In article , Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 3, 3:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 3, 2:51 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
"Iarnrod" wrote:On Apr 2, 10:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
Your defense of government-supported robbery is immoral.
Freeloader.
Wait a minute -- you support government policies that take money out of
one
person's pocket in order to put it in someone else's pocket, and *Tim* is
the
freeloader because he objects to that?? How is he a "freeloader" for
wanting
to be able to keep what is already his?
Perhaps because he supposes Mr Daneliuk partakes of
(some) of the benefits for which he objects to paying?
OTOH, I suppose, Mr Daneliuk is perfectly willing to pay
for whatever government services he thinks are appropriate
-- and no more. Most people regard government expenditures
they object to as being wasteful, foolish, or 'pork'. Few
people go so far as to argue that it is robbery when they
find themselves in the minority on the issue of how tax money
should be spent.
--
FF
The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and therefore pay
for)
is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal liberty
and
the union that enables it. Period. Everything else *is* pork. Well ... I
guess
the Post Office is sanctioned as well, and I can live with that too...

How about Highways?

Only the Postal Roads

The interstate highway system was originally conceived as a means of moving
troops and military materiel rapidly; IIRC, Eisenhower got the idea for it
after seeing the German highway system during and after WW2. Congress does
have the explicit authority under the Constitution to fund and maintain an
Army and Navy; it seems clear that that authority must extend to the
infrastructure necessary for their support, such as the construction of naval
shipyards, the purchase of land for army bases... and the construction of
roads for troop and equipment movement.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:


The interstate highway system was originally conceived as a means of moving
troops and military materiel rapidly; IIRC, Eisenhower got the idea for it
after seeing the German highway system during and after WW2. Congress does
have the explicit authority under the Constitution to fund and maintain an
Army and Navy; it seems clear that that authority must extend to the
infrastructure necessary for their support, such as the construction of naval
shipyards, the purchase of land for army bases... and the construction of
roads for troop and equipment movement.


Right. This is part of the proper role of the Federal government defending the
union and I thus have no objection at all to it.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

On Apr 3, 3:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

On Apr 3, 2:51 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article . com, "Iarnrod" wrote:On Apr 2, 10:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Your defense of government-supported robbery is immoral.

Freeloader.

Wait a minute -- you support government policies that take money out of one
person's pocket in order to put it in someone else's pocket, and *Tim* is the
freeloader because he objects to that?? How is he a "freeloader" for wanting
to be able to keep what is already his?

Perhaps because he supposes Mr Daneliuk partakes of
(some) of the benefits for which he objects to paying?
OTOH, I suppose, Mr Daneliuk is perfectly willing to pay
for whatever government services he thinks are appropriate
-- and no more. Most people regard government expenditures
they object to as being wasteful, foolish, or 'pork'. Few
people go so far as to argue that it is robbery when they
find themselves in the minority on the issue of how tax money
should be spent.
--
FF

The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and therefore pay for)
is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal liberty and
the union that enables it.

Where do you get the notion that government is not legally charted to do
anything else? And what all falls under the umbrella of "preserve
personal liberty and the union that enables it," anyway?

Period. Everything else *is* pork. Well ... I guess
the Post Office is sanctioned as well, and I can live with that too...

How about Highways?

--

FF



Only the Postal Roads

Wyat's that mean? Since the Postal Service delivers everywhere, doesn't
that mean all the roads?

What about fire departments?
What about offices to record property deeds?

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

On Apr 3, 3:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

On Apr 3, 2:51 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article . com,
"Iarnrod" wrote:On Apr 2, 10:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Your defense of government-supported robbery is immoral.

Freeloader.

Wait a minute -- you support government policies that take money out
of one
person's pocket in order to put it in someone else's pocket, and *Tim*
is the
freeloader because he objects to that?? How is he a "freeloader" for
wanting
to be able to keep what is already his?

Perhaps because he supposes Mr Daneliuk partakes of
(some) of the benefits for which he objects to paying?
OTOH, I suppose, Mr Daneliuk is perfectly willing to pay
for whatever government services he thinks are appropriate
-- and no more. Most people regard government expenditures
they object to as being wasteful, foolish, or 'pork'. Few
people go so far as to argue that it is robbery when they
find themselves in the minority on the issue of how tax money
should be spent.
--
FF

The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and therefore
pay for)
is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal
liberty and
the union that enables it.

Where do you get the notion that government is not legally charted to do
anything else? And what all falls under the umbrella of "preserve
personal liberty and the union that enables it," anyway?

Period. Everything else *is* pork. Well ... I guess
the Post Office is sanctioned as well, and I can live with that too...

How about Highways?

--

FF



Only the Postal Roads

Wyat's that mean? Since the Postal Service delivers everywhere, doesn't
that mean all the roads?

What about fire departments?

in my area, fire departments are not city services, but private, for-pay
services. they still go to fires for people who don't pay, but they send a
pretty hefty bill afterwards.

What about offices to record property deeds?

state or local governments job, not federal.

Just Wondering wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

On Apr 3, 3:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

On Apr 3, 2:51 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article . com,
"Iarnrod" wrote:On Apr 2, 10:29 pm, Tim
Daneliuk wrote:

Your defense of government-supported robbery is immoral.

Freeloader.

Wait a minute -- you support government policies that take money
out of one
person's pocket in order to put it in someone else's pocket, and
*Tim* is the
freeloader because he objects to that?? How is he a "freeloader"
for wanting
to be able to keep what is already his?

Perhaps because he supposes Mr Daneliuk partakes of
(some) of the benefits for which he objects to paying?
OTOH, I suppose, Mr Daneliuk is perfectly willing to pay
for whatever government services he thinks are appropriate
-- and no more. Most people regard government expenditures
they object to as being wasteful, foolish, or 'pork'. Few
people go so far as to argue that it is robbery when they
find themselves in the minority on the issue of how tax money
should be spent.
--
FF

The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and
therefore pay for)
is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal
liberty and
the union that enables it.

Where do you get the notion that government is not legally charted to do
anything else? And what all falls under the umbrella of "preserve
personal liberty and the union that enables it," anyway?

Defend the borders, run the federal courts, ensure free trade among the
states, and defend the Constitution and its amendments - that's about it.


Period. Everything else *is* pork. Well ... I guess
the Post Office is sanctioned as well, and I can live with that too...

How about Highways?

--

FF



Only the Postal Roads

Wyat's that mean? Since the Postal Service delivers everywhere, doesn't
that mean all the roads?

Yes - they are also necessary for national defense.


What about fire departments?
What about offices to record property deeds?

These are *state/local* government functions. The Federal government has no business being
involved in any such thing. Similarly the Feds are not enfranchised to be involved in
education, healthcare, etc. These - if they are government functions at all - are
state and local governmental activities.

On Apr 3, 8:42 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

On Apr 3, 3:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

On Apr 3, 2:51 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article . com,
"Iarnrod" wrote:On Apr 2, 10:29 pm, Tim
Daneliuk wrote:

Your defense of government-supported robbery is immoral.

