On 4 Apr 2005 19:40:31 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

================================================= ==================
....despite sincere
and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our
government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding
Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people -- our Constitution.
Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that Covenant, I
must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing ...


Was he talking on a cell phone when the wreck happened?

Snicker

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 01:25:43 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 20:00:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

o pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

Which part? General welfare?

All of it. That's Congress's authority, as set forth in the Constitution.

So all of them authorize National Endowment for the Arts?

"**** Christ" falls under which category? Defense? General Welfare?

Please be specific.

Gunner


Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
"J. R. Carroll" wrote in news:Qgm4e.9313
:


Thanks John. Very encouraging preliminary results.


Dan,
The LAR version is the one to look for. Single, longer term dosing was what
got me looking into this in the first place.
This was the main effect the original research looked into when they
evaluated the hormone extracted from the venom.

http://www.amylin.com/pipeline/exenatidelar.cfm



--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

"Bull****"? This, from a guy who just told us he had the math all figured
out in third grade, that the birthrate was going down, even though it
actually went up for roughly 20 years after he was born?

George, you're going to have a problem now passing yourself off as the
clear
voice of reason. g

I know you liberals are dug in on a position that will someday prove fatal.
You think the ever increasing government intrusion into our lives is a good
thing. You have no inkling what peril your ever increasing dependence on
the inept government puts us in. you're so dug in to your minority position
that you'll go to great lengths to distort what others say to your own
ends...

Maybe it's time to speak in a language that may get your attention?

Look, asshole... as I said, the math skills necessary to figure out the
impending collapse was learned in the third grade. Reason? First you have
to pay attention.

George Willer

In article , Gunner says...

You pick some county judge as the final arbiter of the state of the
US?

For the 11th ckt, no less! That's where you folks are strongest!
And the USSC has denied cert on the case (and it's packed with
your buddies, too) so this is the end of it!

The righies have finally ****ed off enough people that it's
coming home to roost. And now a bunch of them just *happen*
to be judges.

Short of having Tom Delay simply outlaw the judical branch of
the government (which I would not rule out, he's in desperate
straights over the campaign finance violations in TX) I think
this might be about it.

Of course, having the legislative and executive branch strong-arming
the judicial branch is pretty much against what George Willer
is so hot-up about: The US constitution.

Not to put too fine a point on it, which do you love more - the
US constitution, or republicans? Would you sell the original
framer's document down the river, to further your party's agenda?

Think hard. Once you **** on that paper, there's no turning back.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

Gee Jim...its always the conservatives that when unable to debate,
trot out the Love it or Leave it line. Right?

When did you become a Conservative?

*Fiscal* conservative, gunner. But really, I'm being fair
to George. He's *never* going to get what he really wants,
here in the US. I'm NOT being tongue-in-cheek there.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

Why bother, our president hasn't read it (can he really *read*?)
and if he has, he's decided that the best use for it under his
adminstration is for it to be hanging, torn up in tidy squares,
in the white house, outhouse.

That you can make that claim, indicates that you have never read the
Constitution.

Oh, that wasn't *me* talking there. It was the 11th circuit court
of appeals yammering on. Sure it's in, where, south carolina,
but those darn yankees who run that court are just out to make
your buddy GWB look bad I guess.

We'll have Tom Delay go give those judges a good talking to....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

We figured a lot of PSP would be appropriate.

Can I keep the PSP? My driveway needs a new driveway
at the moment, and PSP would actually be a nice alternative
to blacktop...

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , George Willer says...

Of course we need taxes for essential services. Military, judiciary, law
enforcement, transportation system, to name a few. What we don't need is
the socialist programs liberals are so fond of.

Transportation system? You mean you want me to give my money for
busses for poor people to ride on? That sounds socialist to me.
I'm not doing that.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Jim, you really aren't being fair. If you are suggesting that he move
to a place where he will get what he wants, then you need to present
some possibilities. If you don't have any countries that you would
recommend, then you ought to allow him to push for changes here. He
may never get what he really wants, but he might get things to be a
little closer.

Dan

On 5 Apr 2005 07:03:59 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

You pick some county judge as the final arbiter of the state of the
US?

