| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Just a heads up....
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
Ok, so as long as they are available, let's send them down to our Southern border for some real Homeland Security duties Maryland? Nah, gotta keep those undesirables from Cook county Ill from invading my state. I'm waiting for our Southern friends to pipe up about protecting their northern borders. ;) Wes -- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller |
Just a heads up....
"Wes" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote: Ok, so as long as they are available, let's send them down to our Southern border for some real Homeland Security duties Maryland? Nah, gotta keep those undesirables from Cook county Ill from invading my state. I'm waiting for our Southern friends to pipe up about protecting their northern borders. ;) Wes They tried that once before, didn't they? d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
OT Just a heads up.... OT PBS "Worse Than War", about genocide(s)
i hate initiating an off topic thread. what i usually do is post within an
already existing off topic thread. i just saw "worse than war" on pbs. while i was watcing it i thought about ed's posts about our shared duty of standing up against genocide. (i think previous discussions would fit the definition of "genocide".) it would be horrific to see corpses lying dead in the streets of the united states (the images from rwanda, just replace americans for the rwandans)(it would permanently damage the psyches of our children). i'm embarrassed to say i didn't realize how right ed was in what he said. it kinda went right by me. i didn't fully comprehend what he was writing about. i would've thought you would have had to be there (in a country that experienced a genocide) to fully comprehend the need to speak out against it. it's strange what you can learn on a (dumb, stupid, trivial, waste-of-time) usenet newsgroup. thanks ed for speaking out against it (having rational arguments against it). i'd say that would be closer to american patriotism. worse than war will be rebroadcast on friday. Worse Than War Friday, April 16, 2:30am 13 (Thirteen/WNET New York) Based on Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's book of the same title, this film explores the anatomy of genocide: why genocides begin, are sustained, and end; why societies support them; why they happen so frequently; and how the international community can stop them. the author/film maker speaking on the making of "worse than war" http://video.pbs.org/video/1468828387/ |
OT Just a heads up.... OT PBS "Worse Than War", about genocide(s)
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:24:06 -0500, "William Wixon"
wrote: i hate initiating an off topic thread. what i usually do is post within an already existing off topic thread. i just saw "worse than war" on pbs. while i was watcing it i thought about ed's posts about our shared duty of standing up against genocide. (i think previous discussions would fit the definition of "genocide".) it would be horrific to see corpses lying dead in the streets of the united states Given that the corpses will for the most part be Leftwingers...it wouldnt bother me anymore than viewing the large numbers of opposem corpses I see on the roadways in So. California. After all..its not like Leftwingers are actually human or anything..shrug. Gunner "First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity. This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost |
Just a heads up....
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
Maryland? Nah, gotta keep those undesirables from Cook county Ill from invading my state. I'm waiting for our Southern friends to pipe up about protecting their northern borders. ;) Wes They tried that once before, didn't they? d8-) I think tried once without a manufacturing base to support their efforts. ^o) Wes |
Just a heads up....
"Wes" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote: Maryland? Nah, gotta keep those undesirables from Cook county Ill from invading my state. I'm waiting for our Southern friends to pipe up about protecting their northern borders. ;) Wes They tried that once before, didn't they? d8-) I think tried once without a manufacturing base to support their efforts. ^o) Wes Now they can defend themselves with Toyotas and Hyundais -- if they can get enough parts from Asia... -- Ed Huntress |
Just a heads up....
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 04:43:15 -0400, Wes
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote: Maryland? Nah, gotta keep those undesirables from Cook county Ill from invading my state. I'm waiting for our Southern friends to pipe up about protecting their northern borders. ;) Wes They tried that once before, didn't they? d8-) I think tried once without a manufacturing base to support their efforts. ^o) Wes True indeed. However..that has changed significantly..reversed in fact. It would seem that manufacturing in the southern states is virutally on the same level or more than the northern states now. Gunner "First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity. This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost |
Just a heads up....
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
: Now they can defend themselves with Toyotas and Hyundais -- if they can get enough parts from Asia... Also Fords, Dodges, and a whole slew of military vehicles - not to mention the shipyards, munitions plants, and other non-union manufacturing facilities. Thanks to the NIMBY attitudes of the yankees and left-coasters there's the majority of refineries and sufficient petroleum production to enable us to be self-sufficient while letting the snow belt freeze over each winter. FWIW, a high volume of yankees migrate south each winter and provide us with quite a bit of their children's/grandchildren's inheritances... |
Just a heads up....
Gunner Asch wrote in
: However..that has changed significantly..reversed in fact. It would seem that manufacturing in the southern states is virutally on the same level or more than the northern states now. While the Armed Conflict Phase has been over for quite a while, The War of The Northern Agression continues - and the South is winning! While the Left Coast rejects both manufacturing and petroleum production and the Yankees (who have truly become the Union States) have converted from Capitalism to Socialism with a corresponding shift from work to welfare, the Southern States have not only retained their work ethic but their jobs as well. BTW, for those who haven't figured it out yet, a map of the US that shows the railroad lines as of 1860 will explain why the ACP came to an easily- predicted conclusion: Logistics and Mobility. |
Just a heads up....