Freeloader.

Wait a minute -- you support government policies that take money
out of one
person's pocket in order to put it in someone else's pocket, and
*Tim* is the
freeloader because he objects to that?? How is he a "freeloader"
for wanting
to be able to keep what is already his?

Perhaps because he supposes Mr Daneliuk partakes of
(some) of the benefits for which he objects to paying?
OTOH, I suppose, Mr Daneliuk is perfectly willing to pay
for whatever government services he thinks are appropriate
-- and no more. Most people regard government expenditures
they object to as being wasteful, foolish, or 'pork'. Few
people go so far as to argue that it is robbery when they
find themselves in the minority on the issue of how tax money
should be spent.
--
FF

The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and
therefore pay for)
is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal
liberty and
the union that enables it.

Where do you get the notion that government is not legally charted to do
anything else? And what all falls under the umbrella of "preserve
personal liberty and the union that enables it," anyway?

Defend the borders, run the federal courts, ensure free trade among the
states, and defend the Constitution and its amendments - that's about it.





Period. Everything else *is* pork. Well ... I guess
the Post Office is sanctioned as well, and I can live with that too...

How about Highways?

--

FF

Only the Postal Roads

Wyat's that mean? Since the Postal Service delivers everywhere, doesn't
that mean all the roads?

Yes - they are also necessary for national defense.


Is that the purpose for which you use them? Or are you
robbing the taxpayers who paid for them so that the mail
could be delivered and the military could drive to the borders?



What about fire departments?
What about offices to record property deeds?

These are *state/local* government functions. The Federal government has no business being
involved in any such thing. Similarly the Feds are not enfranchised to be involved in
education, healthcare, etc. These - if they are government functions at all - are
state and local governmental activities.

Thank goodness the state and local governments aren't robbing
you too. You might run out of money.

--

FF

What the hell has this thread have to do with the core purpose of this
group "woodworking"? No wonder the posts have declined.





On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:05:14 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 3, 3:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 3, 2:51 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
"Iarnrod" wrote:On Apr 2, 10:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
Your defense of government-supported robbery is immoral.
Freeloader.
Wait a minute -- you support government policies that take money out of
one
person's pocket in order to put it in someone else's pocket, and *Tim* is
the
freeloader because he objects to that?? How is he a "freeloader" for
wanting
to be able to keep what is already his?
Perhaps because he supposes Mr Daneliuk partakes of
(some) of the benefits for which he objects to paying?
OTOH, I suppose, Mr Daneliuk is perfectly willing to pay
for whatever government services he thinks are appropriate
-- and no more. Most people regard government expenditures
they object to as being wasteful, foolish, or 'pork'. Few
people go so far as to argue that it is robbery when they
find themselves in the minority on the issue of how tax money
should be spent.
--
FF
The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and therefore pay
for)
is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal liberty
and
the union that enables it. Period. Everything else *is* pork. Well ... I
guess
the Post Office is sanctioned as well, and I can live with that too...

How about Highways?

Only the Postal Roads

The interstate highway system was originally conceived as a means of moving
troops and military materiel rapidly; IIRC, Eisenhower got the idea for it
after seeing the German highway system during and after WW2. Congress does
have the explicit authority under the Constitution to fund and maintain an
Army and Navy; it seems clear that that authority must extend to the
infrastructure necessary for their support, such as the construction of naval
shipyards, the purchase of land for army bases... and the construction of
roads for troop and equipment movement.

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"charlie" wrote in message

in my area, fire departments are not city services, but private, for-pay
services. they still go to fires for people who don't pay, but they send
a
pretty hefty bill afterwards.

How are your property taxes?

Seems to be a trend for local governments in particular to want their ever
increasing benefits paid out of the tax payer's pocket while having their
responsibilities "out sourced".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07

compared to where? for me, they're high from when i lived in downtown
phoenix (pop 2million) and the city paid for fire/emergency services, as to
now in a city with a population of 4500. comparing to my BIL in michigan, he
laughs heartily when i mention property taxes.

regards,
charlie
cave creek, az

wrote in message
oups.com...

Thank goodness the state and local governments aren't robbing
you too. You might run out of money.

I'm curious. Do you believe that all of the programs that the federal
government spends money on are authorized under the US Constitution?

On Apr 4, 12:15 am, wrote:
What the hell has this thread have to do with the core purpose of this
group "woodworking"?

Stinky

Check between our ears.

--

FF

What the hell has this thread have to do with the core purpose of this
group "woodworking"?

Stinky






On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:05:14 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 3, 3:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 3, 2:51 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
"Iarnrod" wrote:On Apr 2, 10:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
Your defense of government-supported robbery is immoral.
Freeloader.
Wait a minute -- you support government policies that take money out of
one
person's pocket in order to put it in someone else's pocket, and *Tim* is
the
freeloader because he objects to that?? How is he a "freeloader" for
wanting
to be able to keep what is already his?
Perhaps because he supposes Mr Daneliuk partakes of
(some) of the benefits for which he objects to paying?
OTOH, I suppose, Mr Daneliuk is perfectly willing to pay
for whatever government services he thinks are appropriate
-- and no more. Most people regard government expenditures
they object to as being wasteful, foolish, or 'pork'. Few
people go so far as to argue that it is robbery when they
find themselves in the minority on the issue of how tax money
should be spent.
--
FF
The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and therefore pay
for)
is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal liberty
and
the union that enables it. Period. Everything else *is* pork. Well ... I
guess
the Post Office is sanctioned as well, and I can live with that too...

How about Highways?

Only the Postal Roads

The interstate highway system was originally conceived as a means of moving
troops and military materiel rapidly; IIRC, Eisenhower got the idea for it
after seeing the German highway system during and after WW2. Congress does
have the explicit authority under the Constitution to fund and maintain an
Army and Navy; it seems clear that that authority must extend to the
infrastructure necessary for their support, such as the construction of naval
shipyards, the purchase of land for army bases... and the construction of
roads for troop and equipment movement.

"charlie" wrote in message

in my area, fire departments are not city services, but private, for-pay
services. they still go to fires for people who don't pay, but they send a
pretty hefty bill afterwards.

How are your property taxes?

Seems to be a trend for local governments in particular to want their ever
increasing benefits paid out of the tax payer's pocket while having their
responsibilities "out sourced".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
: pet causes whether or not I agree with you. This is flatly evil.
:
: Oh Gawd, another "taxes are evil" freeloader.

: As always, when confronted with their support for evil actions, you
: and your ilk resort to ... well ... nothing really. So do go
: on and live your life in the full knowledge that your worldview
: is based on theft and your eleemosynary kindnesses are entirely
: built on violent force (or the threat thereof). You are no
: different than a common street mugger. Actually, you're worse -
: the do their own dirty work. You whip up the mob and hire the
: government to do yours for you...

