http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28...o-handgun-ban/

If you've got a couple of days with nothing else to do you can read the
whole Supreme Court decision he

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10e12 furlongs per fortnight.

"jeff_wisnia" wrote in message
...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28...o-handgun-ban/

If you've got a couple of days with nothing else to do you can read the
whole Supreme Court decision he

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10e12 furlongs per fortnight.

They now need to take the people that were in favor of the gun ban and
punish them a traitors!

RogerN

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"jeff_wisnia" wrote in message
...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28...o-handgun-ban/

If you've got a couple of days with nothing else to do you can read the
whole Supreme Court decision he

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10e12 furlongs per fortnight.

They now need to take the people that were in favor of the gun ban and
punish them a traitors!

Why, Roger? Do you know what treason consists of in the US?

--
Ed Huntress

On 6/28/2010 3:00 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
m...

et wrote in message
...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28...o-handgun-ban/

If you've got a couple of days with nothing else to do you can read the
whole Supreme Court decision he

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10e12 furlongs per fortnight.

They now need to take the people that were in favor of the gun ban and
punish them a traitors!

Why, Roger? Do you know what treason consists of in the US?



Why are you asking this question? Are you practicing at being a trial
lawyer? You're testing out the principle of always knowing the answer
you will get before you ask your question? You could also have asked him
if he's ever actually read the entire U.S. Constitution. That would have
given you the same answer. Nyet!

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"jeff_wisnia" wrote in message
...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28...o-handgun-ban/

If you've got a couple of days with nothing else to do you can read the
whole Supreme Court decision he

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10e12 furlongs per fortnight.

They now need to take the people that were in favor of the gun ban and
punish them a traitors!

Why, Roger? Do you know what treason consists of in the US?

--
Ed Huntress


Going straight against our constitution is the common sense answer, but
probably not liberally correct answer. Did you know the liberal press has a
US constitution printed that comes with warning labels?

RogerN

jeff_wisnia wrote:


http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28...o-handgun-ban/

If you've got a couple of days with nothing else to do you can read the
whole Supreme Court decision he

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Jeff


I downloaded it to my Palm TE. I'll read it during the next few days in the reading room.

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

On Jun 28, 6:00*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"RogerN" wrote in message

m...







"jeff_wisnia" wrote in message
...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28...n-rights-strik....

If you've got a couple of days with nothing else to do you can read the
whole Supreme Court decision he

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10e12 furlongs per fortnight.

They now need to take the people that were in favor of the gun ban and
punish them a traitors!

Why, Roger? Do you know what treason consists of in the US?
Ed Huntress

The more interesting question is if they are now conspiring to deny
civil rights.

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"jeff_wisnia" wrote in message
...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28...o-handgun-ban/

If you've got a couple of days with nothing else to do you can read the
whole Supreme Court decision he

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10e12 furlongs per fortnight.

They now need to take the people that were in favor of the gun ban and
punish them a traitors!

Why, Roger? Do you know what treason consists of in the US?

--
Ed Huntress


Going straight against our constitution is the common sense answer, but
probably not liberally correct answer.

It's not the Constitutionally accurate answer, nor has it ever been. Treason
is very specific. It has, essentially, two faces. One is subverting the duly
elected government -- the "domestic enemies" issue. That's what some of the
rightards here seem to favor.

The other is giving aid or support to foreign enemies.

Did you know the liberal press has a US constitution printed that comes
with warning labels?

I have no idea what you're talking about, Roger. Who is the "liberal press"
that has done this, and what does it say?

--
Ed Huntress

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Jun 28, 6:00 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"RogerN" wrote in message

m...







"jeff_wisnia" wrote in message
...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28...n-rights-strik...

If you've got a couple of days with nothing else to do you can read the
whole Supreme Court decision he

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10e12 furlongs per fortnight.

They now need to take the people that were in favor of the gun ban and
punish them a traitors!

Why, Roger? Do you know what treason consists of in the US?
Ed Huntress

The more interesting question is if they are now conspiring to deny
civil rights.

If you mean Chicago's government, they'll push it as far as they can. They
have a free hand to "regulate," but some of their regulations are likely to
be de facto denial of the rights described in the Heller and McDonald cases.
That's where the battle line will be.

--
Ed Huntress

They now need to take the people that were in favor of the gun ban and
punish them a traitors!

Why, Roger? Do you know what treason consists of in the US?

--
Ed Huntress


Going straight against our constitution is the common sense answer, but
probably not liberally correct answer. Did you know the liberal press has
a US constitution printed that comes with warning labels?

RogerN



there was a time when the first amendment was really important - are you
saying that those who don't agree with you are treasonous? perhaps reading
the text will be helpful

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Now, do you still feel that way? "yes" well, maybe this text will help

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in
General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for
the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the
good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these
United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;
that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that
all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and
ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they
have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish
Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may
of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance
on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

"jeff_wisnia" wrote in message
...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28...o-handgun-ban/

If you've got a couple of days with nothing else to do you can read the
whole Supreme Court decision he

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10e12 furlongs per fortnight.

Can't anybody just apply a bit of common sense here? Just make it illegal
for criminals to have guns! Funny? Not really because any gun law doesn't
affect criminals therefore and gun bans only affect law abiding citizens.
It's all masturbatory.politics The real question is why do leftists want to
ban guns from law abiding citizens?

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:01:25 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:




They now need to take the people that were in favor of the gun ban and
punish them a traitors!

Why, Roger? Do you know what treason consists of in the US?

--
Ed Huntress


Going straight against our constitution is the common sense answer, but
probably not liberally correct answer. Did you know the liberal press has
a US constitution printed that comes with warning labels?

RogerN



there was a time when the first amendment was really important - are you
saying that those who don't agree with you are treasonous? perhaps reading
the text will be helpful

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Now, do you still feel that way? "yes" well, maybe this text will help

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in
General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for
the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the
good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these
United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;
that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that
all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and
ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they
have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish
Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may
of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance
on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."