"Eregon" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in : Now they can defend themselves with Toyotas and Hyundais -- if they can get enough parts from Asia... Also Fords, Dodges, and a whole slew of military vehicles - not to mention the shipyards, munitions plants, and other non-union manufacturing facilities. Thanks to the NIMBY attitudes of the yankees and left-coasters there's the majority of refineries and sufficient petroleum production to enable us to be self-sufficient while letting the snow belt freeze over each winter. FWIW, a high volume of yankees migrate south each winter and provide us with quite a bit of their children's/grandchildren's inheritances... Total manufacturing in the south, even including states like Oklahoma and New Mexico, is 39% of the US total. Don't start another rebellion. g The supposed amount of manufacturing in the south is grossly overestimated by most people. It's startling because there was so little manufacturing in the past, but there isn't all that much of it now, either. -- Ed Huntress |
Just a heads up....
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
: "Eregon" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in : Now they can defend themselves with Toyotas and Hyundais -- if they can get enough parts from Asia... Also Fords, Dodges, and a whole slew of military vehicles - not to mention the shipyards, munitions plants, and other non-union manufacturing facilities. Thanks to the NIMBY attitudes of the yankees and left-coasters there's the majority of refineries and sufficient petroleum production to enable us to be self-sufficient while letting the snow belt freeze over each winter. FWIW, a high volume of yankees migrate south each winter and provide us with quite a bit of their children's/grandchildren's inheritances... Total manufacturing in the south, even including states like Oklahoma and New Mexico, is 39% of the US total. Don't start another rebellion. g The supposed amount of manufacturing in the south is grossly overestimated by most people. It's startling because there was so little manufacturing in the past, but there isn't all that much of it now, either. Given the broadcast media's and government's reports, the NE is already down the tubes. Of course, nobody ever believes either of those sources...g BTW, Ed, the biggest difference between Southern and Union manufacturing is that the Southern plants are hiring and the Union plants aren't. |
Just a heads up....
"Eregon" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in : "Eregon" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in : Now they can defend themselves with Toyotas and Hyundais -- if they can get enough parts from Asia... Also Fords, Dodges, and a whole slew of military vehicles - not to mention the shipyards, munitions plants, and other non-union manufacturing facilities. Thanks to the NIMBY attitudes of the yankees and left-coasters there's the majority of refineries and sufficient petroleum production to enable us to be self-sufficient while letting the snow belt freeze over each winter. FWIW, a high volume of yankees migrate south each winter and provide us with quite a bit of their children's/grandchildren's inheritances... Total manufacturing in the south, even including states like Oklahoma and New Mexico, is 39% of the US total. Don't start another rebellion. g The supposed amount of manufacturing in the south is grossly overestimated by most people. It's startling because there was so little manufacturing in the past, but there isn't all that much of it now, either. Given the broadcast media's and government's reports, the NE is already down the tubes. Which government report is that? Of course, nobody ever believes either of those sources...g BTW, Ed, the biggest difference between Southern and Union manufacturing is that the Southern plants are hiring and the Union plants aren't. Not really: http://lehd.did.census.gov/led/JobGa...Q1/A00000E.pdf There's no real pattern. Even in 2008, some southern states were experiencing among the highest rates of job losses in manufacturing. Or do you have more recent, specific comparative data? -- Ed Huntress |
Just a heads up....
"Ed Huntress" wrote in news:4bc7592c$0$5014
: There's no real pattern. Even in 2008, some southern states were experiencing among the highest rates of job losses in manufacturing. Yah - Union states. Union jobs vanish and get replaced by non-Union jobs in other (non-Union) states. Texas, for example, has experienced an upswing in new manufacturing as well as "a rash" of new machine-shop business openings (often in small/rural towns). The South is winning! -- The most frightening sentence in the English Language: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." |
Just a heads up....
Eregon wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in news:4bc7592c$0$5014 : The South is winning! Whatever you say. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics..._main_street/1 -- John R. Carroll |
Just a heads up....
Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in news:A- : http://www.rollingstone.com/politics..._main_street/1 Dumbasses dominate governments at every levels. It's too bad that those particular dumbasses permitted their particular government to get trapped that way but it's not a regional issue. There ARE states that prohibit deficit spending by governmental entities. grin I think Alabama is one of them. I know California is. Both are in financial trouble, although I'd rather be California. From the article, it'd seem that the county's dumbasses got a bit too ambitious and stayed in office a bit too long... That's half the story. -- John R. Carroll |
Just a heads up....