For the 11th ckt, no less! That's where you folks are strongest!
And the USSC has denied cert on the case (and it's packed with
your buddies, too) so this is the end of it!

The righies have finally ****ed off enough people that it's
coming home to roost. And now a bunch of them just *happen*
to be judges.

Chuckle...Jim? The Judicial Activism of the past 20 yrs has ****ed
off a lot of people...and its coming home to roost. We are indeed
living in interesting times. And its not going to be a good one for
politically active judges who make law, rather than administer it.

Hide and watch. And dont be confused...flies do not cause garbage.

Gunner





Short of having Tom Delay simply outlaw the judical branch of
the government (which I would not rule out, he's in desperate
straights over the campaign finance violations in TX) I think
this might be about it.

Of course, having the legislative and executive branch strong-arming
the judicial branch is pretty much against what George Willer
is so hot-up about: The US constitution.

Not to put too fine a point on it, which do you love more - the
US constitution, or republicans? Would you sell the original
framer's document down the river, to further your party's agenda?

I voted for the Right..as the long history of your people using the
Constitution for buttwipe finally became too much to bear. As did the
majority of the People.

Think hard. Once you **** on that paper, there's no turning back.

Jim

Folks who have made a career of living in glass houses, shouldnt throw
rocks.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

Okay, I did look up some statistics. Did not find life expectancy at
age 18, but did find age 21. Close enough for government work. The
source is the Social Security Administration.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

In 1940 53.9 % of those males that had reached 21 also reached 65. Or
46.1 % paid into Social Security and did not collect any retirement
benefits.

In 1990 72.3 % of those males that reached 21 also reached 65. Or 27.7
% paid into Social Security and did not collect any retirement
benefits.

You may not think that 27.7 % is a large percentage, but I do.

And the change from 46% to 28% is kind of significant too.
This means that 18.4 % of the male population went from receiving no
retirement benefits to receiving an average of 15.3 years of benefits.
Which is why I say that you want more than just the life expectancy at
age 65.

Dan

On 5 Apr 2005 07:07:56 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Why bother, our president hasn't read it (can he really *read*?)
and if he has, he's decided that the best use for it under his
adminstration is for it to be hanging, torn up in tidy squares,
in the white house, outhouse.

That you can make that claim, indicates that you have never read the
Constitution.

Oh, that wasn't *me* talking there. It was the 11th circuit court
of appeals yammering on. Sure it's in, where, south carolina,
but those darn yankees who run that court are just out to make
your buddy GWB look bad I guess.

We'll have Tom Delay go give those judges a good talking to....

Jim

Got a woodie for Delay this morning. dontcha? Seems that not all
people share that particular judges opinion. And thats exactly what it
was..his opinion.

He puts on his pants one leg at a time, just like you do. Just like
the judges in Dred Scot. And they had their opinions also. As do the
bozos in the 9th district court. Isnt that one the one filled with
Lefties..and is reputed to be the most reversed court in the land?

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On 5 Apr 2005 07:05:42 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Gee Jim...its always the conservatives that when unable to debate,
trot out the Love it or Leave it line. Right?

When did you become a Conservative?

*Fiscal* conservative, gunner. But really, I'm being fair
to George. He's *never* going to get what he really wants,
here in the US. I'm NOT being tongue-in-cheek there.

Jim

George Soros? The lefty who bought the Democratic Party?

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On 5 Apr 2005 08:16:27 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

We figured a lot of PSP would be appropriate.

Can I keep the PSP? My driveway needs a new driveway
at the moment, and PSP would actually be a nice alternative
to blacktop...

Jim

Sure. And once the sides of your home are removed so we can bring in
the crane to remove the assets in the basement, you will have a larger
garage as well.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On 5 Apr 2005 08:18:31 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , George Willer says...

Of course we need taxes for essential services. Military, judiciary, law
enforcement, transportation system, to name a few. What we don't need is
the socialist programs liberals are so fond of.

Transportation system? You mean you want me to give my money for
busses for poor people to ride on? That sounds socialist to me.
I'm not doing that.

Jim

Actually, I believe the Constitution defines transportation to be
"post roads"

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

In article , Gunner says...

Sure. And once the sides of your home are removed so we can bring in
the crane to remove the assets in the basement, you will have a larger
garage as well.