Based on the comments lately on Usenet from Leftards...it would appear
that anyone that doesnt agree with the Obamassiah or Leftardedness..is a
traitor. In fact..Ed called me a traitor simply because we disagree with
his Leftardedness.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 03:39:31 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"jeff_wisnia" wrote in message
...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28...o-handgun-ban/

If you've got a couple of days with nothing else to do you can read the
whole Supreme Court decision he

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10e12 furlongs per fortnight.

Can't anybody just apply a bit of common sense here? Just make it illegal
for criminals to have guns! Funny? Not really because any gun law doesn't
affect criminals therefore and gun bans only affect law abiding citizens.
It's all masturbatory.politics The real question is why do leftists want to
ban guns from law abiding citizens?

Thats simple. Its the same reason Hitler banned guns from Jews and the
masses.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:01:25 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:




They now need to take the people that were in favor of the gun ban and
punish them a traitors!

Why, Roger? Do you know what treason consists of in the US?

--
Ed Huntress


Going straight against our constitution is the common sense answer, but
probably not liberally correct answer. Did you know the liberal press
has
a US constitution printed that comes with warning labels?

RogerN



there was a time when the first amendment was really important - are you
saying that those who don't agree with you are treasonous? perhaps
reading
the text will be helpful

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Now, do you still feel that way? "yes" well, maybe this text will help

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in
General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
for
the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the
good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these
United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;
that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that
all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is
and
ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States,
they
have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish
Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may
of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance
on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other
our
Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."



Based on the comments lately on Usenet from Leftards...it would appear
that anyone that doesnt agree with the Obamassiah or Leftardedness..is a
traitor. In fact..Ed called me a traitor simply because we disagree with
his Leftardedness.

Bull. Treason requires support for "enemies of the United States." That
includes bands of domestic malcontents who threaten elected officials. Look
up the Court cases and you'll see where you and your attitudes fit into the
law.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 01:31:28 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



The Republicans ran a candidate that Democrats said would be the same as
Bush and many Republicans were not that excited with "McSame" either.
Anyway, probably about 10% of Obama's vote was due to his libtardedness
and socialist ideas.

So, where did the other 90% come from?

Roger already explained that. "While this maybe true, Obama was voted
in because of Democratic lies and because of the color of his skin."

He's a mystery to me. He posts some of the goofiest stuff imaginable,
then manages to give coherent and knowledgeable advice about
industrial controls, a field I know something about and that, in order
to be successful, requires rational and logical reasoning.

--
Ned Simmons

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

No, when you are out, your power is reduced. Think Senate. If you are
really out, well,
you are out. the Republicans are almost out but not out. Keep in mind
this isn't a
democracy aka mob rule. There is that null zone where a simple majority
can't run rough
shod over the rest of us. Must be annoying for you, it sure was annoying
for me during
GWB's administration.

The principled idea is that the basic direction and the election promises
are what the people voted on. Compromise doesn't mean defeating what the
majority voted for. It means negotiating to protect individual INTERESTS of
the opposing party's constituents. That's not what's going on now. The
Republicans are trying to defeat the program itself, changing the basic
direction to one that the minority prefers. They have some power to do that
through congressional rules, but only by stopping legislation, not by
proposing or passing it. Thus, they've become the party of "no," as they've
admitted, and which I documented in a recent post.

I don't think most voters even know what they voted for. Change is a ephemeral word, so
is Hope.


It's a perversion of the principles of representative democracy.

No, it is working just fine.


The disgusting thing is that the Republicans in Congress know how the
American public voted, and they've been doing their best to subvert it. In
other words, they really don't believe in elections or democratic
institutions. Whenever they don't get *their* way, they try to subvert the
whole process. The method they're using is something that's been called
"pushing the Overton Window." Glenn Beck is a big fan.

They have been doing exactly what I expect out of them. Push back.
Senator 41, Scott
Brown from Taxichussits should have been a clue that the dems overreached.
Loosing
Teddy's seat, in a blue state, that should be a freaking clue.

A clue to what? That the Democrat who ran was a washout?

You mean there wasn't one Dem worth a crap to run against Scott Brown? How deep is your
bench? Must not be very deep, we have an unknown that is the Democratic candidate to run
against De Mint in SC. Where the hell did the dems come up with this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene





Republican politicians act as if they'd be happier in a totalitarian
regime.
They clearly don't believe in representative democracy or elections. They
want mob rule by polls when they're out, and to ignore public opinion when
they're in. One trouble they're having right now is that, despite their
prevarications, Obama's favorable rating is still positive. Even the Fox
News poll had him at +2% as of yesterday:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...oval-1044.html

Barely breaking water. Not very good Ed. He won by a significant margin
and he has lost
it.

Way, way ahead of where Reagan was at this point in his term. If "the
people" actually wanted to change direction, he'd be in NEGATIVE territory.
Fewer than half of the people in the country disapprove of what he's doing
overall. In other words, more people approve than disapprove. Remember how
representative democracy works? Jefferson had some words about it:

"A nation ceases to be republican when the will of the majority ceases to be
the law...to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a
single vote, as sacred as if unanimous, is the first of all lessons of
importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt." -- Thomas Jefferson,
letter to Baron Humboldt, 1817.

Here is a clue on how well Obama is leading. It is from the WSJ.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ctions_opinion

Very simple things like easing EPA regulations and a waiver of the Jones act and deploying
skimmers that are not being used seem to be beyond the wonder boy. GWB would have figured
that out in minutes or days. I'm really believing the Obama administration wants this to
be a disaster or just doesn't give a crap since if Jindal looks good, Obama looks bad and
Jindal might be running against him in 2012. If Obama keeps this up, it is guaranteed it
will happen. Jindal is not a light weight like Palain and I'd love to see the leftist
hate mongers go after a son of imimigrants that is brown and a minority.


You are losing your objectivity on this one.

I think you've lost your sense of how our representative democracy works.
You are most certainly forgetting the words of the Founders about what it
necessary for it to succeed.

I think it is working just as it should. The dems should have have won a few more senate
seats if they wanted to secure your agenda. This is not mob rule.