Given the broadcast media's and government's reports, the NE is already down the tubes. Of course, nobody ever believes either of those sources...g BTW, Ed, the biggest difference between Southern and Union manufacturing is that the Southern plants are hiring and the Union plants aren't. that's because they pay the workers ten bucks an hour or less and give them no benefits. Why else would anyone open a factory in the south. It's the only place in the country where they still let management exploit the workers. In the north they just get more productivity out of the same workers but they get fair pay and benefits. Hawke |
Just a heads up....
On 4/15/2010 7:39 AM, Eregon wrote:
Gunner wrote in : However..that has changed significantly..reversed in fact. It would seem that manufacturing in the southern states is virutally on the same level or more than the northern states now. While the Armed Conflict Phase has been over for quite a while, The War of The Northern Agression continues - and the South is winning! While the Left Coast rejects both manufacturing and petroleum production and the Yankees (who have truly become the Union States) have converted from Capitalism to Socialism with a corresponding shift from work to welfare, the Southern States have not only retained their work ethic but their jobs as well. BTW, for those who haven't figured it out yet, a map of the US that shows the railroad lines as of 1860 will explain why the ACP came to an easily- predicted conclusion: Logistics and Mobility. That's right. When you looked at the statistics it was not very hard to figure out which side had all the cards. Yet the south still put the country through hell and forced the war just to keep from giving up slavery. All you can say about people who would do that and betray the country they swore oaths to protect and defend is they were the biggest assholes in the world. Hawke |
OT Just a heads up.... OT PBS "Worse Than War", about genocide(s)
"William Wixon" wrote in message ... i hate initiating an off topic thread. what i usually do is post within an already existing off topic thread. i just saw "worse than war" on pbs. while i was watcing it i thought about ed's posts about our shared duty of standing up against genocide. (i think previous discussions would fit the definition of "genocide".) it would be horrific to see corpses lying dead in the streets of the united states (the images from rwanda, just replace americans for the rwandans)(it would permanently damage the psyches of our children). i'm embarrassed to say i didn't realize how right ed was in what he said. it kinda went right by me. i didn't fully comprehend what he was writing about. i would've thought you would have had to be there (in a country that experienced a genocide) to fully comprehend the need to speak out against it. it's strange what you can learn on a (dumb, stupid, trivial, waste-of-time) usenet newsgroup. thanks ed for speaking out against it (having rational arguments against it). i'd say that would be closer to american patriotism. worse than war will be rebroadcast on friday. Worse Than War Friday, April 16, 2:30am 13 (Thirteen/WNET New York) Aack! I just turned on my TV to watch it. No show. So I looked at your message again -- it says 2:30 AM! g Oh, well, I tried. I see that WLIW has it on next week -- at times I'm actually up. d8-) Thanks for the heads up, William. -- Ed Huntress |
OT Just a heads up.... OT PBS "Worse Than War", aboutgenocide(s)
On Apr 15, 1:20*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:24:06 -0500, "William Wixon" wrote: i hate initiating an off topic thread. *what i usually do is post within an already existing off topic thread. i just saw "worse than war" on pbs. while i was watcing it i thought about ed's posts about our shared duty of standing up against genocide. *(i think previous discussions would fit the definition of "genocide".) *it would be horrific to see corpses lying dead in the streets of the united states Given that the corpses will for the most part be Leftwingers...it wouldnt bother me anymore than viewing the large numbers of opposem corpses I see on the roadways in So. California. After all..its not like Leftwingers are actually human or anything..shrug. Gunner It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: Go **** yourself, you self-righteous piece of ****. |
Just a heads up....
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
: California isn't spending beyond it's means at all. Then just *how* is the PRK in "financial difficulty"? |
Just a heads up....
Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in : California isn't spending beyond it's means at all. Then just *how* is the PRK in "financial difficulty"? Because of the way revenues are levied/collected and mandated conditions on spending imposed through the ballot initiative process. -- John R. Carroll |
Just a heads up....
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
: Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote in : California isn't spending beyond it's means at all. Then just *how* is the PRK in "financial difficulty"? Because of the way revenues are levied/collected and mandated conditions on spending imposed through the ballot initiative process. IOW, the Democ-rats have the money but they can't buy votes with it? |
Just a heads up....
On Apr 16, 9:03*pm, Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote om: Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote in om: California isn't spending beyond it's means at all. Then just *how* is the PRK in "financial difficulty"? Because of the way revenues are levied/collected and mandated conditions on spending imposed through the ballot initiative process. IOW, the Democ-rats have the money but they can't buy votes with it? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with assholes like Gunner not paying their taxes and living on welfare, could it? |
Just a heads up....