Ah, life just gets better and better. I've been wanting
to enlarge the garage for a shop!

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

*Fiscal* conservative, gunner. But really, I'm being fair
to George. He's *never* going to get what he really wants,
here in the US. I'm NOT being tongue-in-cheek there.

George Soros? The lefty who bought the Democratic Party?

George Willer. I don't think he and the democratic party
can be in the same universe at the same time. A sort of
matter/anti-matter issue you know.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

Got a woodie for Delay this morning. dontcha?

The man's a skunk. He was trying to make political hay
out of that poor lady's situation - and her husband's.

Seems that not all
people share that particular judges opinion.

No kidding. Your president, for one. But what can the guy
do, that crazy old 'separation of powers thing' that's
in the funny 'ol constitution kinda shuts off his water.

Sure they could go an pass a law that says that the judicial
is required to rule in whatever way the executive branch
dictates. Like they tried to do. But then it would be
a dictatorship I guess.

As a famous person once said: shrug.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article . com,
says...

Jim, you really aren't being fair. If you are suggesting that he move
to a place where he will get what he wants, then you need to present
some possibilities. If you don't have any countries that you would
recommend, then you ought to allow him to push for changes here. He
may never get what he really wants, but he might get things to be a
little closer.

You have me wrong Dan. I wasn't saying he shouldn't work within
the existing poltitical system to achieve his goals. The existing
tax code and social welfare system is the product of exactly that - an
entire country of individual interests pushing for what they think
is best.

I was just pointing out that even if he was elected president on friday,
he'd have a darn tough time achieving the kind of "no taxes except for
coach roads," etc, economic state in the US. Would he be better off
moving to a country where there are no taxes, or taxes at the level he
approves? Yes - and my point was there probably isn't any country like
that. It would be a long, long walk for him.

Half the countries in the world have more taxes then we do. The other
half are barely habitable pest-holes that George would be loath to
reside in.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

Chuckle...Jim? The Judicial Activism of the past 20 yrs has ****ed
off a lot of people...

Judicial Activism? You call defending the US constitution judical activism??

The USSC denied cert on this thing. What are you going to do, abolish
the supreme court so the republicans can get their toys back?

You really do *not* care about the constitution, do you. You would
be perfectly happy if the ripped up the entire thing, as long as the
second amendment were left alone.

Gunner, they got spanked. They *should* have gotten spanked for
what they did.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Of course, having the legislative and executive branch strong-arming
the judicial branch is pretty much against what George Willer
is so hot-up about: The US constitution.

Not to put too fine a point on it, which do you love more - the
US constitution, or republicans? Would you sell the original
framer's document down the river, to further your party's agenda?

Think hard. Once you **** on that paper, there's no turning back.

Jim

Think hard, Jim. How many times have your favorite Liberals **** on the
Constitution? One time you should certainly remember was their failed
attempt to hi-jack the election in FL. As you know by now, if you care to
remember the FLSC tried to write law from the bench and got their ass kicked
by the USSC. The USCC upheld the Constitution... both of the U.S and the
state of FL. You guys haven't stopped whining yet.

Your lefty looney bias is showing.

George Willer

George Willer. I don't think he and the democratic party
can be in the same universe at the same time. A sort of
matter/anti-matter issue you know.

Jim

Jim,

Have you lost all your senses? I've never posted anything with the venom
you throw around falsely about Republicans and the administration. Don't
pretend you know me or what I want except for what I tell you.

Here's something you can take to the bank... in spite of Bush's flawed
southern border policy, he's light years ahead of your failed candidate in
overall responsibility. Your hatred has blinded you to the reality of how
poor Kerry or even algore would have been. Neither has the intelligence,
leadership ability, or moral conviction required to shine George Bush's
shoes. Skip your usual baseless crap and tell us, why would you think
otherwise?

George Willer

Of course we need taxes for essential services. Military, judiciary, law
enforcement, transportation system, to name a few. What we don't need is
the socialist programs liberals are so fond of.

Transportation system? You mean you want me to give my money for
busses for poor people to ride on? That sounds socialist to me.
I'm not doing that.