Btw, Chris Cristee was on Fox today, I like that guy. New Jersey might have hope yet.

Wes

Ned Simmons wrote:

On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 01:31:28 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



The Republicans ran a candidate that Democrats said would be the same as
Bush and many Republicans were not that excited with "McSame" either.
Anyway, probably about 10% of Obama's vote was due to his libtardedness
and socialist ideas.

So, where did the other 90% come from?

Roger already explained that. "While this maybe true, Obama was voted
in because of Democratic lies and because of the color of his skin."

He's a mystery to me. He posts some of the goofiest stuff imaginable,
then manages to give coherent and knowledgeable advice about
industrial controls, a field I know something about and that, in order
to be successful, requires rational and logical reasoning.

Politics is totally irrational, at least for one party. I believe the term 'political
science' should take the cup in the category of oxymorons.

The other party, has issues also.


Wes

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 01:31:28 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



The Republicans ran a candidate that Democrats said would be the same as
Bush and many Republicans were not that excited with "McSame" either.
Anyway, probably about 10% of Obama's vote was due to his libtardedness
and socialist ideas.

So, where did the other 90% come from?

Roger already explained that. "While this maybe true, Obama was voted
in because of Democratic lies and because of the color of his skin."

He's a mystery to me. He posts some of the goofiest stuff imaginable,
then manages to give coherent and knowledgeable advice about
industrial controls, a field I know something about and that, in order
to be successful, requires rational and logical reasoning.

--
Ned Simmons

Sometimes I tend to post something that represents my beliefs but in a
outrageous way. For example, I'm mostly pro-life but I'm not persuaded to
think abortion is wrong in every circumstance, but I may have a little fun
posting an extremist position. Sometimes on here I post like the Democrats
are the great Satan but I have many friends that are Democrats that I get
along with just fine. I guess I feel that the Democrat politicians crazy
ideas represent their voters about like the Republican politicians represent
the people that vote Republican. I don't care much for the Republicans but
they tend to vote more in line with what I think is right than the Democrats
do.

Sometimes I just try to post something outrageous just to see the response
:-) The posts are somewhat from my position on the issue but over the top
extreme goofy!

RogerN

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

No, when you are out, your power is reduced. Think Senate. If you are
really out, well,
you are out. the Republicans are almost out but not out. Keep in mind
this isn't a
democracy aka mob rule. There is that null zone where a simple majority
can't run rough
shod over the rest of us. Must be annoying for you, it sure was
annoying
for me during
GWB's administration.

The principled idea is that the basic direction and the election promises
are what the people voted on. Compromise doesn't mean defeating what the
majority voted for. It means negotiating to protect individual INTERESTS
of
the opposing party's constituents. That's not what's going on now. The
Republicans are trying to defeat the program itself, changing the basic
direction to one that the minority prefers. They have some power to do
that
through congressional rules, but only by stopping legislation, not by
proposing or passing it. Thus, they've become the party of "no," as
they've
admitted, and which I documented in a recent post.

I don't think most voters even know what they voted for. Change is a
ephemeral word, so
is Hope.

I voted for universal health care, regulation of the shadow banks, and a
less pugilistic diplomacy. Two out of three ain't bad.



It's a perversion of the principles of representative democracy.

No, it is working just fine.

I see you're not an originalist. The Founders would turn over in their
graves. d8-)



The disgusting thing is that the Republicans in Congress know how the
American public voted, and they've been doing their best to subvert it.
In
other words, they really don't believe in elections or democratic
institutions. Whenever they don't get *their* way, they try to subvert
the
whole process. The method they're using is something that's been called
"pushing the Overton Window." Glenn Beck is a big fan.

They have been doing exactly what I expect out of them. Push back.
Senator 41, Scott
Brown from Taxichussits should have been a clue that the dems
overreached.
Loosing
Teddy's seat, in a blue state, that should be a freaking clue.

A clue to what? That the Democrat who ran was a washout?

You mean there wasn't one Dem worth a crap to run against Scott Brown?
How deep is your
bench? Must not be very deep, we have an unknown that is the Democratic
candidate to run
against De Mint in SC. Where the hell did the dems come up with this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene

No Dem officials in S.C. seem to know who he is, so it appears we'll have to
look elsewhere to figure out who "came up with him."


Republican politicians act as if they'd be happier in a totalitarian
regime.
They clearly don't believe in representative democracy or elections.
They
want mob rule by polls when they're out, and to ignore public opinion
when
they're in. One trouble they're having right now is that, despite their
prevarications, Obama's favorable rating is still positive. Even the Fox
News poll had him at +2% as of yesterday:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...oval-1044.html

Barely breaking water. Not very good Ed. He won by a significant
margin
and he has lost
it.

Way, way ahead of where Reagan was at this point in his term. If "the
people" actually wanted to change direction, he'd be in NEGATIVE
territory.
Fewer than half of the people in the country disapprove of what he's doing
overall. In other words, more people approve than disapprove. Remember how
representative democracy works? Jefferson had some words about it:

"A nation ceases to be republican when the will of the majority ceases to
be
the law...to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of
a
single vote, as sacred as if unanimous, is the first of all lessons of
importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt." -- Thomas Jefferson,
letter to Baron Humboldt, 1817.

Here is a clue on how well Obama is leading. It is from the WSJ.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ctions_opinion

Very simple things like easing EPA regulations and a waiver of the Jones
act and deploying
skimmers that are not being used seem to be beyond the wonder boy. GWB
would have figured
that out in minutes or days.

Like he did with Katrina? Wes, Bush ("Heck of a job, Brownie") couldn't find
his ass with both hands.

I find it interesting that you're using an op-ed from an academic economist
(NOT the WSJ, but an independent writer) as an authority on oil spills, and
who quotes journalist and Internet sources for the "straightforward" ideas
for cleaning up the spill. g

I have no idea what's going on with the cleanup, and I don't think we'll
know the whole story for at least a year or two.

