"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
: Perhaps you can help me out here, I'm not yet fully up on my Book of
: Obama: Does all of the above happen before or after he lowers the
ocean
: levels and heals the sick?
: If, by some chance our country is punished with an Obama presidency,
it is
: more likely we will finally experience that Jimmy Carter second term
that
: we missed in the 80's.

How in hell could anyone be worse than the dip**** we've had in the
White House for the last eight years?

Dave in Houston

NuWave Dave wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
: Perhaps you can help me out here, I'm not yet fully up on my Book of
: Obama: Does all of the above happen before or after he lowers the
ocean
: levels and heals the sick?
: If, by some chance our country is punished with an Obama presidency,
it is
: more likely we will finally experience that Jimmy Carter second term
that
: we missed in the 80's.

How in hell could anyone be worse than the dip**** we've had in the
White House for the last eight years?

Dave in Houston

You're kidding, right?

During the last 8 years, we've had record low unemployment averaging 5.2%,
it was near 6.5% during Carter's years.

During the last 8 years, inflation has hovered around 3%, during Carter's
term it was 6.5% to 13.5%. 2008 has increased to 4.3% due to energy
changes, but still below the lowest of Carter's best years.

During the last 8 years, interest rates have ranged from 5 to 7%; during
the Carter years, interest rates were double-digit.

Aside from locations undergoing natural disasters, nobody has stood in gas
lines to fill up. Gas lines were first encountered during Carter's term.

In the past 8 years, Bush has never blamed the American people for the
country's problems. In his infamous "malaise" speech, Carter effectively
did.

During Carter's administration, due to the lack of attention paid to the
military, it was unable to rescue 50 hostages from a single city in a third
world country, nor were we capable of responding to the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan by doing anything other than boycotting the Moscow Olympics.
During the past 8 years, a terror-supporting radical theocratic regime in
Afghanistan was brought down and a terror-supporting thug in the Middle
East was brought down and his country is now establishing a democracy.

Carter thought he could solve problems by talking also -- that's why Iran
held those hostages so long. "As a fellow person of faith, I ask you to
free those being held by your people" (or words to that effect) -- Jimmy
Carter to the Ayatollah Khomeni. "We have his people and there's not a
damn thing he can do about it" -- Ayatollah Khomeni


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

NuWave Dave wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
: Perhaps you can help me out here, I'm not yet fully up on my Book of
: Obama: Does all of the above happen before or after he lowers the
ocean
: levels and heals the sick?
: If, by some chance our country is punished with an Obama presidency,
it is
: more likely we will finally experience that Jimmy Carter second term
that
: we missed in the 80's.

How in hell could anyone be worse than the dip**** we've had in the
White House for the last eight years?

Dave in Houston


Stick around and watch. If Comrade Obama (PBUH) is elected, you're
going to be begging for W to come back...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"NuWave Dave" wrote in message
...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
: Perhaps you can help me out here, I'm not yet fully up on my Book of
: Obama: Does all of the above happen before or after he lowers the
ocean
: levels and heals the sick?
: If, by some chance our country is punished with an Obama presidency,
it is
: more likely we will finally experience that Jimmy Carter second term
that
: we missed in the 80's.

How in hell could anyone be worse than the dip**** we've had in the
White House for the last eight years?

Dave in Houston

I imagine a similar sentiment being uttered about this time in 1976. Just
wait. It can always be worse. But I can already hear it. Anything good
that happens will be because of Obama, and anything bad will have been
Bush's fault.

todd

On Sep 27, 11:40*pm, "todd" wrote:
"NuWave Dave" wrote in message

...





"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
om...
: *Perhaps you can help me out here, I'm not yet fully up on my Book of
: Obama: *Does all of the above happen before or after he lowers the
ocean
: levels and heals the sick?
: *If, by some chance our country is punished with an Obama presidency,
it is
: more likely we will finally experience that Jimmy Carter second term
that
: we missed in the 80's.

* *How in hell could anyone be worse than the dip**** we've had in the
White House for the last eight years?

Dave in Houston

I imagine a similar sentiment being uttered about this time in 1976. *Just
wait. *It can always be worse. *But I can already hear it. *Anything good
that happens will be because of Obama, and anything bad will have been
Bush's fault.

todd

'S funny. For 7-1/2 years, the neocons have been blaming it all on
Clinton.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:


"Nova" wrote in message
...
Han wrote:

If you mean that we should earn our way, I agree. However, some
people haven't gotten the same chances that others could profit
from. For instance, my parents paid for my education, and that
(plus a lot of luck) is what got me where my family and I are today.
Does that mean that someone who didn't have the luck of having
parents (and grandparents etc) like mine should rot away like
garbage?


Do you really feel that if your parents had not paid for your
education you would be rotting away like garbage?


Too many of us did not receive an education funded by our parents, to
accept Han's statement above. The key point that Han seems to have
missed out on by receiving the gift that he did, is the merit and the
benefits of hard work to achieve one's goals.

To avoid misunderstandings, I believe I know the pains and rewards of
hard work. I fully believe everyone should work to the very best of
their abilities, and I have done so, IMHO. I also believe that many have
not done so. On the other hand I have seen many try and be frustrated by
(fill in your choice - management indifference/prejudice/jealousy,
unlucky choices of their own {for which adversity is advised, but
trashing?}. So I feel that it is my obligation to help people that are
worthy of my help, and where I can indeed help.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

* You're kidding, right?