Jim

No, nitwit! I mean the interstate system... bridges across rivers... that
sort of thing. Are you being deliberately dense? Sorry I politely gave you
credit for having some intelligence. I can't make you pay taxes for
anything, but if you don't think taxes are high enough yet the IRS will
accept extra contributions.

George Willer

"George Willer" wrote in message
...



"Bull****"? This, from a guy who just told us he had the math all
figured
out in third grade, that the birthrate was going down, even though it
actually went up for roughly 20 years after he was born?

George, you're going to have a problem now passing yourself off as the
clear
voice of reason. g

I know you liberals are dug in on a position that will someday prove
fatal.

"You liberals"? George, the only people who think I'm "liberal" are people
who are trying to hold up some stupid right-wing position and who get
themselves too frustrated to pay attention. It's a sign of poor thinking and
being verbally challenged. g

You know I'm not a liberal. But the right-wingers are so prone to stick
their feet in their mouths that I wind up arguing with them far more than
with liberals.

Now, about what you know concerning the "fatal" position on Social Security.
You're talking through your hat, you have no more idea of where SS will go
than anyone else, and you *sure* didn't know when you were in 3rd grade. g

As I said, whether SS survives depends on whether we *want* it to survive.
If enough people think it's hopeless, or if they buy into George Bush's 1929
Retirement Plan, then we'll sink SS. If not, we'll do some combination of
the things others have suggested here, and maybe increase withholding a few
points, and see how many immigrants wind up boosting the system's income.
The NYT has an article on that very subject today, as a matter of fact. If
you're really interested, you could learn something from it. It involves
unplanned billions of dollars of income to the system.

Also, _The Economist_ has had some good analyses. Although they've been much
too brief to suit me, they're about as objective as anything can be.

You think the ever increasing government intrusion into our lives is a
good
thing.

You don't know what I think, George. As I said, you're talking through your
hat.

You have no inkling what peril your ever increasing dependence on
the inept government puts us in. you're so dug in to your minority
position
that you'll go to great lengths to distort what others say to your own
ends...

And you have no inkling what inklings I have. You're getting yourself a
little wound up, George, imagining that you know more than most of the
economists in the country and building strawmen based on what you think that
other people think. You'd do better to stick to what you do know, rather
than what you imagine, and recognize what you don't know. Nobody knows the
things you're claiming you know now.

One thing we know is that the neocons would like nothing more than to tear
down the last remnants of the New Deal. They'll say anything it takes to do
it, and you appear to swallow whatever they tell you. But you've already
made it clear that you don't have a clue, George. All of those years you
were making your predictions about the declining birth rate, back when you
were in grade school, the rate was going UP. Your predictions about how many
retirees will be collecting, relative to the number working, are grabbed out
of thin air. Even the Bureau of the Census doesn't know, giving a range that
varies by over 150,000,000. The neocons grab the number that suits their
purposes. Where do you get YOUR numbers?


Maybe it's time to speak in a language that may get your attention?

Look, asshole... as I said, the math skills necessary to figure out the
impending collapse was learned in the third grade. Reason? First you
have
to pay attention.

First you have to learn that you really don't have the first freaking idea
of what you're talking about, George. Then you can start from scratch, learn
something about it, whereupon you'll learn that everybody is guessing about
future population distributions, and that only small variations in tax rates
or other adjustments will get the system over the hump unless the extremes
of the prediction range happens to occur -- if you have any interest in
that.

Here's something that ought to get your attention: You're full of hot air,
you've probably always been full of hot air, and you have no way of knowing
what the facts are, nor of who might know what the facts are. You're full of
attitude and crank opinions that you lap up to support your attitudes. In
other words, a typical malcontent righty, who probably has been bitching
about where the economy has been going for 40 years or more, while the
economy actually was exploding beyond anyone's imagination, reaching the
highest per-capita rates in the country's history, building the largest
economy the world has even seen, at the same time we were "suffering" from
liberal-Democrat programs ranging from SS to welfare to Medicaid.

In other words, you're a man who looks but doesn't see. Or, you see, but you
ignore the facts. A typical righty bag of wind.