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
: rangerssuck wrote: On Apr 16, 9:03 pm, Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote om: Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote in : California isn't spending beyond it's means at all. Then just *how* is the PRK in "financial difficulty"? Because of the way revenues are levied/collected and mandated conditions on spending imposed through the ballot initiative process. IOW, the Democ-rats have the money but they can't buy votes with it? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with assholes like Gunner not paying their taxes and living on welfare, could it? There are a number of connected issues. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives imposing mandatory spending requirements as a percentage of revenues, and in some cases dollars, for a number of things. There are things that can't legally be cut. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that make budget surpluses illegal. This guarantees that programs that are beneficial or even essential are cut during the down years. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives limiting taxes in truly odd ways. Proposition 13 is a perfect example. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that require the State to do things, like "Three Strikes", but haven't been willing to pay for the consequences. The prison population in CA is expensive. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that require a balanced budget every year. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives term limiting most politicians at the State level. What we now have is elected officials out looking for their next gig just about the time they get the hang of the job and they aren't above being "helpful" to prospective employeers when required. In fact, it's become a way of life. You learn your job during the first term and then do whatever is necessary to secure employment when you are term limited out of office. None of these involve corrupt or incompetent politicians. We have that as well but not beyond what you'd expect anywhere else. Californian's are reaping what they have unwittingly sewn. Like I said, it's stupidity not extravagance. There is plenty of money around. IOW, the nickname of the PRK - The Granola State: The Land of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes - is accurate? |
Just a heads up....
On 17 Apr 2010 01:03:09 GMT, Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in m: Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote in : California isn't spending beyond it's means at all. Then just *how* is the PRK in "financial difficulty"? Because of the way revenues are levied/collected and mandated conditions on spending imposed through the ballot initiative process. IOW, the Democ-rats have the money but they can't buy votes with it? And they cant raise the tax rates. However...they are really handy with Fee generation. Gunner "First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity. This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost |
Just a heads up....
rangerssuck wrote:
On Apr 16, 9:03 pm, Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote om: Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote in : California isn't spending beyond it's means at all. Then just *how* is the PRK in "financial difficulty"? Because of the way revenues are levied/collected and mandated conditions on spending imposed through the ballot initiative process. IOW, the Democ-rats have the money but they can't buy votes with it? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with assholes like Gunner not paying their taxes and living on welfare, could it? There are a number of connected issues. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives imposing mandatory spending requirements as a percentage of revenues, and in some cases dollars, for a number of things. There are things that can't legally be cut. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that make budget surpluses illegal. This guarantees that programs that are beneficial or even essential are cut during the down years. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives limiting taxes in truly odd ways. Proposition 13 is a perfect example. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that require the State to do things, like "Three Strikes", but haven't been willing to pay for the consequences. The prison population in CA is expensive. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that require a balanced budget every year. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives term limiting most politicians at the State level. What we now have is elected officials out looking for their next gig just about the time they get the hang of the job and they aren't above being "helpful" to prospective employeers when required. In fact, it's become a way of life. You learn your job during the first term and then do whatever is necessary to secure employment when you are term limited out of office. None of these involve corrupt or incompetent politicians. We have that as well but not beyond what you'd expect anywhere else. Californian's are reaping what they have unwittingly sewn. Like I said, it's stupidity not extravagance. There is plenty of money around. -- John R. Carroll |
Just a heads up....
Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in : rangerssuck wrote: On Apr 16, 9:03 pm, Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote om: Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote in : California isn't spending beyond it's means at all. Then just *how* is the PRK in "financial difficulty"? Because of the way revenues are levied/collected and mandated conditions on spending imposed through the ballot initiative process. IOW, the Democ-rats have the money but they can't buy votes with it? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with assholes like Gunner not paying their taxes and living on welfare, could it? There are a number of connected issues. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives imposing mandatory spending requirements as a percentage of revenues, and in some cases dollars, for a number of things. There are things that can't legally be cut. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that make budget surpluses illegal. This guarantees that programs that are beneficial or even essential are cut during the down years. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives limiting taxes in truly odd ways. Proposition 13 is a perfect example. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that require the State to do things, like "Three Strikes", but haven't been willing to pay for the consequences. The prison population in CA is expensive. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that require a balanced budget every year. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives term limiting most politicians at the State level. What we now have is elected officials out looking for their next gig just about the time they get the hang of the job and they aren't above being "helpful" to prospective employeers when required. In fact, it's become a way of life. You learn your job during the first term and then do whatever is necessary to secure employment when you are term limited out of office. None of these involve corrupt or incompetent politicians. We have that as well but not beyond what you'd expect anywhere else. Californian's are reaping what they have unwittingly sewn. Like I said, it's stupidity not extravagance. There is plenty of money around. IOW, the nickname of the PRK - The Granola State: The Land of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes - is accurate? Not really. Some of the hardest working and smartest people I know live here and that's something. I grew up in the midwest. Californian's just don't want to trouble themselves with good government. -- John R. Carroll |
Just a heads up....
