"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

"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

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/

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

"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

"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

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

"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...

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.

"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

"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.

"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

"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."

"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

From the article, it'd seem that the county's dumbasses got a bit too
ambitious and stayed in office a bit too long...

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

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

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

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

"William Wixon" wrote in message
news
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

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 ****.

"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

California isn't spending beyond it's means at all.

Then just *how* is the PRK in "financial difficulty"?

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

"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?

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?

"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?

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

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

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

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

"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...

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

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

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

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

"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!

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

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

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

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

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.