Have a nice day, George. I did.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed,

This will be my last post on the subject... not because I concede anything
to a pompous ass like you, but it's becoming tedious writing to one like you
to no good purpose. You'll always think your loony leftist ideas are the
salvation for our country, and you can't even see that you are a liberal.
You tip your hand when you refer to "stupid right wing positions" and defend
loony leftist positions.

Yes, I'm a Conservative, and a damn fine one. We work hard to make the
world a better place for everyone. It's an uphill battle much of the time
because the liberals try so hard to win votes by making false promises they
can't keep.

You have no idea... no idea at all, in spite of your bull****, how our
economy would have grown and how much better we would have been able to
solve problems had it not been for the government meddling and burdening the
engine of our prosperity. You don't seem to have the ability to ask "What
might have been?" Some of us can see trends, in spite of what you think,
and I don't like what I see.

Adios,
George Willer


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"George Willer" wrote in message
...



"Bull****"? This, from a guy who just told us he had the math all
figured
out in third grade, that the birthrate was going down, even though it
actually went up for roughly 20 years after he was born?

George, you're going to have a problem now passing yourself off as the
clear
voice of reason. g

I know you liberals are dug in on a position that will someday prove
fatal.

"You liberals"? George, the only people who think I'm "liberal" are people
who are trying to hold up some stupid right-wing position and who get
themselves too frustrated to pay attention. It's a sign of poor thinking
and
being verbally challenged. g

You know I'm not a liberal. But the right-wingers are so prone to stick
their feet in their mouths that I wind up arguing with them far more than
with liberals.

Now, about what you know concerning the "fatal" position on Social
Security.
You're talking through your hat, you have no more idea of where SS will go
than anyone else, and you *sure* didn't know when you were in 3rd grade.
g

As I said, whether SS survives depends on whether we *want* it to survive.
If enough people think it's hopeless, or if they buy into George Bush's
1929
Retirement Plan, then we'll sink SS. If not, we'll do some combination of
the things others have suggested here, and maybe increase withholding a
few
points, and see how many immigrants wind up boosting the system's income.
The NYT has an article on that very subject today, as a matter of fact. If
you're really interested, you could learn something from it. It involves
unplanned billions of dollars of income to the system.

Also, _The Economist_ has had some good analyses. Although they've been
much
too brief to suit me, they're about as objective as anything can be.

You think the ever increasing government intrusion into our lives is a
good
thing.

You don't know what I think, George. As I said, you're talking through
your
hat.

You have no inkling what peril your ever increasing dependence on
the inept government puts us in. you're so dug in to your minority
position
that you'll go to great lengths to distort what others say to your own
ends...

And you have no inkling what inklings I have. You're getting yourself a
little wound up, George, imagining that you know more than most of the
economists in the country and building strawmen based on what you think
that
other people think. You'd do better to stick to what you do know, rather
than what you imagine, and recognize what you don't know. Nobody knows the
things you're claiming you know now.

One thing we know is that the neocons would like nothing more than to tear
down the last remnants of the New Deal. They'll say anything it takes to
do
it, and you appear to swallow whatever they tell you. But you've already
made it clear that you don't have a clue, George. All of those years you
were making your predictions about the declining birth rate, back when you
were in grade school, the rate was going UP. Your predictions about how
many
retirees will be collecting, relative to the number working, are grabbed
out
of thin air. Even the Bureau of the Census doesn't know, giving a range
that
varies by over 150,000,000. The neocons grab the number that suits their
purposes. Where do you get YOUR numbers?


Maybe it's time to speak in a language that may get your attention?

Look, asshole... as I said, the math skills necessary to figure out the
impending collapse was learned in the third grade. Reason? First you
have
to pay attention.

First you have to learn that you really don't have the first freaking idea
of what you're talking about, George. Then you can start from scratch,
learn
something about it, whereupon you'll learn that everybody is guessing
about
future population distributions, and that only small variations in tax
rates
or other adjustments will get the system over the hump unless the extremes
of the prediction range happens to occur -- if you have any interest in
that.

Here's something that ought to get your attention: You're full of hot air,
you've probably always been full of hot air, and you have no way of
knowing
what the facts are, nor of who might know what the facts are. You're full
of
attitude and crank opinions that you lap up to support your attitudes. In
other words, a typical malcontent righty, who probably has been bitching
about where the economy has been going for 40 years or more, while the
economy actually was exploding beyond anyone's imagination, reaching the
highest per-capita rates in the country's history, building the largest
economy the world has even seen, at the same time we were "suffering" from
liberal-Democrat programs ranging from SS to welfare to Medicaid.