: P.S. One is not a "freeloader" for demanding that they not be
: robbed to make someone else's socio-political fantasies
: come true.


Yet you support the war in Iraq. Which is funded how, exactly?
Why ... it wouldn't be tax dollars, now would it?


So, by my understanding of your beliefs: evil = taxation for governmental
actions you disagree with, but not taxation for actions you
agree with.


-- Andy Barss

In article , Just Wondering wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and therefore pay for)
is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal liberty and
the union that enables it.

Where do you get the notion that government is not legally charted to do
anything else?

Amendment 10:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to
the people."

IOW, the Federal government has no legitimate power or authority, except as
specifically provided in the Constitution.

Only the Postal Roads

Wyat's that mean? Since the Postal Service delivers everywhere, doesn't
that mean all the roads?

The Constitution specifically grants the national government the authority to
build roads for carrying the mail.

What about fire departments?

Local issue. No federal authority.

What about offices to record property deeds?

Local issue. No federal authority.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
:
: OTOH, I suppose, Mr Daneliuk is perfectly willing to pay
: for whatever government services he thinks are appropriate
: -- and no more. Most people regard government expenditures
: they object to as being wasteful, foolish, or 'pork'. Few
: people go so far as to argue that it is robbery when they
: find themselves in the minority on the issue of how tax money
: should be spent.

: The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and therefore pay for)
: is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal liberty and
: the union that enables it. Period. Everything else *is* pork. Well ... I guess
: the Post Office is sanctioned as well, and I can live with that too...

So, what about roads? Airports? the Centers for Disease Control?
Research into disease and how to prevent and cure it? And on and on and on.

These are all (partially) paid for by federal funding, which, unless
I've missed one hell of a bake sale, is tax revenue.

You'll begin to not look like a complete hypocrite when you pave
your own roads, and make your own vaccines from scratch.

Oh yeah, and no using the Internet either, you bad boy.


-- Andy Barss

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
: Doug Miller wrote:

:
: The interstate highway system was originally conceived as a means of moving
: troops and military materiel rapidly; IIRC, Eisenhower got the idea for it
: after seeing the German highway system during and after WW2. Congress does
: have the explicit authority under the Constitution to fund and maintain an
: Army and Navy; it seems clear that that authority must extend to the
: infrastructure necessary for their support, such as the construction of naval
: shipyards, the purchase of land for army bases... and the construction of
: roads for troop and equipment movement.
:

: Right. This is part of the proper role of the Federal government defending the
: union and I thus have no objection at all to it.

But since your car isn't a military vehicle, you ought not to use the
highway system. By your "logic", anyways.

-- Andy Barss

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

: First of all, there is a considerable difference between the
: various milita, the Klan, and the skinheads. This may be
: a fine point, but not all or perhaps even most, militia are
: remotely touting the kind of evil the Klan and the skinheads
: endorse



You're absolutely wrong. Militia groups in the US have
amassed huge caches of weapons, many of them having the explicit
goal of violently overthrowing the US government.

Go search on "militia" at the Southern poverty Law Center
website, for example:

http://www.splcenter.org/search/s-qu...a&si=0&x=0&y=0


-- Andy Barss

On Apr 3, 7:00 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:11 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
om,
wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:51 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
' wrote:
" I'm not inclined to suppose many elected officials
look up to her or consider her to be anything
more than a 'useful' idiot. OTOH the Republicans
largely credited Rush Limbaugh with helping them
win the Congress and a few years later I personally
heard him trying to fool people into thinking that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World trade Center.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...g/0db4ff1505b4...
ce&hl=en

Do you really not ever read the stuff you post?
Or do you read it, and then
deliberately lie about what it says?

In the post you cite above, you describe hearing Limbaugh
_quoting_somebody_else_.
[one]

False.

Picky, picky -- you describe hearing Limbaugh play a "sound bite". Point
remains, it was _somebody_else_speaking_, not Limbaugh -- but you blame
Limbaugh.

Of course.

If I put on a radio show in which I speak, go to a commerical
then after the commercial, play music, then fade the music
out and play a soundbite from somebody else saying Mr Miller
is a bright guy, then play more music, then go to another
commercial break, then come back and resume speaking,
would it not be obvious that I was trying to fool people into
thinking that Mr Miller is a bright guy?

What other motivation could reasonably be ascribed to me?

Without context, it's not possible to tell whether you agree with that
sentiment, or are mocking it.

On its face it would like I wasn't even involved. It is pretty hard to
mock something without as least some sort of commentary--
at least a facial expression or a snort or something.


With respect to the segment of the Limbaugh show at issue, I'm much more
inclined to suspect the latter than the former -- since I've heard Limbaugh
*repeatedly* state that Saddam had *nothing* to do with 9/11; in fact, he's
been highly critical of the leftists such as yourself who have repeatedly
(and falsely) accused President Bush of blaming Saddam.


[two]

Well that certainly explains why he wouldn't want to say
it himself. He can truthfully deny ever saying that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade Center
because instead of saying it, he played it, albeit
without criticism, comment, attribution and without
even identifying himself as the author of the segment.


I challenge you to show a single time when I accused
President Bush of saying Saddam Hussein was behind
or assisted in the attacks of September 11.

If that is not what you meant by "like yourself" we
can set the counter back to [one].

I am pretty sure that I repeated the claim that he told
people to find evidence implicating Saddam Hussein
and am quite sure that he is happy to have people make
that mistake but I do not recall ever saying that he did so
himself. I have heard Cheney Rumsfeld and John Edwards
(during his debate with Cheney) blame or otherwise implicate
Saddam Hussein for the attacks on September 11, but
only in what appeared to be slips of the tongue.



You should go back and read it again.

*You* need to read it the *first* time. Your characterization, *now*, of that
post is directly opposite of what it says.
[three]

False.

You can't read plain English.

The real problem is that you can't *write* plain English.


To the contrary I carefully chose words that did NOT imply that
the deceptive segment was spoken by Limbaugh himself.





Then you come here, and claim that *Limbaugh* was attempting to deceive
people.

There's some deception being attempted, all right -- but not by Limbaugh.

I remain convinced that Limbaugh mixed and played
that segment of his show in an attempt to fool people
into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the
World trade Center.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, no matter how ignorant and
ill-infomed it may be.

Oddly enough, you deny that below.

And you have the nerve to accuse *me* of not being able to read plain
English?!


Of course. Here you say I am entitled to my opinion, then
you call me a liar for expressing it.



The *fact*, however, is that you did *not* "personally hear [Limbaugh] trying
to fool people into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade
Center." What you heard was Limbaugh citing _somebody_else_ who made that
claim.
[four]

Are you ordering your comments in reverse of
the described sequence of events just to obfuscate?

Not at all. It *is* a fact that you did not hear Limbaugh
say what you claim he said.