On 17 Apr 2010 03:02:12 GMT, Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in m: rangerssuck wrote: On Apr 16, 9:03 pm, Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote om: Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote in : California isn't spending beyond it's means at all. Then just *how* is the PRK in "financial difficulty"? Because of the way revenues are levied/collected and mandated conditions on spending imposed through the ballot initiative process. IOW, the Democ-rats have the money but they can't buy votes with it? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with assholes like Gunner not paying their taxes and living on welfare, could it? There are a number of connected issues. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives imposing mandatory spending requirements as a percentage of revenues, and in some cases dollars, for a number of things. There are things that can't legally be cut. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that make budget surpluses illegal. This guarantees that programs that are beneficial or even essential are cut during the down years. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives limiting taxes in truly odd ways. Proposition 13 is a perfect example. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that require the State to do things, like "Three Strikes", but haven't been willing to pay for the consequences. The prison population in CA is expensive. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that require a balanced budget every year. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives term limiting most politicians at the State level. What we now have is elected officials out looking for their next gig just about the time they get the hang of the job and they aren't above being "helpful" to prospective employeers when required. In fact, it's become a way of life. You learn your job during the first term and then do whatever is necessary to secure employment when you are term limited out of office. None of these involve corrupt or incompetent politicians. We have that as well but not beyond what you'd expect anywhere else. Californian's are reaping what they have unwittingly sewn. Like I said, it's stupidity not extravagance. There is plenty of money around. IOW, the nickname of the PRK - The Granola State: The Land of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes - is accurate? In the leftwing areas..very true indeed. Here is a voting map of California. Its mostly a Red State..in land mass, but it has a number of Blue zones that are heavily Leftwing...and they pull all the strings http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...nty-by-county/ And of course...G http://theelectoralmap.com/2010/03/0...-most-in-debt/ Gunner "First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity. This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost |
Just a heads up....
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message ... On 17 Apr 2010 03:02:12 GMT, Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote in om: rangerssuck wrote: On Apr 16, 9:03 pm, Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote om: Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote in : California isn't spending beyond it's means at all. Then just *how* is the PRK in "financial difficulty"? Because of the way revenues are levied/collected and mandated conditions on spending imposed through the ballot initiative process. IOW, the Democ-rats have the money but they can't buy votes with it? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with assholes like Gunner not paying their taxes and living on welfare, could it? There are a number of connected issues. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives imposing mandatory spending requirements as a percentage of revenues, and in some cases dollars, for a number of things. There are things that can't legally be cut. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that make budget surpluses illegal. This guarantees that programs that are beneficial or even essential are cut during the down years. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives limiting taxes in truly odd ways. Proposition 13 is a perfect example. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that require the State to do things, like "Three Strikes", but haven't been willing to pay for the consequences. The prison population in CA is expensive. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that require a balanced budget every year. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives term limiting most politicians at the State level. What we now have is elected officials out looking for their next gig just about the time they get the hang of the job and they aren't above being "helpful" to prospective employeers when required. In fact, it's become a way of life. You learn your job during the first term and then do whatever is necessary to secure employment when you are term limited out of office. None of these involve corrupt or incompetent politicians. We have that as well but not beyond what you'd expect anywhere else. Californian's are reaping what they have unwittingly sewn. Like I said, it's stupidity not extravagance. There is plenty of money around. IOW, the nickname of the PRK - The Granola State: The Land of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes - is accurate? In the leftwing areas..very true indeed. Here is a voting map of California. Its mostly a Red State..in land mass, but it has a number of Blue zones that are heavily Leftwing...and they pull all the strings http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...nty-by-county/ And of course...G http://theelectoralmap.com/2010/03/0...-most-in-debt/ California is no different than other States that have heavily concentrated liberal populations all sharing one common water supply. Hey, wait a minute... |
Just a heads up....
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 01:36:00 -0500, "Chief Egalitarian"
wrote: "Gunner Asch" wrote in message .. . On 17 Apr 2010 03:02:12 GMT, Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote in news:y6ydnRwbkc9eilTWnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@giganews. com: rangerssuck wrote: On Apr 16, 9:03 pm, Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote om: Eregon wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote in : California isn't spending beyond it's means at all. Then just *how* is the PRK in "financial difficulty"? Because of the way revenues are levied/collected and mandated conditions on spending imposed through the ballot initiative process. IOW, the Democ-rats have the money but they can't buy votes with it? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with assholes like Gunner not paying their taxes and living on welfare, could it? There are a number of connected issues. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives imposing mandatory spending requirements as a percentage of revenues, and in some cases dollars, for a number of things. There are things that can't legally be cut. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that make budget surpluses illegal. This guarantees that programs that are beneficial or even essential are cut during the down years. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives limiting taxes in truly odd ways. Proposition 13 is a perfect example. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that require the State to do things, like "Three Strikes", but haven't been willing to pay for the consequences. The prison population in CA is expensive. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives that require a balanced budget every year. Californian's have passed ballot initiatives term limiting most politicians at the State level. What we now have is elected officials out looking for their next gig just about the time they get the hang of the job and they aren't above being "helpful" to prospective employeers when required. In fact, it's become a way of life. You learn your job during the first term and then do whatever is necessary to secure employment when you are term limited out of office. None of these involve corrupt or incompetent politicians. We have that as well but not beyond what you'd expect anywhere else. Californian's are reaping what they have unwittingly sewn. Like I said, it's stupidity not extravagance. There is plenty of money around. IOW, the nickname of the PRK - The Granola State: The Land of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes - is accurate? In the leftwing areas..very true indeed. Here is a voting map of California. Its mostly a Red State..in land mass, but it has a number of Blue zones that are heavily Leftwing...and they pull all the strings http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...nty-by-county/ And of course...G http://theelectoralmap.com/2010/03/0...-most-in-debt/ California is no different than other States that have heavily concentrated liberal populations all sharing one common water supply. Hey, wait a minute... VBG Gunner "First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity. This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost |
Just a heads up....