In other words, you're a man who looks but doesn't see. Or, you see, but
you
ignore the facts. A typical righty bag of wind.

Have a nice day, George. I did.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , George Willer says...

.. not because I concede anything
to a pompous ass like you,

plonk


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 01:25:43 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 20:00:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

o pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

Which part? General welfare?

All of it. That's Congress's authority, as set forth in the Constitution.

So all of them authorize National Endowment for the Arts?

All of what? What is it you're talking about? You're getting a little fuzzy.

Are you asking if the Congress has authority to authorize the National
Endowment for the Arts if they decide it's in the interest of furthering the
public welfare? The answer is, yes.


"**** Christ" falls under which category? Defense? General Welfare?

****ing off the religious right. That's an important part of the general
welfare. g


Please be specific.

That was specific.

BTW, the Army's been active for more than two years now. Under the
Constitution, time's up.

--
Ed Huntress

"George Willer" wrote in message
...


You have no idea... no idea at all, in spite of your bull****, how our
economy would have grown and how much better we would have been able to
solve problems had it not been for the government meddling and burdening
the
engine of our prosperity.

George, you're a living triumph of the imagination.

You don't seem to have the ability to ask "What
might have been?" Some of us can see trends, in spite of what you think,
and I don't like what I see.

Well, then, maybe it's time for you to take up a new hobby.

--
Ed Huntress

On 5 Apr 2005 10:20:06 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Sure. And once the sides of your home are removed so we can bring in
the crane to remove the assets in the basement, you will have a larger
garage as well.

Ah, life just gets better and better. I've been wanting
to enlarge the garage for a shop!

Jim

We suggest however that you refrain from using a cell phone during our
work, or you may be run over by a bulldozer.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On 5 Apr 2005 10:37:46 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Chuckle...Jim? The Judicial Activism of the past 20 yrs has ****ed
off a lot of people...

Judicial Activism? You call defending the US constitution judical activism??

Jim...if that were the case..there wouldnt be any gun control laws.
Get serious.

The USSC denied cert on this thing. What are you going to do, abolish
the supreme court so the republicans can get their toys back?

Denied cert means they were not going to hear it. This means what in
regards to Judicial Activism?


You really do *not* care about the constitution, do you. You would
be perfectly happy if the ripped up the entire thing, as long as the
second amendment were left alone.

Really? If the rest of the Constituion were not there, there would be
no need for the 2nd to provide protection for them

Given that you are a a liberal..moaning about protecting the
Constitution is about as hypocritical as you can get.

Gunner, they got spanked. They *should* have gotten spanked for
what they did.

Jim

Like the Florida SCOTUS in the 2000 election? Or was that someone
that sounded like you bitching about Judicial Activism?

Snicker

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:46:27 -0400, "George Willer"
wrote:


Of course, having the legislative and executive branch strong-arming
the judicial branch is pretty much against what George Willer
is so hot-up about: The US constitution.

Not to put too fine a point on it, which do you love more - the
US constitution, or republicans? Would you sell the original
framer's document down the river, to further your party's agenda?

Think hard. Once you **** on that paper, there's no turning back.

Jim

Think hard, Jim. How many times have your favorite Liberals **** on the
Constitution? One time you should certainly remember was their failed
attempt to hi-jack the election in FL. As you know by now, if you care to
remember the FLSC tried to write law from the bench and got their ass kicked
by the USSC. The USCC upheld the Constitution... both of the U.S and the
state of FL. You guys haven't stopped whining yet.

Your lefty looney bias is showing.

In bright, dayglo florescent paisley colors with flags and fireworks.

George Willer

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On 5 Apr 2005 10:26:43 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Got a woodie for Delay this morning. dontcha?

The man's a skunk. He was trying to make political hay
out of that poor lady's situation - and her husband's.

Seems that not all
people share that particular judges opinion.

No kidding. Your president, for one. But what can the guy
do, that crazy old 'separation of powers thing' that's
in the funny 'ol constitution kinda shuts off his water.