I never claimed that he spoke those words and was
very careful to avoid anything that implied (to a person
competent in the English Language) that he did.
Were I as intemperate as you, I would call you a liar.
Instead, I'll allow as you are too damn proud to admit
you misread what I wrote



Your conclusion as to what he meant is inference and opinion.



The first statement in your paragraph above is false.

Not according to your original post.


Nonsense. I am quite confident that Mr Limbaugh is
responsible for what he plays on his show and how
he presents it.



The second statement is true for the first
part of the show, preceding the segment in
dispute. I never suggested that his entire show
was deceptive. If it was, he fooled me too.

You certainly stated that *part* of it was deceptive.

Of course. It was.


I guess it might have deceived me, too,
if I had as much trouble understanding
plain English as you seem to.


You are the one who read "tried to fool" and misrepresent
it as "said".



It is what he played BETWEEN the two commercial
breaks that I recognize as attempting to fool people
into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the World
Trade Center. Otherwise, why would he hide the
fact that it was part of his show?

"Hide"? Where does that come from?


That comes from putting it in between two commercial
breaks so it sounded like something that followed or
preceded his show, and was not part of it. It's not
like he commented on it or even spoke a single word
indicating it was part of his show.




Read it again.

Ditto.



I criticized Limbaugh for PLAYING a statement by
someone else, sandwiched between music, sandwiched
between commercials presented as if he had nothing to
do with it.

False. You criticized Limbaugh for "trying to fool people into thinking that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade Center."

To the contrary it is true.
He tried to fool people into thinking that Saddam Hussein
attacked the World Trade Center by playing a statement to
that effect sandwiched between music and sandwiched between
commercials so that it did not seem on it's face to be a
part of his show.


He did no such thing.

[six]

I *Personally* heard him do that.



NOT citing someone else.

When you CITE someone you identify the speaker and
on a talk show typically also comment on it or at least
acknowledge that the presentation is part of your show.
You don't sneak it in between two commercials and in
the middle of a musical number as if you had nothing
to do with it.

Here is the sequence of his show that day:

Limbaugh played sound bites and commented on them

commercial break

music plays then fades away

soundbites, of someone else speaking
including "Saddam Hussein blew up the World
Trade Center and kids don't know it."

music resumes

commercial break

Limbaugh talks

That is just what I described when I first posted about it,
though I was a bit more succinct as I didn't expect to have
to lay it out in excruciating detail for a rabid semi-literate
moron.

It now becomes clear that you are aware that you're losing the argument: as
leftists always do, you resort to personal insult when logic fails you.

[seven]

By any chance did you see the follow-up that said that sort of
'thing' was his schtick?



I also expressed a suspicion that the false statement
had been taken out of context

Trying to evade responsibility for one lie by compounding it with another.
Your original post says nothing of the kind;
[eight]

My original post :

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...60802e5fef9a6f

"I really doubt that the person Mr Limbaugh was criticizing really
said
that. But I'm not able to come up with a credible benign
explanation.
So, I'm left supposing that Limbaugh played that quote, probably
edited
down to change its content, as part of a deliberate deception. "

in fact, it's titled "Playing
lies during the Thankgiving day show on Radio".

Appropriately so.



(and now suggest it may
also have been re-arranged) as it is hard to believe that
an educator concerned about keeping students informed
of world events would say such a thing intending it as
literal truth.

Your faith in the education system is touching, although perhaps misplaced.


Your faith in Limbaugh is inexplicable.



...

While there may be any number of other reasons
to reject your alternative explanation for now I'll
stick with the simplest--you present none.

The simplest explanation of all is the obvious one -- you're not telling the
truth. What you claim *now* that you heard is not what you stated *then* that
you heard.

[nine]
Which as you know doesn't even address the issue.

Actually, your failure to tell the truth is the *entire* issue here.


Shall we add up your lies?

That makes [ten].




We all know that you are calling me a liar instead of presenting
an alternative explanation for Mr Limbaugh's presentation. So
why not just cut to the chase and admit you can't come up
with one?

Alternative explanation for *what*?

For the segment. The notion that he was mocking
the speaker isn't credible. When Limbaugh mocks
someone, sublety is not his forte.


You ARE a liar: you claimed in the current thread that you "personally heard"
*Limbaugh* trying to fool people into thinking Saddam Hussein attacked the
WTC. The fact is -- by YOUR OWN admission in your earlier post -- that what
you heard was _someone_else_ speaking.

Not Limbaugh.

Correct. I personally heard Limbaugh play a segment,
using other peoples' words and music, which was an
obvious attempt to fool people into thinking that Saddam
Hussein attacked the World Trade Center. People can
claim that it was not his intent to deceive that doesn't
make it so, it makes the people who advance THAT
claim liars. Sort of like the people who claim Clinton
did not intend to deceive the court.


Either you were lying then, when you said it was someone else speaking, or
you're lying now, when you blame Limbaugh for it.

Or both.

I'll just count that as only one more, bringing the total to [eleven].

--

FF

This thread was designed to annoy you personally. YOU were singled out. Did
it work?

"Stinky" wrote in message
...
What the hell has this thread have to do with the core purpose of this
group "woodworking"? No wonder the posts have declined.

On Apr 4, 12:02 am, "todd" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

Thank goodness the state and local governments aren't robbing
you too. You might run out of money.

I'm curious. Do you believe that all of the programs that the federal
government spends money on are authorized under the US Constitution?

I'm not familiar with _every_ Federal Program but ISTR that
"To Provide for the Public Welfare" or something like that
is found among the authorities and responsibilities of the
Congress.

That is pretty broad though the Courts and Congress seem to
prefer even more far-fetched. I loved Thomas' dissent in the
Medical Marijuana Case.

--

FF

"charlie" wrote in message

compared to where?

Here, in Houston, roughly 2.15% of an arbitrary and inflated "appraised
value", which had no bearing on "fair market value", which has a specific
definition.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07

On Apr 4, 1:33 am, wrote:
...
That is pretty broad though the Courts and Congress seem to
prefer even more far-fetched. I loved Thomas' dissent in the
Medical Marijuana Case.


Er, I meant to write

That is pretty broad though the Courts and
Congress seem to prefer even more far-fetched
interpretations of the ICC.

--

FF

On Apr 2, 7:36 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 2, 5:26 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

...

I don't recall ever hearing any political opinions
attributed to Rosie O'Donnell, that last thing I
remember hearing about her before movie when
made her current feud with Donald Trump had
something to do with her bodyguard applying
for a concealed carry permit and before that it
was a movie she made with Dan Ackroid.
Just this past week she equated the Iranian taking
of the UK soldiers as being akin to the Gulf Of
Tonkin affair.

Do you suppose that in the 1960's critics of the
Gulf of Tonkin fraud were criticized for comparing
it to the sinking of the Maine?

I don't recall, but it's irrelevant. In making this
statement she is arguing that the taking of these
soldiers was an intentional fraud by the UK government
and possibly the US. That is the obvious meaning of
her words. She is revolting.