I'm really believing the Obama administration wants this to
be a disaster or just doesn't give a crap since if Jindal looks good,
Obama looks bad and
Jindal might be running against him in 2012.

You do have a streak of conspiracy theorist in you. That seems to be quite
common among conservatives these days.

If Obama keeps this up, it is guaranteed it
will happen. Jindal is not a light weight like Palain and I'd love to see
the leftist
hate mongers go after a son of imimigrants that is brown and a minority.

I'd love to see him run for national office. Have you ever seen a recipe for
moussaka? He'd be the main ingredient.

I do get a chuckle out of his repeated calls for smaller federal government,
until he starts screaming that he wants more federal government in
Louisianna... I guess he wants smaller government for everyone else.



You are losing your objectivity on this one.

I think you've lost your sense of how our representative democracy works.
You are most certainly forgetting the words of the Founders about what it
necessary for it to succeed.

I think it is working just as it should.

Minorities can stop legislation, eh? I don't think you'll find that idea in
the words of the Founders. See above.

The dems should have have won a few more senate
seats if they wanted to secure your agenda. This is not mob rule.

It's majority rule. See above. If you don't like Jefferson, I can quote
Hamilton or Madison to the same effect, if you prefer.

The Senate rules for cloture are not law, nor are they in the Constitution.
Do you know where they come from?


Btw, Chris Cristee was on Fox today, I like that guy. New Jersey might
have hope yet.

Yes, he's likeable, and probably what we need right now. Whether it will
improve things remains an open question but I'll go along with him. At the
very least, we'll find out one way or the other how much austerity will work
at the state level.

He's trying something that we've never tried before, at the federal level or
in this state: He's not only slashed the state budget, but he's also put a
cap on property tax increases. That means the schools will be bled from both
ends. I'm not expecting it to be tolerated for long but at least it gets the
forces on both sides moving and acting. People could come to blows over
this.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Btw, Chris Cristee was on Fox today, I like that guy. New Jersey might
have hope yet.

Yes, he's likeable, and probably what we need right now. Whether it will
improve things remains an open question but I'll go along with him. At the
very least, we'll find out one way or the other how much austerity will work
at the state level.

I believe he has a tough fight on his hands. Swartzenager pretty much lost his fight.


He's trying something that we've never tried before, at the federal level or
in this state: He's not only slashed the state budget, but he's also put a
cap on property tax increases. That means the schools will be bled from both
ends. I'm not expecting it to be tolerated for long but at least it gets the
forces on both sides moving and acting. People could come to blows over
this.

Property taxes might have made a lot of sense back in the days of agricultural communities
as a form of progressive taxation to provide for a common benefit to the local society.
The larger farmers having more land made a larger contribution.

I would prefer property taxes be kept low and school funding be made by state sales taxes.
Sales taxes capture revenue from everyone including the underground economy.

I say this as a former township treasurer that was responsible for collecting property
taxes. Property taxes are hard on the elderly with finite resources and are a perverse
disincentive to improving one's home.

As to people coming to blows, if there is a union involved, I'm sure there will be
violence.

Wes

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

Btw, Chris Cristee was on Fox today, I like that guy. New Jersey might
have hope yet.

Yes, he's likeable, and probably what we need right now. Whether it will
improve things remains an open question but I'll go along with him. At the
very least, we'll find out one way or the other how much austerity will
work
at the state level.

I believe he has a tough fight on his hands. Swartzenager pretty much
lost his fight.


He's trying something that we've never tried before, at the federal level
or
in this state: He's not only slashed the state budget, but he's also put a
cap on property tax increases. That means the schools will be bled from
both
ends. I'm not expecting it to be tolerated for long but at least it gets
the
forces on both sides moving and acting. People could come to blows over
this.

Property taxes might have made a lot of sense back in the days of
agricultural communities
as a form of progressive taxation to provide for a common benefit to the
local society.
The larger farmers having more land made a larger contribution.

I would prefer property taxes be kept low and school funding be made by
state sales taxes.
Sales taxes capture revenue from everyone including the underground
economy.

NJ municipalities get 52% of their funding from property taxes. The national
average is 28%. Thus, we have the highest property taxes in the country,
averaging around $7,500 for a home.

We were on our way to property tax reform several times, with the best
prospects coming around the time Christie Whitman (R) was governor. But she
campaigned on a promise to cut income taxes, which she did. As a result,
property taxes went even higher.


I say this as a former township treasurer that was responsible for
collecting property
taxes. Property taxes are hard on the elderly with finite resources and
are a perverse
disincentive to improving one's home.

As to people coming to blows, if there is a union involved, I'm sure there
will be
violence.

Wes

It's always disconcerting to know there are people who are "sure" of things
like that. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On 7/3/2010 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

against De Mint in SC. Where the hell did the dems come up with this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene

No Dem officials in S.C. seem to know who he is, so it appears we'll have to
look elsewhere to figure out who "came up with him."

Can someone tell what "Greene received an honorable but involuntary
discharge from the Army in 2009" means? What do you have to do to get
kicked out "honorably"?

David

"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
On 7/3/2010 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

against De Mint in SC. Where the hell did the dems come up with this
guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene

No Dem officials in S.C. seem to know who he is, so it appears we'll have
to
look elsewhere to figure out who "came up with him."

Can someone tell what "Greene received an honorable but involuntary
discharge from the Army in 2009" means? What do you have to do to get
kicked out "honorably"?

David

I don't know, but I can imagine some things. Like, when you haven't
committed any crimes, but you're too stupid to find your own socks.

OTOH, I have a friend who was in the army for a year and then developed
severe asthma. He was discharged, even though he didn't want to be.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

It's always disconcerting to know there are people who are "sure" of things
like that. d8-)

You were the one predicting people coming to blows. I'm just making my call on which
people.

Wes

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

It's always disconcerting to know there are people who are "sure" of
things
like that. d8-)

You were the one predicting people coming to blows. I'm just making my
call on which
people.

Wes

I was thinking more about our state legislators. They're a gang of
reprobates. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


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

It's always disconcerting to know there are people who are "sure" of
things
like that. d8-)

You were the one predicting people coming to blows. I'm just making my
call on which
people.