Sure they could go an pass a law that says that the judicial
is required to rule in whatever way the executive branch
dictates. Like they tried to do. But then it would be
a dictatorship I guess.

As a famous person once said: shrug.

Jim

the responsibility of the courts is to inforce the law, to handle
legal cases based on the law, not to make new law by fiat.

Thats why there are three branchs of government.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:09:32 -0400, "George Willer"
wrote:

Of course we need taxes for essential services. Military, judiciary, law
enforcement, transportation system, to name a few. What we don't need is
the socialist programs liberals are so fond of.

Transportation system? You mean you want me to give my money for
busses for poor people to ride on? That sounds socialist to me.
I'm not doing that.

Jim

No, nitwit! I mean the interstate system... bridges across rivers... that
sort of thing. Are you being deliberately dense? Sorry I politely gave you
credit for having some intelligence. I can't make you pay taxes for
anything, but if you don't think taxes are high enough yet the IRS will
accept extra contributions.

George Willer

dont forget George..that Jim claims to be a fiscal conservative.

Right.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On 5 Apr 2005 10:21:16 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

*Fiscal* conservative, gunner. But really, I'm being fair
to George. He's *never* going to get what he really wants,
here in the US. I'm NOT being tongue-in-cheek there.

George Soros? The lefty who bought the Democratic Party?

George Willer. I don't think he and the democratic party
can be in the same universe at the same time. A sort of
matter/anti-matter issue you know.

Jim

Oh...like Truth and Democrats?

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:55:06 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 01:25:43 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 20:00:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

o pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

Which part? General welfare?

All of it. That's Congress's authority, as set forth in the Constitution.

So all of them authorize National Endowment for the Arts?

All of what? What is it you're talking about? You're getting a little fuzzy.

Are you asking if the Congress has authority to authorize the National
Endowment for the Arts if they decide it's in the interest of furthering the
public welfare? The answer is, yes.

Public welfare is a crucifix in a jar of ****?

"**** Christ" falls under which category? Defense? General Welfare?

****ing off the religious right. That's an important part of the general
welfare. g

Then hanging the more egregious Liberals like pinatas from lamp posts
would also qualify.


Please be specific.

That was specific.

BTW, the Army's been active for more than two years now. Under the
Constitution, time's up.

The vote for the next two years funding was done. Hence, its
constitutional.

Gunner


Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:13:27 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"You liberals"? George, the only people who think I'm "liberal" are people
who are trying to hold up some stupid right-wing position and who get
themselves too frustrated to pay attention. It's a sign of poor thinking and
being verbally challenged. g

For a New Jerseyite..Ed is conservative.

For the majority of the rest of the nation...Ed is center Left.

Shrug

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:59:37 -0400, "George Willer"
wrote:

Ed,

This will be my last post on the subject... not because I concede anything
to a pompous ass like you, but it's becoming tedious writing to one like you
to no good purpose. You'll always think your loony leftist ideas are the
salvation for our country, and you can't even see that you are a liberal.
You tip your hand when you refer to "stupid right wing positions" and defend
loony leftist positions.

Yes, I'm a Conservative, and a damn fine one. We work hard to make the
world a better place for everyone. It's an uphill battle much of the time
because the liberals try so hard to win votes by making false promises they
can't keep.

You have no idea... no idea at all, in spite of your bull****, how our
economy would have grown and how much better we would have been able to
solve problems had it not been for the government meddling and burdening the
engine of our prosperity. You don't seem to have the ability to ask "What
might have been?" Some of us can see trends, in spite of what you think,
and I don't like what I see.

Adios,
George Willer


Bravo!!!!!!!!! Well done and dead nuts on the mark

Gunner



"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"George Willer" wrote in message
...



"Bull****"? This, from a guy who just told us he had the math all
figured
out in third grade, that the birthrate was going down, even though it
actually went up for roughly 20 years after he was born?

George, you're going to have a problem now passing yourself off as the
clear
voice of reason. g

I know you liberals are dug in on a position that will someday prove
fatal.