* During the last 8 years, we've had record low unemployment averaging 5.2%,
it was near 6.5% during Carter's years.

Unemployment numbers are flaky at best. A job is not necessarily a
job that really benefits the fundamental economy. Yes, pretty much any
job is better than no job. But, flippin' burgurs and makin' latte
provides limited benefit.



* During the last 8 years, inflation has hovered around 3%, during Carter's
term it was 6.5% to 13.5%. *2008 has increased to 4.3% due to energy
changes, but still below the lowest of Carter's best years.

* During the last 8 years, interest rates have ranged from 5 to 7%; during
the Carter years, interest rates were double-digit.


I don't think we know what the effective interest and inflation rates
will be for the Bush years for a decade or more -- an administration
sets the policies and conditions that will determined the first or
second derivatives of each of those . You may have been seeing 5%
inflation, but if the decisions that have been made to hold 5% force
20% in 5 years, then averaging over a more suitable period gives a
better big picture estimate for the prospects of your wealth. It's
tough to measure either inflation or interest well without enough
time. The "what are today's numbers" game for Wall St. is just
another example of the stupidity.
None of this is to be a Carter apologist -- he screwed up in many
ways. But it's folly to blame everything that happens in a
president's tenure solely on that president unless there are discrete
poor decisions. Bush inherited some of Slick Willie's problems --
history will, I believe, crucify him for his discrete decisions and
for not trying to correct Clnton's errors (i.e. growing China too
fast).

hex
-30-

hex wrote in news:2df403e7-aae3-447a-
:

I don't think we know what the effective interest and inflation rates
will be for the Bush years for a decade or more -- an administration
sets the policies and conditions that will determined the first or
second derivatives of each of those . You may have been seeing 5%
inflation, but if the decisions that have been made to hold 5% force
20% in 5 years, then averaging over a more suitable period gives a
better big picture estimate for the prospects of your wealth.

Another measure of inflation would be what the value is of the dollar
versus other currencies. If (for example) the US$/€ ratio changes from
0.85 to 1.5, there is great devaluation of the dollar. That makes US
goods much cheaper in Europe, which artificially reduces unemployment
here, for the moment, and imported goods (oil?) much more expensive for
the US (despite the oil being pegged to the dollar, the oil producers
still want to get their European luxury goods hehe). So in the absence
of really good inflation control (which will hurt the common man more
than the rich), we are in for bad times, thanks to the Bush years.
Whatever you might say of Clinton, that regime ended with a suplus on the
balance sheet. Bush' tax cuts and war (and NOT entitlements) have raised
the deficit to unprecedented heights, and someone will have to pay off
those debts, someone in the future.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Inflation rate is yet another scam. I hear but have not researched
that they way that it is measured is changed all the time just to
reduce the amount of SS benefits. I do not feel that I am losing 5%
purchasing power each year. It feels like a lot more. Electricity has
gone up a bit. I have bought fuel for less than a dollar a gallon in
the past 4-5 years. Milk, bread, potato chips, hay, grain, dog food
has gone up by more than 5%. I do not think that a phony inflation
rate is a fair measure of any Congress' or president's economic
success. Right now I cannot easily find a good article on the CPI or
what is in the market basket.

I would like a national sales tax and for people to make stuff, not do
ponzi schemes. Part 4 of that is for the fed to not deficit spend.
They (Congress, Senate, President are all guilt of ponzi schemes.)
Part 5 is for households to not deficit spend except for maybe a
reasonably sized and priced house. Of course reasonable is a
subjective term.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:27:09 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

NuWave Dave wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
: Perhaps you can help me out here, I'm not yet fully up on my Book of
: Obama: Does all of the above happen before or after he lowers the
ocean
: levels and heals the sick?
: If, by some chance our country is punished with an Obama presidency,
it is
: more likely we will finally experience that Jimmy Carter second term
that
: we missed in the 80's.

How in hell could anyone be worse than the dip**** we've had in the
White House for the last eight years?

Dave in Houston

You're kidding, right?

During the last 8 years, we've had record low unemployment averaging 5.2%,
it was near 6.5% during Carter's years.

During the last 8 years, inflation has hovered around 3%, during Carter's
term it was 6.5% to 13.5%. 2008 has increased to 4.3% due to energy
changes, but still below the lowest of Carter's best years.

During the last 8 years, interest rates have ranged from 5 to 7%; during
the Carter years, interest rates were double-digit.

Aside from locations undergoing natural disasters, nobody has stood in gas
lines to fill up. Gas lines were first encountered during Carter's term.

In the past 8 years, Bush has never blamed the American people for the
country's problems. In his infamous "malaise" speech, Carter effectively
did.

During Carter's administration, due to the lack of attention paid to the
military, it was unable to rescue 50 hostages from a single city in a third
world country, nor were we capable of responding to the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan by doing anything other than boycotting the Moscow Olympics.
During the past 8 years, a terror-supporting radical theocratic regime in
Afghanistan was brought down and a terror-supporting thug in the Middle
East was brought down and his country is now establishing a democracy.