She (and other) media Lefties have
also made lots of noise about how the 9/11 murders
were staged (by the Neocons presumably) to get a nice juicy
war going.

I gather from your presumption, that she didn't say
that the 9/11 attacks were staged by the Neocons.
So that leaves us with an actual statement with
which I agree. The 9/11 attacks were staged to get
a nice juicy war going. IMHO they were staged for
that purpose by bin Laden.

An utterly insane analysis. She clearly means that
it staging was by and within the US power structure.
She and the others in this bag clearly believe
in an internal US conspiracy in varying degrees.
They are so utterly ravaged by hatred of their political
enemies that they are willing to ascribe conspiracy where
the plain facts provide a much simpler and obvious answer.

Considering the

extend you will go to fabricate ulterior motives
for the most banal of my remarks (e.g. I don't
know any prominent scientist...) I'm not inclined
to accept inferences you draw about what
she didn't say.

Interesting. In the threat which you are referencing
you claimed that 'no prominent scientist ...'. I challenged
you on the statement generally and also on the qualifier
'prominent'. The former because it simply isn't true and
the latter because it is an implici appeal to authority which
has no place in science. Then I produced *a* climatologist who
demonstrated my case that there was another view to be had.
Then you responded with something like "I stipulated you have
produced an example of one scientist who ..." Then I followed
up with a couple of emails were I documented a list of others.
And you responded with .... silence. (As you should, since your
position on the matter at hand was incorrect.) The point of this
little trip through recent posting history is to deflate this
claim that I ascribe ulterior motives. I analyze what you say
using the usual and obvious meaning of language and either agree,
keep still, or refute your statements.



Note that she is not some barely heard
fringe voice. She is a "personality" on one of the
more popular daytime TV drool fests targeted
particularly at women.

I'm not inclined to suppose many elected officials
look up to her or consider her to be anything
more than a 'useful' idiot. OTOH the Republicans
largely credited Rush Limbaugh with helping them
win the Congress and a few years later I personally
heard him trying to fool people into thinking that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World trade Center.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...g/0db4ff1505b4...

I don't listen to him much, but I've never heard him make that claim. I *have* heard him
claim that SH was part of an ecosystem friendly toward people who employ the methods of
terrorism and thus was legitimately in the crosshairs if we are to attack terrorists
*and* those who support them. This is an entirely unremarkable position. It is true
without dispute that SH has among other things: Funded "Palestinian" suicide bombers',
provided safe harbor to known terrorist (was it Abu Nidal, I can't recall), and plotted
to assassinate a former US president. These alone are ample evidence to support
that statement.



Noah Chomsky. ...
Here's a bit of his wit and wisdom that you may find
less bland:

Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really
easy way: stop participating in it.

(The implication, of course, is that the US/West acts equivalently
to terrorists.)

Do you suppose he meant to imply that the US/West ONLY
acts thus, or merely that it has done so? It was once pointed

That is has done so on some occasions would be the obvious reading.
Also the tense of "participating" means that he believes it is an
ongoing activity.

out to me that if you are standing next to a bomb when it explodes
it matters naught to you if the bomb was hidden in a trash can
or dropped from an airplane.

This is a very low form of moral equivalence. *Why* something happened
does matter in the larger geopolitical sphere. Sure, if you're the
victim, it doesn't make much difference. But, when judging the morality
of the acts, it sure does make a difference. "Terrorists" by planning
and intent target non-combatants as a matter of *policy*. While civilians
have died at the hands of US weapons in time of war, this has never
been the policy of our government in our lifetime so far as I am aware.
Chomsky drawing this parallel merely illustrates how much he loathes hisowncountry, nothing more. It is not remotely true.



I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to
exist, then it would choose the American system.

(It's a shame people like Noam have never known a real Fascist system
because then they would have the manners to keep quiet.)

Maybe he has which is why he suggested that there were NO
rational examples thereof. You haven;t suggested what you
suppose he meant, do you suppose he meant that we should
keep our guard up because it would be easy for a Fascist
dictator to take control under the guise of a populist, progressive,
liberal, or 'social conservative'?

Doubtful. But even if that is what he meant it is absurd. It would
not be *easy* for any Fascist to take control as you suggest because the
US citizenry is accustomed to considerably liberty - liberty that would be
fairly curtailed in any Fascist system, "rational" or otherwise. In any case,
I take the meaning of this statement in context of his many other
anti-American screeds and it is reasonable to conclude that this is just
another.



If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American
president would have been hanged.

(Yes. American presidents are no better than the butchers of the 3rd Reich
and/or Nuremberg was a sham.)

Neither of those inference are remotely justifiable. Considering a
person to be a criminal is not equivalent to considering him to
be as bad a criminal as the worst ever.

Sure, but the point remains that he considers every postwar American
president as *the moral/legal equivalent* as the butchers of the 3rd Reich
under the rule of Nuremburg. It's just an outrageous statement. How
can any bright person (and he is that) seriously believe that, say,
Kennedy or Carter or Reagan could be judged and sentenced to death under
the rules in place at Nuremburg? The answer is this: It is possible to
hold this view only if you believe in the essential evil of US leadership
and/or the system at large.



There are many other equally un-bland comments from Chomsky. They
demonstrate an above-average intellect that is occasionally insightful
but full of self-loathing. He maintains an institutionalized hatred of the very
things that made the West the most durable bastion for the preservation
of liberty.

You've demonstrated so far that he is guilty of no exaggerations
worse that those which typify your remarks.

You are entitled to that view however wrong it is. But even if it
were so, no one considers *me* an important intellectual force in
the formation of a major stream of political theory. Moreover,
I think any reasonable reading of his comments, especially in context
of his perpetual vitriol directed at the US, it's government, its
leaders and so forth, leads one to conclude that he pretty much
loathes this country's ideas and system.



I certainly can't be sure that my interpretations are correct
but I surely don't buy your spin as definitive.

Nor should you. But you should at the very least be suspicious
that a person who articulates such views is considered important
among the radical Left.





The notion that the Democrats even HAVE some
sort of unifying ideology is ludicrous. They lack
the necessary social skills.
The latter is certainly true for allgroupsof people
who choose to create associations with one another, but
the former is not so. The Ds (and the Rs) do have some
basic formations on which they essentially agree. In
the case of the Ds the basic premise appears to be that
their definition of "social justice" is so good/proper/inarguable
that it justifies *forcing* other citizens to participate
against their will. This is nothing short of mob rule.
(For the record the Rs have a similar "we know what's good
for you" ethos, they merely define "good" differently.)

AFACT, what you mean is they both agree on such matters
as taxation, zoning laws, building codes and so on.

More broadly, they both "agree" that they know what is
"good" and are willing to use force beyond that
mandated by both our foundational law and the political theory
upon which it is built. Neither values liberty primarily. Both
value political power above everything else.