"You liberals"? George, the only people who think I'm "liberal" are people
who are trying to hold up some stupid right-wing position and who get
themselves too frustrated to pay attention. It's a sign of poor thinking
and
being verbally challenged. g

You know I'm not a liberal. But the right-wingers are so prone to stick
their feet in their mouths that I wind up arguing with them far more than
with liberals.

Now, about what you know concerning the "fatal" position on Social
Security.
You're talking through your hat, you have no more idea of where SS will go
than anyone else, and you *sure* didn't know when you were in 3rd grade.
g

As I said, whether SS survives depends on whether we *want* it to survive.
If enough people think it's hopeless, or if they buy into George Bush's
1929
Retirement Plan, then we'll sink SS. If not, we'll do some combination of
the things others have suggested here, and maybe increase withholding a
few
points, and see how many immigrants wind up boosting the system's income.
The NYT has an article on that very subject today, as a matter of fact. If
you're really interested, you could learn something from it. It involves
unplanned billions of dollars of income to the system.

Also, _The Economist_ has had some good analyses. Although they've been
much
too brief to suit me, they're about as objective as anything can be.

You think the ever increasing government intrusion into our lives is a
good
thing.

You don't know what I think, George. As I said, you're talking through
your
hat.

You have no inkling what peril your ever increasing dependence on
the inept government puts us in. you're so dug in to your minority
position
that you'll go to great lengths to distort what others say to your own
ends...

And you have no inkling what inklings I have. You're getting yourself a
little wound up, George, imagining that you know more than most of the
economists in the country and building strawmen based on what you think
that
other people think. You'd do better to stick to what you do know, rather
than what you imagine, and recognize what you don't know. Nobody knows the
things you're claiming you know now.

One thing we know is that the neocons would like nothing more than to tear
down the last remnants of the New Deal. They'll say anything it takes to
do
it, and you appear to swallow whatever they tell you. But you've already
made it clear that you don't have a clue, George. All of those years you
were making your predictions about the declining birth rate, back when you
were in grade school, the rate was going UP. Your predictions about how
many
retirees will be collecting, relative to the number working, are grabbed
out
of thin air. Even the Bureau of the Census doesn't know, giving a range
that
varies by over 150,000,000. The neocons grab the number that suits their
purposes. Where do you get YOUR numbers?


Maybe it's time to speak in a language that may get your attention?

Look, asshole... as I said, the math skills necessary to figure out the
impending collapse was learned in the third grade. Reason? First you
have
to pay attention.

First you have to learn that you really don't have the first freaking idea
of what you're talking about, George. Then you can start from scratch,
learn
something about it, whereupon you'll learn that everybody is guessing
about
future population distributions, and that only small variations in tax
rates
or other adjustments will get the system over the hump unless the extremes
of the prediction range happens to occur -- if you have any interest in
that.

Here's something that ought to get your attention: You're full of hot air,
you've probably always been full of hot air, and you have no way of
knowing
what the facts are, nor of who might know what the facts are. You're full
of
attitude and crank opinions that you lap up to support your attitudes. In
other words, a typical malcontent righty, who probably has been bitching
about where the economy has been going for 40 years or more, while the
economy actually was exploding beyond anyone's imagination, reaching the
highest per-capita rates in the country's history, building the largest
economy the world has even seen, at the same time we were "suffering" from
liberal-Democrat programs ranging from SS to welfare to Medicaid.

In other words, you're a man who looks but doesn't see. Or, you see, but
you
ignore the facts. A typical righty bag of wind.

Have a nice day, George. I did.

--
Ed Huntress




Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


"**** Christ" falls under which category? Defense? General Welfare?

****ing off the religious right. That's an important part of the general
welfare. g

Then hanging the more egregious Liberals like pinatas from lamp posts
would also qualify.

Nope, that's killing. If you're conservative, it's OK to kill people if they
aren't Americans (as long as they're "collateral damage"), but killing
Americans is very problematic.



Please be specific.

That was specific.

BTW, the Army's been active for more than two years now. Under the
Constitution, time's up.

The vote for the next two years funding was done. Hence, its
constitutional.

Not if you're an originalist. You're one of those, aren't you?

--
Ed Huntress

On 5 Apr 2005 17:42:00 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , George Willer says...

.. not because I concede anything
to a pompous ass like you,

plonk


you plonked someone for telling the truth?

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"