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:21:46 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following: Eragon said: IOW, the nickname of the PRK - The Granola State: The Land of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes - is accurate? In the leftwing areas..very true indeed. Here is a voting map of California. Its mostly a Red State..in land mass, but it has a number of Blue zones that are heavily Leftwing...and they pull all the strings http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...nty-by-county/ And of course...G http://theelectoralmap.com/2010/03/0...-most-in-debt/ We Oregonians are also cursed with a blight of demonrats. Only the counties around Portland (main business district from which they siphon funds) and Salem (capital and infestation of legislators) are blue. The rest of us are sane. Our state gov't, in its wisdom, has increased spending 46% since 2005, just increased the tax burden on business so they'll be leaving (removing our tax base), and increased our taxes, at the behest of the blinking Portland/Salem Liberals, who passed Props 66 and 67. Those bills never should have been written, let alone passed. --- A book burrows into your life in a very profound way because the experience of reading is not passive. --Erica Jong |
Just a heads up....
On Apr 17, 10:55*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
Dammit, Dan, if I did that, you'd just say that, "no, you have to look at the individual states and see what percentages they're gaining or losing, because Eregon was talking about states." Admit it. That's exactly what you'd do, right? ). In other words, you don't care what the facts are, you just want to speculate about something that fits your ideology, just like Eregon did. Not interested in finding out what you're talking about, you'd rather live on conservative economic bull**** and content yourself with that. Too bad. By digging out the facts, you get all kinds of surprises, and you realize that the ideologies are all bull****. But it's not very comforting that way, so hang on to your speculations. You always can cook up a good, comforting narrative that way. -- Ed Huntress I really do not care. And I am not trying to cook up a comforting narrative. You might note that I did not say anything about right to work states being better or worse than non right to work states. Or anything concerning the original statement or even your statements. What I am saying is that you can not average percentages the way you did and get meaningful data. You say that the average job loss percentage for the Northeastern states is -5.71 And that is incorrect. Instead of getting all bent out of shape and assuming that I am trying to come up with something to fit my ideology, you would do better to cool down and read what I am saying. You get three figure numbers that do not mean a thing. I am just pointing out that your use of data is incorrect. Dan |
Just a heads up....
|
Just a heads up....
"Chief Egalitarian" on Sat, 17 Apr 2010 01:36:00
-0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: In the leftwing areas..very true indeed. Here is a voting map of California. Its mostly a Red State..in land mass, but it has a number of Blue zones that are heavily Leftwing...and they pull all the strings http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...nty-by-county/ And of course...G http://theelectoralmap.com/2010/03/0...-most-in-debt/ California is no different than other States that have heavily concentrated liberal populations all sharing one common water supply. Hey, wait a minute... You're not saying it is that there is something in the water? Maybe those Merry Pranksters did slip LSD into the water supply... tschus pyotr - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
Just a heads up....
wrote in message ... On Apr 17, 10:55 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Dammit, Dan, if I did that, you'd just say that, "no, you have to look at the individual states and see what percentages they're gaining or losing, because Eregon was talking about states." Admit it. That's exactly what you'd do, right? ). In other words, you don't care what the facts are, you just want to speculate about something that fits your ideology, just like Eregon did. Not interested in finding out what you're talking about, you'd rather live on conservative economic bull**** and content yourself with that. Too bad. By digging out the facts, you get all kinds of surprises, and you realize that the ideologies are all bull****. But it's not very comforting that way, so hang on to your speculations. You always can cook up a good, comforting narrative that way. -- Ed Huntress I really do not care. And I am not trying to cook up a comforting narrative. You might note that I did not say anything about right to work states being better or worse than non right to work states. Or anything concerning the original statement or even your statements. What I am saying is that you can not average percentages the way you did and get meaningful data. Yes you can. What you get is confirmation that the RTW does not improve a state's chance of limiting firings and layoffs. That's the only question that was at issue. You say that the average job loss percentage for the Northeastern states is -5.71 And that is incorrect. No, it's exactly correct. The average job loss percentage for a union state in the Northeast (which is all of them) is -5.71%. Period. Instead of getting all bent out of shape and assuming that I am trying to come up with something to fit my ideology, you would do better to cool down and read what I am saying. You get three figure numbers that do not mean a thing. I did. And I'm getting annoyed with you not reading what was being claimed. There is nothing wrong with the data I dug up and presented. You're just fishing for some way to confound it from an angle that was not claimed. I am just pointing out that your use of data is incorrect. Nope. 'Tell you what Explain precisely what you want to know, and I'll compile the data. I'm not too lazy to run some easily obtainable numbers in an Excel spreadsheet. Just tell us what you want to see. -- Ed Huntress |
Just a heads up....