Carter thought he could solve problems by talking also -- that's why Iran
held those hostages so long. "As a fellow person of faith, I ask you to
free those being held by your people" (or words to that effect) -- Jimmy
Carter to the Ayatollah Khomeni. "We have his people and there's not a
damn thing he can do about it" -- Ayatollah Khomeni

On Sep 27, 11:27*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:


* You're kidding, right?

* During the last 8 years, we've had record low unemployment averaging 5.2%,
it was near 6.5% during Carter's years.


The lateral shift of 500,000 jobs from $ 25.00 per hour to the jobs
that pay $ 6.00 per hour doesn't affect he unemployment numbers, now
does it?

"hex" wrote

Unemployment numbers are flaky at best. A job is not necessarily a
job that really benefits the fundamental economy. Yes, pretty much any
job is better than no job. But, flippin' burgurs and makin' latte
provides limited benefit.

And, IIRC, those statistics for jobs flipping burgers are now included as
jobs in "manufacturing" ... a despicable subterfuge, almost as bad as
removing the cost of food and fuel from the "inflation index".

Another reason why there should not be an incumbent left standing in
Congress after November.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sep 28, 1:42*pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"hex" *wrote

Unemployment numbers are flaky at best. *A job is not necessarily a
job that really benefits the fundamental economy. Yes, pretty much any
job is better than no job. *But, flippin' burgurs and makin' latte
provides limited benefit.

And, IIRC, those statistics for jobs flipping burgers are now included as
jobs in "manufacturing" ... a despicable subterfuge, almost as bad as
removing the cost of food and fuel from the "inflation index".

Another reason why there should not be an incumbent left standing in
Congress after November.

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

http://tinyurl.com/4dqcqo

"Han" wrote in message
...


To avoid misunderstandings, I believe I know the pains and rewards of
hard work. I fully believe everyone should work to the very best of
their abilities, and I have done so, IMHO. I also believe that many have
not done so. On the other hand I have seen many try and be frustrated by
(fill in your choice - management indifference/prejudice/jealousy,
unlucky choices of their own {for which adversity is advised, but
trashing?}. So I feel that it is my obligation to help people that are
worthy of my help, and where I can indeed help.


To be fair, I think I'm guilty of a bad choice of words. I was trying to
get across the point that many of us had to work our way through our
education because we didn't have the benefit of a paid way, and that this
didn't hurt our chances to succeed in any way. It isn't whether one
benefits from the wealth of a family that determines one's success, it's the
drive of the individual.

--

-Mike-

"Swingman" wrote in message
And, IIRC, those statistics for jobs flipping burgers are now included as
jobs in "manufacturing" ... a despicable subterfuge, almost as bad as
removing the cost of food and fuel from the "inflation index".

Nothing new about that. A long time ago, I realized the more successful
managers were the ones that could best skew the statistics. And so it goes
all the way up to the top.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

To be fair, I think I'm guilty of a bad choice of words. I was trying
to get across the point that many of us had to work our way through
our education because we didn't have the benefit of a paid way, and
that this didn't hurt our chances to succeed in any way. It isn't
whether one benefits from the wealth of a family that determines one's
success, it's the drive of the individual.

Fair enough. In my background, it was deemed that the parents should pay
for their kids' education if they can, and that grants, loans, and work
should pay when the parents could not. I have perpetuated that for my
kids. I really hate to owe interest, so I would rather wait, save and pay
than go into hock at the rates that (whoever) charges. That being said, I
will use credit for a big purchase like a house (where the interest is
relatively low, and deductible), but even for a car, I'd rather pay from
savings (or a home equity loan) then owe big interest payments.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

(snip to)

No. The private sector will revitalize the economy unless the
various flavors of neo-communists in government, the general
population, and even the business community insist on collectivizing
that which should be private. *Politicians do not "fix" economies.
They merely damage economies, some more, some less.

What private sector? The one that has been totally discredited for
bring the US and maybe even the world economy to it's very knees.
This is the Regan legacy come home to roost.

On Sep 27, 9:44*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Jimbo wrote:

... snip

Love him or hate him, Obama represents the best chance the US has to
raise itself out of the mess that Bush has either created or made
worse (depending on where you believe it all started). *Obama will
bring a renewed status to the US on the international stage and his
ideas will revitalize the US economy. *Your delving into his history
is irrelavant and backward looking. *Remember, perception is reality.
When Obama is elected - and I predict he will be by a large margin -
the markets will sit back and wait to see who he brings into the
Treasury. *Then the economic resurgence will begin. *This time it will
be have a broader base and will improve the lives of more Americans
than any time in recent history. *

* Perhaps you can help me out here, I'm not yet fully up on my Book of
Obama: *Does all of the above happen before or after he lowers the ocean
levels and heals the sick?

I also predict a second term for him.

* If, by some chance our country is punished with an Obama presidency, it is
more likely we will finally experience that Jimmy Carter second term that
we missed in the 80's.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Comparing Obama to Carter doesn't really make a lot sense to me.
Maybe its an age thing

Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges: Obama will be a beacon
for democracy (small d - not the party) in the US and the world. His
acceptance will be widespread and will include the disenfranchised.
He will try to lower the ocean level by joining with the rest of the
developed world and trying to do something positive about climate
change. This should actually bring the US to a leadership position in
R&D, manufacture and use of alternative energy sources. He will heal
the sick by improving medicare. You have so much to look forward to
over the next eight years. It's going to be great.