Wes

I was thinking more about our state legislators. They're a gang of
reprobates. d8-)

It is our own fault as a country. We won't elect honest ones.

Hi, I'm Wes, elect me, I'm going to means test your social security and Medicare benefits,
drop price supports for farmers, and eliminate all defined benefit pension plans for
government workers and convert them to a 401k. Effectively now, your insurance is
standard Obama Care, no supplemental policies.

Think I'd get elected?

The only good thing about recessions is it brings shaky governmental accounting practices
out into the light of day. Yes, I know the corporate side has some bad issues with
pensions also. I keep wondering if I'll ever collect on Eagle Picher when I'm of
retirement age.

Wes

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


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


Meanwhile, we've discussed the supposed connection between CCW laws and
homicides here in the past, and I maintain that there's nothing like a
causative relationship in either direction. I hate to re-hash these things
too many times but we can look at some of that data if you want.


You won't find any meaningful correlations in that data, in other words.
What you may be looking for is psychological and demographic profiles of
murderers. Good luck correlating anything. What Tawwwwwwwwwm claimed is
nonsense. He has no data to support it. What you'd probably find, given
the
age and demographics of most murderers, is that they aren't political at
all. They're self-focused and have little social sense, let alone the
discipline to register and vote.

I think most murders are drug related. IOW, cesspools will have the most
murders. Cities
with liberal policies tend to be the biggest cesspools.

But what is the relationship? Do you suppose some causation? FWIW, here's
the most likely relationship, IMO: Cities have lots of poor people and they
tend to elect liberal government officials, who try to get government
programs to support their constituents. Poor people generally don't maintain
healthy communities. Unhealthy communities tend to have high rates of drug
use, unemployment, and crime in general, plus a shortage of functional
families to raise responsible kids. Those kids commit most of the murders.

Family values makes for a healthy society. I'm not sure how you correlate being poor with
having poor values. America is a story of people that have little or nothing coming here
and suceeding. Maybe it is a stereotype but Asians tend to thrive here. They make their
kids study to get a head.

I can't provide cites but illegal blacks that come here seem to do better than our native
born citizens. Well, here is something. I need to dig a bit further.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0121614AANZ921

I used to work for an engineer that was a strange bird. Loved firearms, listened to NPR,
rode a bicycle and wore a bunch of those I care arm bands. He and his wife home schooled
their kids that were accepted at decent colleges. He pulled out of the market a few
months before SHTF. He was dropped as last hired, first fired. I have a feeling his kids
are going to turn out okay. Last I knew, he moved accross the country to work at Sig
Arms.



In _Freakonomics_ you'll find the story about the correlation between the
Roe v. Wade decision and the decline in murders, starting roughly 17 years
later. It is *much* stronger, statistically, than the simple correlation
with birthrates in the US. The correlation between the percentage of young
men in the population (age 17 - 24) is slightly correlated with the decline
in murders but the decline in unwanted children raised in poverty by single
mothers is the stronger correlation.

Oh goody, a book I listened to. I wish I hadn't bought it as an audio book since I didn't
get any charts and graphs. He did make a case for abortion and lower murder rates.

I'm not trying to pull your chain but does that mean my peer group that tends to dislike
abortion and also supports gun rights is overall a lesser threat to society than those
that are willing to kill their offspring? If you are willing to kill your baby, what are
your limits and what are the values you teach to your children that survive?

I'm not blowing off your point of parents that let them live and didn't take an interest
as long as what Tawm calls the Cheese Check showed up. (ADC) (WIC)


There's a name for this in statistics, but forget the lingo. The connection
is that you have two results occurring in parallel and thus correlating at a
high rate: political leaning of a region and its homicide rate -- both of
which are independent of each other, but both of which have the same
proximate cause: inner-city poverty and all of the social pathologies that
it breeds.

Make of that what you want, but that's the most promising track to relate
homicide ups and downs in the US over the last 40 years or so.


But you don't have to dig that out to shoot down Tawwwwwwwwwwwm's claims.
He
pulled it right out of his ass, and he's just demonstrated, as usual, that
he doesn't know what he's talking about on social and political matters.

Ed, sometimes we just have a gut feeling on things. I've heard things
like 50-70 counties
in the USA represent almost all our gun crime. I wish I had taken time to
take note on
the reference so I could provide you a cite.

I don't doubt it, but I don't remember the specifics. As I've told you
before, I spent a LOT of time with UCR and other crime statistics from
roughly 1986 to 1994, when I was writing about gun rights. I've seen the
general trends, Wes.

I'll try to keep my ears open and document
it the the next time I hear it on the various podcasts I listen to.

You'll do a lot better to go to the original source, which, in this case, is
three or four sets of data maintained by the Justice Department. The UCR is
one The victimization studies are another. There is separate data on guns
and crime maintained by the FBI. It's weak in some areas but it's very
strong in homicides, which are the best-reported and most-cleared crimes,
with relatively few misses. That's the best data around and it's what
advocates on both sides of the issue use -- often in twisted and selective
ways. g

The next time I hear something, I'll contact the person that originated the podcast to
have that person provide cites. I don't listen to loons.

If you really want some answers, when we both have time, I'll try to gather
up some links for you. It's not easy to start off raw and expect complete
answers in an hour or two. I can't count how many hours I've spend with that
data, mostly before it was available online. Research librarians used to
know me by name. g

Come winter when you are bored, I'd welcome taking another stab at this. Right now it is
summer, a short season in Michigan, so I'm trying to make the best out of it. I've been
working 6 days a week with requests for the seventh day. Come winter, things will slow
down again.


Wes

On 7/4/2010 12:19 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David wrote in message
...
On 7/3/2010 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

against De Mint in SC. Where the hell did the dems come up with this
guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene

No Dem officials in S.C. seem to know who he is, so it appears we'll have
to
look elsewhere to figure out who "came up with him."