On Apr 17, 4:19*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
Yes you can. What you get is confirmation that the RTW does not improve a state's chance of limiting firings and layoffs. That's the only question that was at issue. That number has no meaning. You say that the average *job loss percentage *for the Northeastern states is -5.71 *And that is incorrect. No, it's exactly correct. The average job loss percentage for a union state in the Northeast (which is all of them) is -5.71%. Period. Wrong. Instead of getting all bent out of shape and assuming that I am trying to come up with something to fit my ideology, you would do better to cool down and read what I am saying. *You get three figure numbers that do not mean a thing. I did. And I'm getting annoyed with you not reading what was being claimed. There is nothing wrong with the data I dug up and presented. You're just fishing for some way to confound it from an angle that was not claimed. I am just pointing out that your use of data is incorrect. Nope. 'Tell you what Explain precisely what you want to know, and I'll compile the data. I'm not too lazy to run some easily obtainable numbers in an Excel spreadsheet. Just tell us what you want to see. -- Ed Huntress As I said previously, I am not really interested in the whole subject. I was just trying to educate you, but you obviously not interested. So just forget the whole thing. Dan |
Just a heads up....
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:17:44 -0500, Ignoramus25624
wrote: On 2010-04-17, wrote: On Apr 17, 10:55?am, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Dammit, Dan, if I did that, you'd just say that, "no, you have to look at the individual states and see what percentages they're gaining or losing, because Eregon was talking about states." Admit it. That's exactly what you'd do, right? ). In other words, you don't care what the facts are, you just want to speculate about something that fits your ideology, just like Eregon did. Not interested in finding out what you're talking about, you'd rather live on conservative economic bull**** and content yourself with that. Too bad. By digging out the facts, you get all kinds of surprises, and you realize that the ideologies are all bull****. But it's not very comforting that way, so hang on to your speculations. You always can cook up a good, comforting narrative that way. I really do not care. And I am not trying to cook up a comforting narrative. You might note that I did not say anything about right to work states being better or worse than non right to work states. Or anything concerning the original statement or even your statements. What I am saying is that you can not average percentages the way you did and get meaningful data. You say that the average job loss percentage for the Northeastern states is -5.71 And that is incorrect. Instead of getting all bent out of shape and assuming that I am trying to come up with something to fit my ideology, you would do better to cool down and read what I am saying. You get three figure numbers that do not mean a thing. I am just pointing out that your use of data is incorrect. Populations of states are very easy to get, and calculating the population average for a set of state is a 20 minute exercise. Relistically, I would not expect the population weighted average to be significantly different from unweighted average. Practically speaking, the main problem of conservatives is that they listen to conservative entertainment programs. Those programs are all about money, keeping the audience so that advertisers can sell them various junk. They never wanted to be truthful or even to approach reailty. Conservatives swallow this hook, line and sinker and are a prey to advertisers. I have a radio in the shed to keep pests away. It has a conservative host. What is kind of shocking is selection of advertisers. I have heard only the following advertised: o Impotence, Weight loss and balding cures (the ads sound like the products are likely to be snake oil) o IRA scams related to high fee gold IRA accounts o Other investment scams This really does not fit the image of conservatives that I had in my mind. Though I no longer consider myself such, I generally would hope that they, on average, should in some ways be above the level that the ads imply. But, possibly, this is a radio program only intended for a subset of conservatives. That radio program is all about ideology, never carefully considering anything. So I am not surprised that its listeners are basically suckers, and get ads intended for suckers. Non-suckers just would not listen to this. I can try to find out what it is. I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh, but would love to know what is advertised on his programs. The kinds of conservatives that I used to associate with, before the war against Iraq, would be the sort of people who read Wall Street Journal editorials, Milton Friedman, etc. I still susbcribe to most of his ideas, but know that in reality they are usually perverted and used to steal money from wherever they are applied. i Fascinating that your world view is so distorted. Tsk tsk tsk. You "used to associate with conservatives"? So then you now only associate with far leftwing extremist fringe kooks? Interesting. And you wanted to immigrate from Russia why..again? Sounds like you only changed locals, not world view. Gunner "First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity. This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost |
Just a heads up....