Jimbo wrote:
(snip to)
No. The private sector will revitalize the economy unless the
various flavors of neo-communists in government, the general
population, and even the business community insist on collectivizing
that which should be private. Politicians do not "fix" economies.
They merely damage economies, some more, some less.

What private sector? The one that has been totally discredited for
bring the US and maybe even the world economy to it's very knees.
This is the Regan legacy come home to roost.


You are deeply confused. The market and the economy are different
entities and the economy is fundamentally sound. It is the market
that needs correcting, and so it is. The market will now do - in
one very painful and short period - what should have been going
on incrementally over the years: correct inefficiencies and bad
choices out of existence. Unless, of course, the various communists
in government have their way to try and defy Reality by
passing more laws and giving away more money they do not actually
have.

The Reagan legacy was sold out by the communist liberals and the
indifferent vote-grubbing, big spending neo-cons. This is what happens
when you do NOT honor free markets and use government to distort
markets to try and achieve financial fantasyland. No, this is
not a Reagan free market. It is a Marxist fantasy where all problems
can be resolved with the wave of the magic wand Comrade Obama and his
minions claim to have. They are fools and they are liars.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Jimbo wrote:
SNIP

Comparing Obama to Carter doesn't really make a lot sense to me.
Maybe its an age thing

One is a Southern communist, the other one is an urban communist.


Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges: Obama will be a beacon
for democracy (small d - not the party) in the US and the world. His

You mean by meeting with Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Hezbolla,
and Hamas?

acceptance will be widespread and will include the disenfranchised.

Where "disenfranchised" = "everyone who wants something that does not
legitimately belong to them".

He will try to lower the ocean level by joining with the rest of the
developed world and trying to do something positive about climate
change.

I hope he starts - if elected - by walking everywhere and eschewing
the use of all technology that is supposedly causing this imaginary
bugaboo of yours.

This should actually bring the US to a leadership position in
R&D, manufacture and use of alternative energy sources. He will heal

Yes, by passing laws to make the economy work better on the command
of congress, no doubt.

the sick by improving medicare. You have so much to look forward to
over the next eight years. It's going to be great.


I thought he was going to heal the sick via miracles as he walked on
water.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

What bailout, eh?

Now we get to watch WS throw their little hissy fits for a while, then
market forces will take over, for better or worse, and we can get back to
things like manufacturing, technology and agricultural and forgo this
trading of little bits of paper around as the holy grail of capitalism

Too bad though ... while the House finally got something right, it's a sure
bet it will turn out to be for the wrong reasons.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sep 29, 2:29*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


I thought he was going to heal the sick via miracles as he walked on
water.


Oh noooo, Obama is pinko fag commie junkie! They don't walk on water.

Same old, same old from Tim. Lots of finger pointing and no fresh
ideas. Kind of like that armchair quarterback with a big mouth but
runs out of breath whilst tying his shoes.

On Sep 29, 2:22*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
(snip to)
No. The private sector will revitalize the economy unless the
various flavors of neo-communists in government, the general
population, and even the business community insist on collectivizing
that which should be private. *Politicians do not "fix" economies.
They merely damage economies, some more, some less.

What private sector? *The one that has been totally discredited for
bring the US and maybe even the world economy to it's very knees.
This is the Regan legacy come home to roost.

You are deeply confused. The market and the economy are different
entities and the economy is fundamentally sound. It is the market
that needs correcting, and so it is. *The market will now do - in
one very painful and short period - what should have been going
on incrementally over the years: correct inefficiencies and bad
choices out of existence. *Unless, of course, the various communists
in government have their way to try and defy Reality by
passing more laws and giving away more money they do not actually
have.

The Reagan legacy was sold out by the communist liberals and the
indifferent vote-grubbing, big spending neo-cons. This is what happens
when you do NOT honor free markets and use government to distort
markets to try and achieve financial fantasyland. *No, this is
not a Reagan free market. *It is a Marxist fantasy where all problems
can be resolved with the wave of the magic wand Comrade Obama and his
minions claim to have. *They are fools and they are liars.

I'm not at all confused but you are being overly pedantic. The
economy is not sound; it has been distorted by those greedy *******s
that are looking for a bail out today.

Also, your use of the words "Marxist" and "communist" and "liberal" is
incorrect and contradictory.

Jimbo wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:22 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
(snip to)
No. The private sector will revitalize the economy unless the
various flavors of neo-communists in government, the general
population, and even the business community insist on collectivizing
that which should be private. Politicians do not "fix" economies.
They merely damage economies, some more, some less.
What private sector? The one that has been totally discredited for
bring the US and maybe even the world economy to it's very knees.
This is the Regan legacy come home to roost.
You are deeply confused. The market and the economy are different
entities and the economy is fundamentally sound. It is the market
that needs correcting, and so it is. The market will now do - in
one very painful and short period - what should have been going
on incrementally over the years: correct inefficiencies and bad
choices out of existence. Unless, of course, the various communists
in government have their way to try and defy Reality by
passing more laws and giving away more money they do not actually
have.