...Global warming was the cause of 9/11 -- and I disagree that Noam Chomsky is of above average intelligence - for many years he has been authoring pulpy little soft cover books that after a few years pretty much stink just like their content -- Noam himself is pretty much an idiot. His books are a bore.
Just thought I'd let you know.


...

read more »

Andrew Barss wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
: Doug Miller wrote:

:
: The interstate highway system was originally conceived as a means of moving
: troops and military materiel rapidly; IIRC, Eisenhower got the idea for it
: after seeing the German highway system during and after WW2. Congress does
: have the explicit authority under the Constitution to fund and maintain an
: Army and Navy; it seems clear that that authority must extend to the
: infrastructure necessary for their support, such as the construction of naval
: shipyards, the purchase of land for army bases... and the construction of
: roads for troop and equipment movement.
:

: Right. This is part of the proper role of the Federal government defending the
: union and I thus have no objection at all to it.

But since your car isn't a military vehicle, you ought not to use the
highway system. By your "logic", anyways.

-- Andy Barss

No. The defense of the nation (arguably) demanded the creation of the highway
system. Once created, I have no problem with the population that paid for it
using it during peacetime. OTOH, I am fine with making every such highway
a toll road so that the people who use it pay for its ongoing maintenance.

wrote:
On Apr 3, 8:42 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 3, 3:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 3, 2:51 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
"Iarnrod" wrote:On Apr 2, 10:29 pm, Tim
Daneliuk wrote:
Your defense of government-supported robbery is immoral.
Freeloader.
Wait a minute -- you support government policies that take money
out of one
person's pocket in order to put it in someone else's pocket, and
*Tim* is the
freeloader because he objects to that?? How is he a "freeloader"
for wanting
to be able to keep what is already his?
Perhaps because he supposes Mr Daneliuk partakes of
(some) of the benefits for which he objects to paying?
OTOH, I suppose, Mr Daneliuk is perfectly willing to pay
for whatever government services he thinks are appropriate
-- and no more. Most people regard government expenditures
they object to as being wasteful, foolish, or 'pork'. Few
people go so far as to argue that it is robbery when they
find themselves in the minority on the issue of how tax money
should be spent.
--
FF
The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and
therefore pay for)
is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal
liberty and
the union that enables it.
Where do you get the notion that government is not legally charted to do
anything else? And what all falls under the umbrella of "preserve
personal liberty and the union that enables it," anyway?
Defend the borders, run the federal courts, ensure free trade among the
states, and defend the Constitution and its amendments - that's about it.





Period. Everything else *is* pork. Well ... I guess
the Post Office is sanctioned as well, and I can live with that too...
How about Highways?
--
FF
Only the Postal Roads
Wyat's that mean? Since the Postal Service delivers everywhere, doesn't
that mean all the roads?
Yes - they are also necessary for national defense.


Is that the purpose for which you use them? Or are you
robbing the taxpayers who paid for them so that the mail
could be delivered and the military could drive to the borders?

Once created, there is no particular reason to exclude the people who
paid for them, up to and including making them toll roads to offset the
cost for their ongoing non-military/non-postal use. This is conceptually
no different than having a military surplus sale. The initial expenditure
was within the boundaries of Constitutionally permitted Federal spending.
In the aftermath, the government can choose to recover some of the costs
incurred. Hardly remarkable.


The issue at hand, though, is permitting the Federal government to use our
money to do things for which it never had initial (Constitutional) authority.
You'll be hard pressed to make the case for national defense, preservation
of the Constitution etc. when spending money on drug abusers, the sexually
irresponsible, people who will not save for their own retirement, and so forth.



What about fire departments?
What about offices to record property deeds?
These are *state/local* government functions. The Federal government has no business being
involved in any such thing. Similarly the Feds are not enfranchised to be involved in
education, healthcare, etc. These - if they are government functions at all - are
state and local governmental activities.

Thank goodness the state and local governments aren't robbing
you too. You might run out of money.

State and local governments have one important property: I can move away from them if
I find their (legitimate) authorizing constructs onerous. So long as I am an American,
I am faced with the Federal government wherever I go within the nation and even possibly
overseas. The Framers were wise in severely limiting Federal power and reach. Sadly
my fellow citizens are clueless on the whole about why this is a good thing and have
been busy begging the Feds to clean up the messes or their lives. No good thing proceeds
from this.

--

FF

Andrew Barss wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
:
: OTOH, I suppose, Mr Daneliuk is perfectly willing to pay
: for whatever government services he thinks are appropriate
: -- and no more. Most people regard government expenditures
: they object to as being wasteful, foolish, or 'pork'. Few
: people go so far as to argue that it is robbery when they
: find themselves in the minority on the issue of how tax money
: should be spent.

: The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and therefore pay for)
: is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal liberty and
: the union that enables it. Period. Everything else *is* pork. Well ... I guess
: the Post Office is sanctioned as well, and I can live with that too...

So, what about roads? Airports? the Centers for Disease Control?

Roads and airports are arguably a part of a national defense infrastructure.
Until/unless there is a theat of bio-terror, the CDC is not.

Research into disease and how to prevent and cure it? And on and on and on.

Not a power granted to the Federal government, however useful or meritorious
is otherwise might be.


These are all (partially) paid for by federal funding, which, unless
I've missed one hell of a bake sale, is tax revenue.


And in so doing a violation of the Constitution.

You'll begin to not look like a complete hypocrite when you pave
your own roads, and make your own vaccines from scratch.

If the law of the land - THE law of the land - is not important, then
NO law is. If the Sheeple can make up law however they want, whenever
they want, with complete disregard to the limits placed on Federal
power, then there is no particular reason to obey *any* law. We then
are simply in a state of mob rule - whatever the majority wants becomes
law without question. And *that* more than anything characterizes
today's popular culture. "Law" is the fashion of the moment, not an objective
set of standards we can hold as normative upon one another. Under todays's
Western culture, if enough people wanted slavery, we could easily reinstate
it. It will not be the far Right or even the far Left that causes a totalitarian
state to arise in the US/UK/Anglosphere. It will be the drooling public that has
abandoned the notion that government must be limited by legal principle (a republic)
in favor of the notion that the government must be whatever the majority wants
(mob rule/pure democracy) no matter what the actual law says.


Oh yeah, and no using the Internet either, you bad boy.

The internet has been a privately funded institution for many years now.
It's genesis was *military* and very much in bounds for Federal government
action (cf ARPA in the early 1970s). But it took on a life of its own
as the private sector embraced it and no longer is a government thing
in any particular way. In fact, the government today buys its bandwidth
from private providers for the most part. Silly example on your part.



-- Andy Barss

Andrew Barss wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
: pet causes whether or not I agree with you. This is flatly evil.
:
: Oh Gawd, another "taxes are evil" freeloader.

: As always, when confronted with their support for evil actions, you
: and your ilk resort to ... well ... nothing really. So do go
: on and live your life in the full knowledge that your worldview
: is based on theft and your eleemosynary kindnesses are entirely
: built on violent force (or the threat thereof). You are no
: different than a common street mugger. Actually, you're worse -
: the do their own dirty work. You whip up the mob and hire the
: government to do yours for you...

: P.S. One is not a "freeloader" for demanding that they not be
: robbed to make someone else's socio-political fantasies
: come true.


Yet you support the war in Iraq. Which is funded how, exactly?
Why ... it wouldn't be tax dollars, now would it?

As it should be. Defending the nation's borders and deflecting threats from
abroad is entirely *within* the purview of the Federal government. It is
one of the very few things it is *supposed* to be doing. THis entire
subthread is depressing because it is entirely evident that most of you
responding have probably never read the Constitution and/or the debates
that surrounded it ratification. So much for a free society.



So, by my understanding of your beliefs: evil = taxation for governmental
actions you disagree with, but not taxation for actions you
agree with.

No, Federal taxation=evil when the money is to be spent on things the Federal government
has no legal authority to do. Please go read the Constitution. Then go read
and/or study the Federalist Papers. Then read John Locke. You might be able to
actually grasp the issues at hand then.




-- Andy Barss

Andrew Barss wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

: First of all, there is a considerable difference between the
: various milita, the Klan, and the skinheads. This may be
: a fine point, but not all or perhaps even most, militia are
: remotely touting the kind of evil the Klan and the skinheads
: endorse



You're absolutely wrong. Militia groups in the US have
amassed huge caches of weapons,

Which is well within the spirit and intent of the 2nd Amendement -
which the Federal Appeals court just upheld as a *personal* right
in a recent finding.

many of them having the explicit
goal of violently overthrowing the US government.

Something that Jefferson himself advocated in the extreme case of
overweening government and hubris. I do not advocate it because I think
there is still plenty of time for a rational and non-violent way to fix
the abuses of the Federal government. But the first step is for the Sheeple
to quit mooching that which they: a) Have no right to ask the Feds for
and b) Have not earned for themselves.


Go search on "militia" at the Southern poverty Law Center
website, for example:

http://www.splcenter.org/search/s-qu...a&si=0&x=0&y=0

Boy, now *there's* an authoritative source. I prefer the Constitution itself, thanks...



-- Andy Barss

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:


The interstate highway system was originally conceived as a means
of moving troops and military materiel rapidly; IIRC, Eisenhower
got the idea for it after seeing the German highway system during
and after WW2. Congress does have the explicit authority under the
Constitution to fund and maintain an Army and Navy; it seems clear
that that authority must extend to the infrastructure necessary
for their support, such as the construction of naval shipyards,
the purchase of land for army bases... and the construction of
roads for troop and equipment movement.


Right. This is part of the proper role of the Federal government
defending the union and I thus have no objection at all to it.

But since your car isn't a military vehicle, you ought not to use the
highway system. By your "logic", anyways.

-- Andy Barss

No. The defense of the nation (arguably) demanded the creation of
the highway
system. Once created, I have no problem with the population that
paid for it
using it during peacetime. OTOH, I am fine with making every such
highway
a toll road so that the people who use it pay for its ongoing
maintenance.

You've never lived in an area where there are a significant number of
toll roads, have you? Currently gas tax pays for highway maintenance.
The trend is away from toll roads due to the huge traffic jams at the
toll booths.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:

You've never lived in an area where there are a significant number of
toll roads, have you? Currently gas tax pays for highway maintenance.
The trend is away from toll roads due to the huge traffic jams at the
toll booths.

Actually, that *was* the trend a decade ago. Now, the trend is toward toll
roads, as RFI tags and readers eliminate the need for toll booths at all.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article .com, wrote:
On Apr 3, 7:00 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

The real problem is that you can't *write* plain English.

To the contrary I carefully chose words that did NOT imply that
the deceptive segment was spoken by Limbaugh himself.

Yet another lie, Fred. You wrote that you personally heard Limbaugh attempting
to fool people into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the WTC.

That choice of words does, exactly, imply that it was Limbaugh himself
speaking.

You're in a hole. Quit digging.
[snip]
And you have the nerve to accuse *me* of not being able to read plain
English?!

Of course. Here you say I am entitled to my opinion, then
you call me a liar for expressing it.

No, I call you a liar for claiming that opinion to be a fact.

The *fact*, however, is that you did *not* "personally hear [Limbaugh] trying
to fool people into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade
Center." What you heard was Limbaugh citing _somebody_else_ who made that
claim.
[four]

Are you ordering your comments in reverse of
the described sequence of events just to obfuscate?

Not at all. It *is* a fact that you did not hear Limbaugh
say what you claim he said.

I never claimed that he spoke those words

You implied it, when you falsely stated that you had personally heard him
attempting to fool people into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the WTC.

and was
very careful to avoid anything that implied (to a person
competent in the English Language) that he did.

False yet again...

Were I as intemperate as you, I would call you a liar.

Oh, and calling me a semi-literate moron is temperate?

Instead, I'll allow as you are too damn proud to admit
you misread what I wrote

And I'll allow as how you are too damn proud to admit that you've been caught
talking through your hat *again*.



Your conclusion as to what he meant is inference and opinion.

The first statement in your paragraph above is false.

Not according to your original post.


Nonsense. I am quite confident that Mr Limbaugh is
responsible for what he plays on his show and how
he presents it.

Just as you are responsible for the inferences you draw from what you hear --
and how you present those inferences.

The second statement is true for the first
part of the show, preceding the segment in
dispute. I never suggested that his entire show
was deceptive. If it was, he fooled me too.

You certainly stated that *part* of it was deceptive.

Of course. It was.

Point it, it wasn't *Limbaugh* who made the deceptive statement. You implied
that it was.


I guess it might have deceived me, too,
if I had as much trouble understanding
plain English as you seem to.


You are the one who read "tried to fool" and misrepresent
it as "said".

You wrote that you personally heard Limbaugh attempting to fool people into
thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the WTC.

Limbaugh didn't say that.



It is what he played BETWEEN the two commercial
breaks that I recognize as attempting to fool people
into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the World
Trade Center. Otherwise, why would he hide the
fact that it was part of his show?

"Hide"? Where does that come from?

That comes from putting it in between two commercial
breaks so it sounded like something that followed or
preceded his show, and was not part of it. It's not
like he commented on it or even spoke a single word
indicating it was part of his show.

Your original post indicated that it was apparently the voice of a person who
had been on the show previously. And now you want me to believe that you think
it wasn't even part of the show?

Get real.

Just admit you've been caught talking through your hat -- *again* -- and drop
it. You're in a hole, but you haven't figured that out yet, and you're still
digging.




Read it again.

Ditto.



I criticized Limbaugh for PLAYING a statement by
someone else, sandwiched between music, sandwiched
between commercials presented as if he had nothing to
do with it.

False. You criticized Limbaugh for "trying to fool people into thinking that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade Center."

To the contrary it is true.

Perhaps in LeftSpeak. I believe, though, that words actually have meanings.
For instance, that "true" means objectively verifiable, real and correct.
Apparently, you believe that "true" means whatever advances your particular
set of beliefs.

He tried to fool people into thinking that Saddam Hussein
attacked the World Trade Center by playing a statement to
that effect sandwiched between music and sandwiched between
commercials so that it did not seem on it's face to be a
part of his show.

sigh Caught you *again*.

You wrote at the time:

"... sound byte that sounded like it was from the same person Mr Limbaugh had
been criticizing earlier."

So... were you lying then, when you said it sounded like the same person, or
are you lying now, when you say it didn't seem to be part of the show?

Not to mention the fact that your reference _at_the_time_ to Limbaugh as
having *criticized* that person pretty much knocks the props out from
underneath your current claim that Limbaugh endorsed that viewpoint.

Now give it up. You've been caught in a lie, and you've compounded it by
adding more lies on top of it in a failed attempt to justify the original one.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Just Wondering wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and therefore pay for)
is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal liberty and
the union that enables it.

Where do you get the notion that government is not legally charted to do
anything else?


Amendment 10:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to
the people."

IOW, the Federal government has no legitimate power or authority, except as
specifically provided in the Constitution.


Only the Postal Roads

Wyat's that mean? Since the Postal Service delivers everywhere, doesn't
that mean all the roads?


The Constitution specifically grants the national government the authority to
build roads for carrying the mail.

What about fire departments?


Local issue. No federal authority.


What about offices to record property deeds?


Now you're changing your tune. Your original post spoke of government;
now you're changing it to federal government?

In article , Just Wondering wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Just Wondering
wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and therefore
pay for)
is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal liberty
and
the union that enables it.

Where do you get the notion that government is not legally charted to do
anything else?


Amendment 10:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to
the people."

IOW, the Federal government has no legitimate power or authority, except as
specifically provided in the Constitution.


Only the Postal Roads

Wyat's that mean? Since the Postal Service delivers everywhere, doesn't
that mean all the roads?


The Constitution specifically grants the national government the authority to

build roads for carrying the mail.

What about fire departments?


Local issue. No federal authority.


What about offices to record property deeds?


Now you're changing your tune. Your original post spoke of government;
now you're changing it to federal government?

Not changing my tune at all, just pointing out which levels of government have
the authority to do what.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Just Wondering wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:


What about fire departments?

Local issue. No federal authority.


Local government has NO inherent authority. Whatever authority local
government has is a grant from the states.


What about offices to record property deeds?

Now you're changing your tune. Your original post spoke of government;
now you're changing it to federal government?

Not changing my tune at all, just pointing out which levels of government have
the authority to do what.

Your original post said, "The only government "benefit" of which I wish
to partake (and therefore pay for)is the only thing it is legally
chartered to do: Preserve personal liberty and the union that enables
it." You said nothing about what levels of government had the authority
to do what. You said nothing about federal authority vs. state
authority.
BTW I'm not arguing the federal government hasn't exceeded it's
consititutional authority; IMHO it clearly has.

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"charlie" wrote in message

compared to where?

Here, in Houston, roughly 2.15% of an arbitrary and inflated "appraised
value", which had no bearing on "fair market value", which has a specific
definition.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07

city taxes are miniscule, somewhere around .4%. up until the city bought a
large tract of desert for a land preserve about 5 years ago, it was 0%,
depending upon sales tax and development fees on new houses for money.

county is around 3%. schools and other misc taxes are another 2% or so, all
on the assessed value, which this year of course went up the usual 35%. in
az they only change the assessment every 2 years. the average house assessed
value is north of $550k.

regards,
charlie
cave creek, az

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
: http://www.splcenter.org/search/s-qu...a&si=0&x=0&y=0

: Boy, now *there's* an authoritative source. I prefer the Constitution itself, thanks...


Ah, so now you don't read anything written in the last two centuries, even for,
say, information on things that have happened in the last two centuries?

Interesting approach to life.


-- Andy Barss

Andrew Barss wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
: http://www.splcenter.org/search/s-qu...a&si=0&x=0&y=0

: Boy, now *there's* an authoritative source. I prefer the Constitution itself, thanks...


Ah, so now you don't read anything written in the last two centuries, even for,
say, information on things that have happened in the last two centuries?

Interesting approach to life.


-- Andy Barss

I read plenty that's been written in the past 2+ centuries. But there are some things that
were not supposed to be negotiable w/o an amendment process to the Constitution itself.
If you or the SPLC or the ACLU or whomever don't like the Constitution there is a way
to change it - convince enough states to ratify an amendment. But *ignoring* our given
laws because, say, it make the SPLC nervous, is neither ethical nor legal...

In article , Just Wondering wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Just Wondering
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:


What about fire departments?

Local issue. No federal authority.

Local government has NO inherent authority. Whatever authority local
government has is a grant from the states.

Fine -- the point is, that's not a responsibility of the national government.


What about offices to record property deeds?

Now you're changing your tune. Your original post spoke of government;
now you're changing it to federal government?

Not changing my tune at all, just pointing out which levels of government have
the authority to do what.

Your original post said, "The only government "benefit" of which I wish
to partake (and therefore pay for)is the only thing it is legally
chartered to do: Preserve personal liberty and the union that enables
it."

Incorrect -- that was not my post. I didn't write that.

You said nothing about what levels of government had the authority
to do what. You said nothing about federal authority vs. state
authority.

Again -- it wasn't my post. But I'd like to point out that the context of the
discussion makes it quite clear that the Federal government was the subject of
the objections. Not state or local governments.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On 3 Apr 2007 17:12:11 -0700, wrote:

On Apr 4, 12:15 am, wrote:
What the hell has this thread have to do with the core purpose of this
group "woodworking"?

Stinky

Check between our ears.


I did and there is nothing there!

Stinky

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
: Andrew Barss wrote:
: Tim Daneliuk wrote:
: : http://www.splcenter.org/search/s-qu...a&si=0&x=0&y=0
:
: : Boy, now *there's* an authoritative source. I prefer the Constitution itself, thanks...
:
:
: Ah, so now you don't read anything written in the last two centuries, even for,
: say, information on things that have happened in the last two centuries?
:
: Interesting approach to life.
:
:
: -- Andy Barss

: I read plenty that's been written in the past 2+ centuries. But there are some things that
: were not supposed to be negotiable w/o an amendment process to the Constitution itself.
: If you or the SPLC or the ACLU or whomever don't like the Constitution there is a way
: to change it - convince enough states to ratify an amendment. But *ignoring* our given
: laws because, say, it make the SPLC nervous, is neither ethical nor legal...

You missed both my point and my second point. You said militias were not
dangerous loons the way, say, skinheads and KKKers are. I said tou were wrong on that, and
pointed you to a website that gave many examples of dangerous loony militia groups.

You then said you preferred the Constitution.

See the point now?

-- Andy Barss