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote: wrote in message ... On Apr 17, 10:55 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Dammit, Dan, if I did that, you'd just say that, "no, you have to look at the individual states and see what percentages they're gaining or losing, because Eregon was talking about states." Admit it. That's exactly what you'd do, right? ). In other words, you don't care what the facts are, you just want to speculate about something that fits your ideology, just like Eregon did. Not interested in finding out what you're talking about, you'd rather live on conservative economic bull**** and content yourself with that. Too bad. By digging out the facts, you get all kinds of surprises, and you realize that the ideologies are all bull****. But it's not very comforting that way, so hang on to your speculations. You always can cook up a good, comforting narrative that way. -- Ed Huntress I really do not care. And I am not trying to cook up a comforting narrative. You might note that I did not say anything about right to work states being better or worse than non right to work states. Or anything concerning the original statement or even your statements. What I am saying is that you can not average percentages the way you did and get meaningful data. Yes you can. What you get is confirmation that the RTW does not improve a state's chance of limiting firings and layoffs. That's the only question that was at issue. You say that the average job loss percentage for the Northeastern states is -5.71 And that is incorrect. No, it's exactly correct. The average job loss percentage for a union state in the Northeast (which is all of them) is -5.71%. Period. I don't have an opinion on the politics, but the math is a different matter: Averaging percentages is incorrect unless the populations from which the percentages were computed are equal. Let's take a small example: We have two jars of colored beads, A and B: Jar A contains 1000 beads, of which 100 are black and 900 are white, so 100/(100+900)= 10% are black. Jar B contains 100 beads, 50 are black and 50 are white, so 50% are black. If I pour the contents of Jars A and B into empty Jar C, what percentage of the beads in Jar C are black? If we average the percentages, we get (10%+50%)/2= 30%. If we instead count beads, we get (100+50)/(1000+100)= 14.1%. I submit that 14.1% is correct, not 30%. Joe Gwinn |
Just a heads up....
On Apr 17, 3:17*pm, Ignoramus25624 ignoramus25...@NOSPAM.
25624.invalid wrote: On 2010-04-17, wrote: On Apr 17, 10:55?am, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Dammit, Dan, if I did that, you'd just say that, "no, you have to look at the individual states and see what percentages they're gaining or losing, because Eregon was talking about states." Admit it. That's exactly what you'd do, right? *). In other words, you don't care what the facts are, you just want to speculate about something that fits your ideology, just like Eregon did. Not interested in finding out what you're talking about, you'd rather live on conservative economic bull**** and content yourself with that. Too bad. By digging out the facts, you get all kinds of surprises, and you realize that the ideologies are all bull****. But it's not very comforting that way, so hang on to your speculations. You always can cook up a good, comforting narrative that way. I really do not care. *And I am not trying to cook up a comforting narrative. *You might note that I did not say anything about right to work states being better or worse than non right to work states. *Or anything concerning the original statement or even your statements. What I am saying is that you can not average percentages the way you did and get meaningful data. *You say that the average *job loss percentage *for the Northeastern states is -5.71 *And that is incorrect. Instead of getting all bent out of shape and assuming that I am trying to come up with something to fit my ideology, you would do better to cool down and read what I am saying. *You get three figure numbers that do not mean a thing. I am just pointing out that your use of data is incorrect. Populations of states are very easy to get, and calculating the population average for a set of state is a 20 minute exercise. Relistically, I would not expect the population weighted average to be significantly different from unweighted average. Practically speaking, the main problem of conservatives is that they listen to conservative entertainment programs. Those programs are all about money, keeping the audience so that advertisers can sell them various junk. They never wanted to be truthful or even to approach reailty. Conservatives swallow this hook, line and sinker and are a prey to advertisers. I have a radio in the shed to keep pests away. It has a conservative host. What is kind of shocking is selection of advertisers. I have heard only the following advertised: o Impotence, Weight loss and balding cures (the ads sound * like the products are likely to be snake oil) o IRA scams related to high fee gold IRA accounts o Other investment scams This really does not fit the image of conservatives that I had in my mind. Though I no longer consider myself such, I generally would hope that they, on average, should in some ways be above the level that the ads imply. But, possibly, this is a radio program only intended for a subset of conservatives. That radio program is all about ideology, never carefully considering anything. So I am not surprised that its listeners are basically suckers, and get ads intended for suckers. Non-suckers just would not listen to this. I can try to find out what it is. I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh, but would love to know what is advertised on his programs. The kinds of conservatives that I used to associate with, before the war against Iraq, would be the sort of people who read Wall Street Journal editorials, Milton Friedman, etc. I still susbcribe to most of his ideas, but know that in reality they are usually perverted and used to steal money from wherever they are applied. i When my blood pressure is low, I listen to WABC radio out of New York. An alarming number of advertisers are for tax dodgers "I owed the IRS $45,000, but this company got it settled for $1500." and credit dodgers "I owed $45,000 on my credit cards, but this company got it settled for $1500." For a bunch of conservatives, they have racked up some serious debt. For a bunch of "family values" folks, they do seem to be in an awful hurry to shirk their responsibilities. A lot like Gunner. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:11 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter