


I'll go along with that, but what I take from this is that I've heard not
one idea from you, Larry, or any other self-proclaimed libertarian that
would solve a single problem you've brought up, except to ignore it and
hope
it goes away. I really don't get how grown people can swallow this
nonsense.
And it is nonsense -- a utopian idea that people will get better, and
things
will get better, if you just ignore them.

And most people recognize it, Stu. That's why Ron Paul and the other
crazies
are going to be marginalized as long as they promote ideas that have no
basis in history or experience, and no logic to support the idea that they
will do something positive. It's all just an expression of frustration
with
the imperfection of people and the messiness of government in general.


Ed, if we simply tossed out a few thousand of our superfluous laws
(TBD) and enforced the truly valid ones, things would immediately
improve.


Is TBD something like "a player to be named later"? I assume you'd create a
government agency to judge which laws are superfluous, right? g


People would feel less abused, cops would get a helluva lot more
respect, and courts might get the time they need to give proper
handling to criminals.


TBD, as you say. Remember the immortal words of Robert Bork (and the
smartest thing he ever said) "All laws are legislation of morality." It's
absolutely true, and the consequences of that simple statement are the root
of every problem you have with the laws, and that Stuart has with the
agencies -- and that all of us have with the financial-system meltdown. The
laws are the result of political judgments about what people think is right
and what they think is wrong, and that has no necessary connection to what
works and what doesn't.

Less ideology, more pragmatic centrism, and we'll all be a lot better off.
We've had enough of government that makes us feel good about our moral
theories. What we need is government that works to achieve our basic
aspirations.

--
Ed Huntress


  #155   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default OT-143 days

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:28:12 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .


Ed, if we simply tossed out a few thousand of our superfluous laws
(TBD) and enforced the truly valid ones, things would immediately
improve.


Is TBD something like "a player to be named later"? I assume you'd create a
government agency to judge which laws are superfluous, right? g


Nah, I thought I'd simply tell the gov't what I thought should stay.
wink


People would feel less abused, cops would get a helluva lot more
respect, and courts might get the time they need to give proper
handling to criminals.


TBD, as you say. Remember the immortal words of Robert Bork (and the
smartest thing he ever said) "All laws are legislation of morality." It's
absolutely true, and the consequences of that simple statement are the root
of every problem you have with the laws, and that Stuart has with the
agencies -- and that all of us have with the financial-system meltdown. The
laws are the result of political judgments about what people think is right
and what they think is wrong, and that has no necessary connection to what
works and what doesn't.

Less ideology, more pragmatic centrism, and we'll all be a lot better off.
We've had enough of government that makes us feel good about our moral
theories. What we need is government that works to achieve our basic
aspirations.


It's such a pity that those two things are so far apart in reality.

Alas, I do agree that ideology ain't gonna cut it, but it sure feels
good.

EOF

----------------------------------
VIRTUE...is its own punishment
==================================
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
O/T: It' Been One Of Those days Lew Hodgett[_2_] Woodworking 12 May 2nd 08 11:57 PM
Win XP goes off after 30 days [email protected] Electronics Repair 33 March 5th 08 02:30 AM
Is everything around $400 these days? MRS. CLEAN Home Repair 8 November 6th 06 09:29 PM
Those were the days! bobandcarole Electronics Repair 12 September 18th 06 07:39 PM
$759,350.00 in 20 to 60 days!!!!!!!!! arfykins Woodturning 0 March 19th 05 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"