Can someone tell what "Greene received an honorable but involuntary
discharge from the Army in 2009" means? What do you have to do to get
kicked out "honorably"?

David

I don't know, but I can imagine some things. Like, when you haven't
committed any crimes, but you're too stupid to find your own socks.

It took the Army 13 years to figure that out? I think maybe it was
something else.

David

"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
On 7/4/2010 12:19 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David wrote in message
...
On 7/3/2010 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

against De Mint in SC. Where the hell did the dems come up with this
guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene

No Dem officials in S.C. seem to know who he is, so it appears we'll
have
to
look elsewhere to figure out who "came up with him."

Can someone tell what "Greene received an honorable but involuntary
discharge from the Army in 2009" means? What do you have to do to get
kicked out "honorably"?

David

I don't know, but I can imagine some things. Like, when you haven't
committed any crimes, but you're too stupid to find your own socks.

It took the Army 13 years to figure that out? I think maybe it was
something else.

David

What do you think it is, David?

--
Ed Huntress

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


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


Meanwhile, we've discussed the supposed connection between CCW laws and
homicides here in the past, and I maintain that there's nothing like a
causative relationship in either direction. I hate to re-hash these things
too many times but we can look at some of that data if you want.


You won't find any meaningful correlations in that data, in other words.
What you may be looking for is psychological and demographic profiles of
murderers. Good luck correlating anything. What Tawwwwwwwwwm claimed is
nonsense. He has no data to support it. What you'd probably find, given
the
age and demographics of most murderers, is that they aren't political at
all. They're self-focused and have little social sense, let alone the
discipline to register and vote.

I think most murders are drug related. IOW, cesspools will have the most
murders. Cities
with liberal policies tend to be the biggest cesspools.

But what is the relationship? Do you suppose some causation? FWIW, here's
the most likely relationship, IMO: Cities have lots of poor people and
they
tend to elect liberal government officials, who try to get government
programs to support their constituents. Poor people generally don't
maintain
healthy communities. Unhealthy communities tend to have high rates of drug
use, unemployment, and crime in general, plus a shortage of functional
families to raise responsible kids. Those kids commit most of the murders.

Family values makes for a healthy society. I'm not sure how you correlate
being poor with
having poor values.

Easy. You get a bunch of poor people who have never known anything else,
crowd them into a ghetto in which the possibilities of leaving vanish within
a generation or two, and then watch the pathologies unfold.

There's enough documentation and literature about this to keep you busy for
several lifetimes, Wes.

America is a story of people that have little or nothing coming here
and suceeding. Maybe it is a stereotype but Asians tend to thrive here.
They make their
kids study to get a head.

You're trying to conflate two incomparable situations.


I can't provide cites but illegal blacks that come here seem to do better
than our native
born citizens. Well, here is something. I need to dig a bit further.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0121614AANZ921

No doubt. And that's the proof that the situations are incomparable. You're
talking about recent immigrants on one hand, and people who were raised in a
pathological, completely dysfunctional environment on the other.

But they're both the same color. So, obviously, it's the background that
distinguishes the two, not their race. What conclusion do you draw from
that?


I used to work for an engineer that was a strange bird. Loved firearms,
listened to NPR,
rode a bicycle and wore a bunch of those I care arm bands. He and his
wife home schooled
their kids that were accepted at decent colleges. He pulled out of the
market a few
months before SHTF. He was dropped as last hired, first fired. I have a
feeling his kids
are going to turn out okay. Last I knew, he moved accross the country to
work at Sig
Arms.

I don't get the comparison here. It sounds like you're talking about kids
who were raised in a healthy, middle-class environment. Right?




In _Freakonomics_ you'll find the story about the correlation between the
Roe v. Wade decision and the decline in murders, starting roughly 17 years
later. It is *much* stronger, statistically, than the simple correlation
with birthrates in the US. The correlation between the percentage of young
men in the population (age 17 - 24) is slightly correlated with the
decline
in murders but the decline in unwanted children raised in poverty by
single
mothers is the stronger correlation.

Oh goody, a book I listened to. I wish I hadn't bought it as an audio
book since I didn't
get any charts and graphs. He did make a case for abortion and lower
murder rates.

I'm not trying to pull your chain but does that mean my peer group that
tends to dislike
abortion and also supports gun rights is overall a lesser threat to
society than those
that are willing to kill their offspring? If you are willing to kill your
baby, what are
your limits and what are the values you teach to your children that
survive?

I've never known anyone who would kill a baby. That's murder, and will get
you life in prison or something almost as heavy. For thousands of years,
people have known the difference. Since roughly 1820 - 1840, some people
have forgotten, having been persuaded by an ersatz evangelical religious
argument.

I've never found religious arguments convincing about anything -- especially
casuistry that's cooked up nearly 2,000 years after the fact.


I'm not blowing off your point of parents that let them live and didn't
take an interest
as long as what Tawm calls the Cheese Check showed up. (ADC) (WIC)

But whom are you blaming? The _Freakonomics_ argument isn't a case of laying
blame. It's just a factual observation. Make of it what you will.



There's a name for this in statistics, but forget the lingo. The
connection
is that you have two results occurring in parallel and thus correlating at
a
high rate: political leaning of a region and its homicide rate -- both of
which are independent of each other, but both of which have the same
proximate cause: inner-city poverty and all of the social pathologies that
it breeds.

Make of that what you want, but that's the most promising track to relate
homicide ups and downs in the US over the last 40 years or so.


But you don't have to dig that out to shoot down Tawwwwwwwwwwwm's
claims.
He
pulled it right out of his ass, and he's just demonstrated, as usual,
that
he doesn't know what he's talking about on social and political matters.

Ed, sometimes we just have a gut feeling on things. I've heard things
like 50-70 counties
in the USA represent almost all our gun crime. I wish I had taken time
to
take note on
the reference so I could provide you a cite.

I don't doubt it, but I don't remember the specifics. As I've told you
before, I spent a LOT of time with UCR and other crime statistics from
roughly 1986 to 1994, when I was writing about gun rights. I've seen the
general trends, Wes.