The Reagan legacy was sold out by the communist liberals and the
indifferent vote-grubbing, big spending neo-cons. This is what happens
when you do NOT honor free markets and use government to distort
markets to try and achieve financial fantasyland. No, this is
not a Reagan free market. It is a Marxist fantasy where all problems
can be resolved with the wave of the magic wand Comrade Obama and his
minions claim to have. They are fools and they are liars.

I'm not at all confused but you are being overly pedantic. The
economy is not sound; it has been distorted by those greedy *******s
that are looking for a bail out today.

The economy did NOT get distorted today, because the Republicans
finally got something right and blocked the bailout.


Also, your use of the words "Marxist" and "communist" and "liberal" is
incorrect and contradictory.

All three terms - as commonly used to describe some point of view -
live on the exact same continuum. They are degrees of the same
pestilence...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 29, 4:00*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:22 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
(snip to)
No. The private sector will revitalize the economy unless the
various flavors of neo-communists in government, the general
population, and even the business community insist on collectivizing
that which should be private. *Politicians do not "fix" economies.
They merely damage economies, some more, some less.
What private sector? *The one that has been totally discredited for
bring the US and maybe even the world economy to it's very knees.
This is the Regan legacy come home to roost.
You are deeply confused. The market and the economy are different
entities and the economy is fundamentally sound. It is the market
that needs correcting, and so it is. *The market will now do - in
one very painful and short period - what should have been going
on incrementally over the years: correct inefficiencies and bad
choices out of existence. *Unless, of course, the various communists
in government have their way to try and defy Reality by
passing more laws and giving away more money they do not actually
have.

The Reagan legacy was sold out by the communist liberals and the
indifferent vote-grubbing, big spending neo-cons. This is what happens
when you do NOT honor free markets and use government to distort
markets to try and achieve financial fantasyland. *No, this is
not a Reagan free market. *It is a Marxist fantasy where all problems
can be resolved with the wave of the magic wand Comrade Obama and his
minions claim to have. *They are fools and they are liars.

I'm not at all confused but you are being overly pedantic. *The
economy is not sound; it has been distorted by those greedy *******s
that are looking for a bail out today.

The economy did NOT get distorted today, because the Republicans
finally got something right and blocked the bailout.



Also, your use of the words "Marxist" and "communist" and "liberal" is
incorrect and contradictory.

All three terms - as commonly used to describe some point of view -
live on the exact same continuum. *They are degrees of the same
pestilence...

That's just glib. You know better than that.

Robatoy wrote:
SNIP


Also, your use of the words "Marxist" and "communist" and "liberal" is
incorrect and contradictory.
All three terms - as commonly used to describe some point of view -
live on the exact same continuum. They are degrees of the same
pestilence...

That's just glib. You know better than that.


All three are forms of collectivism in which the power of the group
is used to take away from the individual. They are - all three of them -
variations of the same mindset implemented in varying degrees.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 29, 2:29*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jimbo wrote:

SNIP

Comparing Obama to Carter doesn't really make a lot sense to me.
Maybe its an age thing

One is a Southern communist, the other one is an urban communist.



Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges: Obama will be a beacon
for democracy (small d - not the party) in the US and the world. *His

You mean by meeting with Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Hezbolla,
and Hamas?

acceptance will be widespread and will include the disenfranchised.

Where "disenfranchised" = "everyone who wants something that does not
legitimately belong to them".

He will try to lower the ocean level by joining with the rest of the
developed world and trying to do something positive about climate
change. *

I hope he starts - if elected - by walking everywhere and eschewing
the use of all technology that is supposedly causing this imaginary
bugaboo of yours.

This should actually bring the US to a leadership position in

R&D, manufacture and use of alternative energy sources. *He will heal

Yes, by passing laws to make the economy work better on the command
of congress, no doubt.

the sick by improving medicare. *You have so much to look forward to
over the next eight years. *It's going to be great.

I thought he was going to heal the sick via miracles as he walked on
water.

So now you're suggesting that climate change is an "imaginary
bugaboo"? And what is wrong with meeting "Chavez, Ahmadinejad,
Castro, Hezbolla, and Hamas"? Is that not a good thing? Name me a
President or Presidential candidate who did not meet with questionable
people at some stage in their candidacy or term of office.

On Sep 29, 4:45*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

SNIP



Also, your use of the words "Marxist" and "communist" and "liberal" is
incorrect and contradictory.
All three terms - as commonly used to describe some point of view -
live on the exact same continuum. *They are degrees of the same
pestilence...

That's just glib. You know better than that.

All three are forms of collectivism in which the power of the group
is used to take away from the individual. *They are - all three of them -
variations of the same mindset implemented in varying degrees.

This is a ridiculous over-simplification - kind of like suggesting
that all Republicans are Fascists.

Jimbo wrote:
On Sep 29, 4:45 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

SNIP



Also, your use of the words "Marxist" and "communist" and "liberal" is
incorrect and contradictory.
All three terms - as commonly used to describe some point of view -
live on the exact same continuum. They are degrees of the same
pestilence...
That's just glib. You know better than that.
All three are forms of collectivism in which the power of the group
is used to take away from the individual. They are - all three of them -
variations of the same mindset implemented in varying degrees.

This is a ridiculous over-simplification - kind of like suggesting

It is an entirely accurate taxonomy. I'm sorry it hurts your feelings,
but this is what you are supporting.

that all Republicans are Fascists.


Most Republicans are also collectivists at some level.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Jimbo wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jimbo wrote:

SNIP

Comparing Obama to Carter doesn't really make a lot sense to me.
Maybe its an age thing
One is a Southern communist, the other one is an urban communist.



Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges: Obama will be a beacon
for democracy (small d - not the party) in the US and the world. His
You mean by meeting with Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Hezbolla,
and Hamas?

acceptance will be widespread and will include the disenfranchised.
Where "disenfranchised" = "everyone who wants something that does not
legitimately belong to them".

He will try to lower the ocean level by joining with the rest of the
developed world and trying to do something positive about climate
change.
I hope he starts - if elected - by walking everywhere and eschewing
the use of all technology that is supposedly causing this imaginary
bugaboo of yours.

This should actually bring the US to a leadership position in

R&D, manufacture and use of alternative energy sources. He will heal
Yes, by passing laws to make the economy work better on the command
of congress, no doubt.

the sick by improving medicare. You have so much to look forward to
over the next eight years. It's going to be great.
I thought he was going to heal the sick via miracles as he walked on
water.

So now you're suggesting that climate change is an "imaginary
bugaboo"?

Oh, some level of warming is inarguably happening. However,
claiming (without proof) it is: a) Manmade, b) Can be fixed by man, and c) Demonstrably bad for mankind is the bugaboo.

And what is wrong with meeting "Chavez, Ahmadinejad,
Castro, Hezbolla, and Hamas"? Is that not a good thing?

They are evil despots and/or tin pot dictators. The only
"meeting" with them should be, a) To warn them of what happens
if they don't knock of their vile behavior and b) A "meeting"
with out military as appropriate, and, finally, c) A meeting
to accept their absolute acquiescence to our terms.

Name me a
President or Presidential candidate who did not meet with questionable
people at some stage in their candidacy or term of office.

It is true that FDR met with Stalin .. then again FDR was a socialist
so far left that he had little to distinguish himself from full
blown communism.

You'll note that Truman didn't even show up to accept Japan's surrender
(or Germany's for that matter). Kennedy never met with Castro as best
I can recall, and so forth.

Yes, there are counterexamples, and I stipulate that meeting with
the bad guys is sometimes (rarely) a good thing. But Comrade Obama
has made it clear he'd meet with the aforementioned murderous slime
*without preconditions*. Like I keep saying, he is the worst kind
of political vermin. It is astonishing he has any traction at all
in this election let alone a credible chance of winning. It demonstrates
what incredible short term vision and attention the voters have, nothing
more.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Robatoy" wrote

snip

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/187.html

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:

What bailout, eh?

Now we get to watch WS throw their little hissy fits for a while, then
market forces will take over, for better or worse, and we can get back to
things like manufacturing, technology and agricultural and forgo this
trading of little bits of paper around as the holy grail of capitalism

Too bad though ... while the House finally got something right, it's a
sure bet it will turn out to be for the wrong reasons.


Yeah, and more than likely, the wrong people are going to get blamed and
punished for whatever happens.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Jimbo wrote:

.... snip

Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges: Obama will be a beacon
for democracy (small d - not the party) in the US and the world. His
acceptance will be widespread and will include the disenfranchised.
He will try to lower the ocean level by joining with the rest of the
developed world and trying to do something positive about climate
change. This should actually bring the US to a leadership position in
R&D, manufacture and use of alternative energy sources. He will heal
the sick by improving medicare. You have so much to look forward to
over the next eight years. It's going to be great.

The Koolaid is strong in this one. Nothing to be done here, this one is
beyond saving. Reality is going to hit hard; people said the same kinds of
things about Josef and Vladimer.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Subject

Still remember my father's words:
.......................................
"If you can prove to the GD banks that you don't need the money, then
the SOB's will loan you all the money you want."

Made life a bitch for a lot of people, but it kept the banks in
business.

Seems like the financial industry forgot who brought them to the
dance.

Lew

Subject

Wonder how much farther the stock market has to drop before Congress
gets it's act together?

Today it was about $1,000,000,000,000.

Sometimes Congress gets paid to make unpopular decisions. This appears
to be one of those times.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote
Subject

Wonder how much farther the stock market has to drop before Congress gets
it's act together?

Today it was about $1,000,000,000,000.

Let me propose something that you won't hear on Wall Street or Capital Hill:

The absolute proof of something's true worth is how quickly it loses its
value.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:34:16 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Jimbo wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jimbo wrote:

SNIP

Comparing Obama to Carter doesn't really make a lot sense to me.
Maybe its an age thing
One is a Southern communist, the other one is an urban communist.



Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges: Obama will be a beacon
for democracy (small d - not the party) in the US and the world. His
You mean by meeting with Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Hezbolla,
and Hamas?

acceptance will be widespread and will include the disenfranchised.
Where "disenfranchised" = "everyone who wants something that does not
legitimately belong to them".

He will try to lower the ocean level by joining with the rest of the
developed world and trying to do something positive about climate
change.
I hope he starts - if elected - by walking everywhere and eschewing
the use of all technology that is supposedly causing this imaginary
bugaboo of yours.

This should actually bring the US to a leadership position in

R&D, manufacture and use of alternative energy sources. He will heal
Yes, by passing laws to make the economy work better on the command
of congress, no doubt.

the sick by improving medicare. You have so much to look forward to
over the next eight years. It's going to be great.
I thought he was going to heal the sick via miracles as he walked on
water.

So now you're suggesting that climate change is an "imaginary
bugaboo"?

Oh, some level of warming is inarguably happening. However,
claiming (without proof) it is: a) Manmade, b) Can be fixed by man, and c) Demonstrably bad for mankind is the bugaboo.

You might also mention that in the name of global warming remediation
the UN is promoting the largest global redistribution of wealth in the
history of mankind.

And what is wrong with meeting "Chavez, Ahmadinejad,
Castro, Hezbolla, and Hamas"? Is that not a good thing?

They are evil despots and/or tin pot dictators. The only
"meeting" with them should be, a) To warn them of what happens
if they don't knock of their vile behavior and b) A "meeting"
with out military as appropriate, and, finally, c) A meeting
to accept their absolute acquiescence to our terms.

Name me a
President or Presidential candidate who did not meet with questionable
people at some stage in their candidacy or term of office.

It is true that FDR met with Stalin .. then again FDR was a socialist
so far left that he had little to distinguish himself from full
blown communism.

You'll note that Truman didn't even show up to accept Japan's surrender
(or Germany's for that matter). Kennedy never met with Castro as best
I can recall, and so forth.

Yes, there are counterexamples, and I stipulate that meeting with
the bad guys is sometimes (rarely) a good thing. But Comrade Obama
has made it clear he'd meet with the aforementioned murderous slime
*without preconditions*. Like I keep saying, he is the worst kind
of political vermin. It is astonishing he has any traction at all
in this election let alone a credible chance of winning. It demonstrates
what incredible short term vision and attention the voters have, nothing
more.

On Sep 30, 8:00*am, Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:34:16 -0500, Tim Daneliuk



wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jimbo wrote:

SNIP

Comparing Obama to Carter doesn't really make a lot sense to me.
Maybe its an age thing
One is a Southern communist, the other one is an urban communist.

Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges: Obama will be a beacon
for democracy (small d - not the party) in the US and the world. *His
You mean by meeting with Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Hezbolla,
and Hamas?

acceptance will be widespread and will include the disenfranchised.
Where "disenfranchised" = "everyone who wants something that does not
legitimately belong to them".

He will try to lower the ocean level by joining with the rest of the
developed world and trying to do something positive about climate
change. *
I hope he starts - if elected - by walking everywhere and eschewing
the use of all technology that is supposedly causing this imaginary
bugaboo of yours.

This should actually bring the US to a leadership position in

R&D, manufacture and use of alternative energy sources. *He will heal
Yes, by passing laws to make the economy work better on the command
of congress, no doubt.

the sick by improving medicare. *You have so much to look forward to
over the next eight years. *It's going to be great.
I thought he was going to heal the sick via miracles as he walked on
water.

So now you're suggesting that climate change is an "imaginary
bugaboo"? *

Oh, some level of warming is inarguably happening. *However,
claiming (without proof) it is: a) Manmade, b) Can be fixed by man, and c) Demonstrably bad for mankind is the bugaboo.

You might also mention that in the name of global warming remediation
the UN is promoting the largest global redistribution of wealth in the
history of mankind.



If I send out 2 bags of garbage each week, and Joe Schlebotnik, next
door, sends 60 bags of garbage each week, week after week, year after
year, I think it would be fair if he paid higher garbage taxes than I.

If one takes a look at the finite abilities of mother earth to give us
fossil fuels, and finite space to dump our garbage, those who use and
waste the most, should pay the most. I would have NO problem with the
adjustment of gasoline prices, dependent on whether it gets poured
into an average person's car or some fat-cat's gas-guzzling pleasure
boat.
Charge twice as much for health insurance from those who are smokers.
If you're going to screw with the machinery, you should pay for the
repairs. And that holds true on all levels.
And while we're at it, why keep paying for all those jails? Move them
into tents along that new railroad they need to be building for us. A
whole new web of railroads. High speed and sturdy branch lines.
Electrified with well-placed nukes. Get them damned trucks off the
roads.

Replace Palin with Ron Paul.

r

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was going to vote to bail out the world economy but Nancy Pelosi's
so mean I just couldn't. So in order to get back at her, I voted to
crash the world economy.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fuggin Boner. Wadda jackass.

D'ohBoy

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:34:16 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Jimbo wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jimbo wrote:

SNIP

Comparing Obama to Carter doesn't really make a lot sense to me.
Maybe its an age thing
One is a Southern communist, the other one is an urban communist.



Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges: Obama will be a beacon
for democracy (small d - not the party) in the US and the world. His
You mean by meeting with Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Hezbolla,
and Hamas?

acceptance will be widespread and will include the disenfranchised.
Where "disenfranchised" = "everyone who wants something that does not
legitimately belong to them".

He will try to lower the ocean level by joining with the rest of the
developed world and trying to do something positive about climate
change.
I hope he starts - if elected - by walking everywhere and eschewing
the use of all technology that is supposedly causing this imaginary
bugaboo of yours.

This should actually bring the US to a leadership position in

R&D, manufacture and use of alternative energy sources. He will heal
Yes, by passing laws to make the economy work better on the command
of congress, no doubt.

the sick by improving medicare. You have so much to look forward to
over the next eight years. It's going to be great.
I thought he was going to heal the sick via miracles as he walked on
water.

So now you're suggesting that climate change is an "imaginary
bugaboo"?

Oh, some level of warming is inarguably happening. However,
claiming (without proof) it is: a) Manmade, b) Can be fixed by man, and c) Demonstrably bad for mankind is the bugaboo.

You might also mention that in the name of global warming remediation
the UN is promoting the largest global redistribution of wealth in the
history of mankind.

And what is wrong with meeting "Chavez, Ahmadinejad,
Castro, Hezbolla, and Hamas"? Is that not a good thing?

They are evil despots and/or tin pot dictators. The only
"meeting" with them should be, a) To warn them of what happens
if they don't knock of their vile behavior and b) A "meeting"
with out military as appropriate, and, finally, c) A meeting
to accept their absolute acquiescence to our terms.

Name me a
President or Presidential candidate who did not meet with questionable
people at some stage in their candidacy or term of office.

It is true that FDR met with Stalin .. then again FDR was a socialist
so far left that he had little to distinguish himself from full
blown communism.

You'll note that Truman didn't even show up to accept Japan's surrender
(or Germany's for that matter). Kennedy never met with Castro as best
I can recall, and so forth.

Yes, there are counterexamples, and I stipulate that meeting with
the bad guys is sometimes (rarely) a good thing. But Comrade Obama
has made it clear he'd meet with the aforementioned murderous slime
*without preconditions*. Like I keep saying, he is the worst kind
of political vermin. It is astonishing he has any traction at all
in this election let alone a credible chance of winning. It demonstrates
what incredible short term vision and attention the voters have, nothing
more.

I thought we were dong pretty well at that ourselves, transferring
many, many, many bucks to the Middle East and most of the rest to
China so our pets, and many of their own people, can have enough
melamine to ingest.

We are in dire need of another Republican President. After all, the
country isn't QUITE bankrupt yet, though Bush has worked hard at it.

On Sep 30, 10:03*am, Charlie Self wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:34:16 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Jimbo wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jimbo wrote:

SNIP

Comparing Obama to Carter doesn't really make a lot sense to me.
Maybe its an age thing
One is a Southern communist, the other one is an urban communist.

Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges: Obama will be a beacon
for democracy (small d - not the party) in the US and the world. *His
You mean by meeting with Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Hezbolla,
and Hamas?

acceptance will be widespread and will include the disenfranchised..
Where "disenfranchised" = "everyone who wants something that does not
legitimately belong to them".

He will try to lower the ocean level by joining with the rest of the
developed world and trying to do something positive about climate
change.
I hope he starts - if elected - by walking everywhere and eschewing
the use of all technology that is supposedly causing this imaginary
bugaboo of yours.

This should actually bring the US to a leadership position in

R&D, manufacture and use of alternative energy sources. *He will heal
Yes, by passing laws to make the economy work better on the command
of congress, no doubt.

the sick by improving medicare. *You have so much to look forward to
over the next eight years. *It's going to be great.
I thought he was going to heal the sick via miracles as he walked on
water.

So now you're suggesting that climate change is an "imaginary
bugaboo"?

Oh, some level of warming is inarguably happening. *However,
claiming (without proof) it is: a) Manmade, b) Can be fixed by man, and c) Demonstrably bad for mankind is the bugaboo.

You might also mention that in the name of global warming remediation
the UN is promoting the largest global redistribution of wealth in the
history of mankind.

And what is wrong with meeting "Chavez, Ahmadinejad,
Castro, Hezbolla, and Hamas"? *Is that not a good thing?

They are evil despots and/or tin pot dictators. *The only
"meeting" with them should be, a) To warn them of what happens
if they don't knock of their vile behavior and b) A "meeting"
with out military as appropriate, and, finally, c) A meeting
to accept their absolute acquiescence to our terms.

Name me a
President or Presidential candidate who did not meet with questionable
people at some stage in their candidacy or term of office.

It is true that FDR met with Stalin .. then again FDR was a socialist
so far left that he had little to distinguish himself from full
blown communism.

You'll note that Truman didn't even show up to accept Japan's surrender
(or Germany's for that matter). *Kennedy never met with Castro as best
I can recall, and so forth.

Yes, there are counterexamples, and I stipulate that meeting with
the bad guys is sometimes (rarely) a good thing. *But Comrade Obama
has made it clear he'd meet with the aforementioned murderous slime
*without preconditions*. *Like I keep saying, he is the worst kind
of political vermin. *It is astonishing he has any traction at all
in this election let alone a credible chance of winning. *It demonstrates
what incredible short term vision and attention the voters have, nothing
more.

I thought we were dong pretty well at that ourselves, transferring
many, many, many bucks to the Middle East and most of the rest to
China so our pets, and many of their own people, can have enough
melamine to ingest.

We are in dire need of another Republican President. After all, the
country isn't QUITE bankrupt yet, though Bush has worked hard at it.

Bush is just trying to scare the US people into letting him raid the
coffers prior to his departure. Just one more favour for his big
business buddies.