I'll try to keep my ears open and document
it the the next time I hear it on the various podcasts I listen to.

You'll do a lot better to go to the original source, which, in this case,
is
three or four sets of data maintained by the Justice Department. The UCR
is
one The victimization studies are another. There is separate data on guns
and crime maintained by the FBI. It's weak in some areas but it's very
strong in homicides, which are the best-reported and most-cleared crimes,
with relatively few misses. That's the best data around and it's what
advocates on both sides of the issue use -- often in twisted and selective
ways. g

The next time I hear something, I'll contact the person that originated
the podcast to
have that person provide cites. I don't listen to loons.

Look for yourself. Don't accept others' conclusions.


If you really want some answers, when we both have time, I'll try to
gather
up some links for you. It's not easy to start off raw and expect complete
answers in an hour or two. I can't count how many hours I've spend with
that
data, mostly before it was available online. Research librarians used to
know me by name. g

Come winter when you are bored, I'd welcome taking another stab at this.
Right now it is
summer, a short season in Michigan, so I'm trying to make the best out of
it. I've been
working 6 days a week with requests for the seventh day. Come winter,
things will slow
down again.

Ok. If I'm still around then, we can discuss it.

--
Ed Huntress

On 7/4/2010 6:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David wrote in message
...
On 7/4/2010 12:19 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David wrote in message
...
On 7/3/2010 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

against De Mint in SC. Where the hell did the dems come
up with this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene

No Dem officials in S.C. seem to know who he is, so it
appears we'll have to look elsewhere to figure out who
"came up with him."

Can someone tell what "Greene received an honorable but
involuntary discharge from the Army in 2009" means? What do
you have to do to get kicked out "honorably"?

David

I don't know, but I can imagine some things. Like, when you
haven't committed any crimes, but you're too stupid to find
your own socks.

It took the Army 13 years to figure that out? I think maybe it
was something else.

David

What do you think it is, David?

No clue, never been military, that's why I asked in the first place. I
don't see anything that would cause him to be unsuitable after 13
years of being suitable.

David

David

David R.Birch wrote:
On 7/4/2010 6:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David wrote in message
...
On 7/4/2010 12:19 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David wrote in message
...
On 7/3/2010 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

against De Mint in SC. Where the hell did the dems come
up with this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene

No Dem officials in S.C. seem to know who he is, so it
appears we'll have to look elsewhere to figure out who
"came up with him."

Can someone tell what "Greene received an honorable but
involuntary discharge from the Army in 2009" means? What do
you have to do to get kicked out "honorably"?

David

I don't know, but I can imagine some things. Like, when you
haven't committed any crimes, but you're too stupid to find
your own socks.

It took the Army 13 years to figure that out? I think maybe it
was something else.

David

What do you think it is, David?

No clue, never been military, that's why I asked in the first place. I
don't see anything that would cause him to be unsuitable after 13
years of being suitable.

David

David

Shame you have no access to the internet...

A google search of the terms "Involuntary, honorable discharge"
suggests several options, including, Family responsibilities, conditions
that make service deployment impossible (chronic seasick, etc..),
inability to control weight,

Generally speaking, misconduct always results in an other than honorable
discharge.

After 13 years, perhaps he hit a bottle neck where there were not enough
positions available to move up, and he was moved out.

Consider after a war. You have many honorable and praised servicemen
that want to continue service. They tend to be a ton of captains
and colonels. To get a star means congress must vote. An army doesn't need
1000 one star generals. What to do with the birds ? stack-em, rack-em
ship-em and promote some. It becomes really bad when the services start
downsizing by large percentages - not of war level but from peace levels.
Remember the base closings ? Those solders for the most part were 'let go'.

We don't have an army that fights a war - the National Guard that is reserve -
is now in the fight. The army was downsized to far to be all full time.

I think it is criminal of Congress to do that to the reserves. It really
causes a hardship on them and their families and jobs. All because congress
doesn't want to have a standing army large enough for the current jobs.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/

On 7/4/2010 9:53 PM, Stuart Wheaton wrote:
David R.Birch wrote:
On 7/4/2010 6:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David wrote in message
...
On 7/4/2010 12:19 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David wrote in message
...
On 7/3/2010 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

against De Mint in SC. Where the hell did the dems come
up with this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene

No Dem officials in S.C. seem to know who he is, so it
appears we'll have to look elsewhere to figure out who
"came up with him."

Can someone tell what "Greene received an honorable but
involuntary discharge from the Army in 2009" means? What do
you have to do to get kicked out "honorably"?

David

I don't know, but I can imagine some things. Like, when you
haven't committed any crimes, but you're too stupid to find
your own socks.

It took the Army 13 years to figure that out? I think maybe it
was something else.

David

What do you think it is, David?

No clue, never been military, that's why I asked in the first place. I
don't see anything that would cause him to be unsuitable after 13
years of being suitable.

David

David

Shame you have no access to the internet...

A google search of the terms "Involuntary, honorable discharge"
suggests several options, including, Family responsibilities, conditions
that make service deployment impossible (chronic seasick, etc..),
inability to control weight,

Generally speaking, misconduct always results in an other than honorable
discharge.

After 13 years, perhaps he hit a bottle neck where there were not enough
positions available to move up, and he was moved out.

On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:15:04 -0400, Ned Simmons wrote:


Roger already explained that. "While this maybe true, Obama was voted
in because of Democratic lies and because of the color of his skin."


Roger was 100% accurate in his statement.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On 7/4/2010 9:53 PM, Stuart Wheaton wrote:

Can someone tell what "Greene received an honorable but
involuntary discharge from the Army in 2009" means? What do
you have to do to get kicked out "honorably"?

David

I don't know, but I can imagine some things. Like, when you
haven't committed any crimes, but you're too stupid to find
your own socks.

It took the Army 13 years to figure that out? I think maybe it
was something else.

David

What do you think it is, David?

No clue, never been military, that's why I asked in the first place. I
don't see anything that would cause him to be unsuitable after 13
years of being suitable.

David

David

Shame you have no access to the internet...

My Google of "honorable but involuntary discharge" brought up mainly
cites of the Wiki Greene article.

A google search of the terms "Involuntary, honorable discharge"
suggests several options, including, Family responsibilities,
conditions that make service deployment impossible (chronic seasick,
etc..), inability to control weight,

Generally speaking, misconduct always results in an other than
honorable discharge.

After 13 years, perhaps he hit a bottle neck where there were not
enough positions available to move up, and he was moved out.

All of which I figured out before I Googled, I was hoping someone with
military service could give me something more specific.

David

Martin H. Eastburn wrote:

sniped to a sharp point


We don't have an army that fights a war - the National Guard that is
reserve -
is now in the fight. The army was downsized to far to be all full time.

I think it is criminal of Congress to do that to the reserves. It really
causes a hardship on them and their families and jobs. All because
congress
doesn't want to have a standing army large enough for the current jobs.

Martin



--

Richard Lamb

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Come winter when you are bored, I'd welcome taking another stab at this.
Right now it is
summer, a short season in Michigan, so I'm trying to make the best out of
it. I've been
working 6 days a week with requests for the seventh day. Come winter,
things will slow
down again.

Ok. If I'm still around then, we can discuss it.


I hope your health is holding up. That sounded ominous.

Wes

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

Come winter when you are bored, I'd welcome taking another stab at this.
Right now it is
summer, a short season in Michigan, so I'm trying to make the best out
of
it. I've been
working 6 days a week with requests for the seventh day. Come winter,
things will slow
down again.

Ok. If I'm still around then, we can discuss it.


I hope your health is holding up. That sounded ominous.

Wes

Oh, I expect to be alive. I was thinking about the likelihood that I'd find
something more useful to do with my spare time. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Jul 5, 1:47*pm, RBnDFW wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

* Most of us feel it's a lot better now. That's why Obama keeps having

positive approval ratings.



It's at best a dead heat.

Obama's favorable rating is still
positive. Even the Fox News poll had him at +2% as of yesterday:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo..._obama_job_app....

The trendline is what you need to be looking at. scroll down

The trendline has continued. Obama no longer has a positive approval
rating. Too many things like not suspending the Jones act so foreign
ships can help in the gulf cleanup.

Dan

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

Most of us feel it's a lot better now. That's why Obama keeps having
positive approval ratings.

Wow, I'm almost speechless.
In what universe is this, exactly?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...oval-1044.html

It's at best a dead heat.

Two points you guys keep missing: First, positive approval ratings mean that
more people approve than disapprove. It's been steadily in Obama's favor,
except for a few days in April, EVERY DAY SINCE HE WAS ELECTED. You happened
to pick one day right after a Rasmussen poll was added in. The result is
that it came out even on that one day. I'm going to hope you know what that
means. If not, we can discuss it. In any case, check it again in a couple of
days. Even FOX and the WSJ have been in the middle of the pack, and weigh
positively from Rasmussen by 5 - 10 points, consistently.

Look at the graph on that page. You'll see that Obama has been above the
line right from the start.

The key point, though, is that you're responding to the wrong point. I said
that "most of us feel it's a lot better now." Look at Bush's approval rating
near the end of his term (Gallup has a nifty Flash tool from which you can
learn a lot -- such as the fact that Obama's approval rating have been
higher than Reagan's were for the past 190 days. You can play with it at:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/pr...l-center.aspx). Then
look at Obama's now. Bush was lower than Obama at the same point in their
terms, right before 9/11. You know what happened then. But near the end of
his second term, Bush was down around 30% at the time of the last election
(he eventually dropped to the mid-20s). You'd have to research this point,
but I suspect that part of Obama's positive rating is the result of people
mentally comparing him with Bush.

So most people are rating Obama much higher now than they rated Bush at the
time of the election -- which was the time we're comparing. That's what I
mean by "feel a lot better now."

Do you see what's going on here? If not, we can continue.


All the problems of the world were, and many still are, blamed on Bush.

He had an uncanny ability to create problems for everyone. He came from a
wealthy family; his views were those of his wealthy friends and
environment. To this day it appears that he just doesn't get the fact
that making the rich richer was not the right policy for the country.

"..this country experienced its longest run of uninterrupted job growth -
52 straight months, with 8.3 million jobs created.

Actually, less than 7.4 million net jobs (after firings and layoffs), while
population increased by close to 17 million. That's not bad -- or it
wouldn't be, if the income distribution didn't reflect a large increase to
the top few percent, while the middle class remained fairly stagnant. In
other words, there was a disproportionate percentage of low-wage jobs in
that number.


This reflected six consecutive years of economic growth from the Fourth
Quarter of 2001 until the Fourth Quarter of 2007. From 2000 to 2007, real
GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a remarkable gain of nearly 2.1 trillion
dollars. ""

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._the_real.html

Yes, I've read Gillespie's article. Some of it is right, some is
intentionally misleading -- especially the GDP number. Unka' George can
explain that one to you, if he has the patience. By the end of Bush's term,
more than 40% of the corporate profit in the US was in the financial
industry. Much of the GDP "growth" came from there, too. GDP of the
"services" industries (read, mostly finance) is 76.9% of our economy.
Agriculture is 1.2%; industry is 21.9%. Some "growth," eh?



Republican politicians act as if they'd be happier in a totalitarian
regime. They clearly don't believe in representative democracy or
elections. They want mob rule by polls when they're out, and to ignore
public opinion when they're in. One trouble they're having right now is
that, despite their prevarications, Obama's favorable rating is still
positive. Even the Fox News poll had him at +2% as of yesterday:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...oval-1044.html

The trendline is what you need to be looking at. scroll down

I'm aware of the trendline. It's very similar to Reagan's. That's what
happens when you start out in a recession and unemployment is very high.

Given that, it's amazing -- or you should be amazed -- that half or more of
the adult population still gives Obama a positive rating. You would expect
something like Reagan's numbers, which were lower.

--
Ed Huntress