t wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:59:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

t wrote:

National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5

National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6

National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6

National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10

National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9

National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14

Gee, you left off Zogby

Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.

If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to
get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.


If you had read carefully, you would have seen Zogby in line two.

I'm still concerned about the Bradley problem. I wonder how many
points that is worth.

I suspect that you don't have a working definition of Socialism.

I suspect you have no idea what I know. I'm sure you would love to
explain how you also spent full semesters of work studying to gain
the "real" definition of socialism.




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

t wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:28:22 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

t wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:25:18 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 15, 6:55 pm, t wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:59:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita



wrote:
t wrote:
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 45 Obama +5
National Reuters/C-Span/Zogby Tracking Obama 49, McCain 43 Obama +6
National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Traditional)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
National Gallup Tracking (Expanded)* Obama 53, McCain 43 Obama +10
National LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 50, McCain 41 Obama +9
National CBS News/NY Times Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14
Gee, you left off Zogby
Given the full court press for Obama by the press, is this any surprise?
Also, how much of this is attempting to shape opinion vs. measure it.
If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.
If you had read carefully, you would have seen Zogby in line two.

I'm still concerned about the Bradley problem. I wonder how many
points that is worth.

I suspect that you don't have a working definition of Socialism.

tom watson
I own a small business in Michigan. They are all looking bug-eyed at
the government for some kind of help.

Is that socialism?
yes

You know, Tim, perhaps I am manacled by my training but I was taught
to insist on a definition of terms as a precedent to the beginning of
an argument. You have often declined to present definitions for any
of the terms that you lob about like broken hand grenades.

If you are a serious man with serious intent, you must come to grips
with the definition of that which you fear. It is not enough to use a
term as a cudgel without shedding light on its elements.

Words like Socialism, Collectivism, etc. need to be unpacked before
any rational dialogue can occur.

In your discipline you may not be used to any kind of linguistic
analysis but it is coin of the realm in the arena of serious political
debate.

Try to come to a definition of one of your terms as a sort of personal
exercise. It has a wonderful capacity to focus the mind.



tom watson



"socialism" is one of the convenient shorthands for collectivism:
The premise that the good of the good trumps the interest of
the individual. Whatever the term, I object - on moral grounds -
to all collectivist systems.


I am willing to assume that the Petite Syrah has clouded your
reportage to the degree that you meant, "the good of the many trumps
the interests of the individual".

It wasn't the Syrah, but, yes, I'd meant to write that
collectivism in its many forms involves the good of the group
trumping the interest of the individual.


If, indeed, that is what your argument rejects, then you must reject
all government and slide from, "that government is best which governs
least", to, "that government is best which governs not at all", which
would put you in the camp of the anarchists.

Not so. One can stipulate to some limited government precisely
because it is *in* the interest of the individual. Government
that governs least is that government that exists solely in the
interest of preserving liberty. I think its not difficult to
show that the US Founders and their intellectual influences
had more-or-less this calculus of government in mind ... or
at least they evolved into it. Prior human government primarily
had collectivist forms:

Force - I'm in charge because I'm stronger
Tribal - The tribe decides who's in charge in its common interest
Theocracy - I'm in charge because God says so
Royalty - I'm in charge because I was born to the job

In each of these forms the "in charge" entity ruled the ... *group*.
Each of these forms began or devolved into violence against the
many to the benefit of the few. Each of these forms authored their
own poverty an misery.

Along come Locke, Jefferson, et al, and they say something profoundly
different: Government is not "in charge". You, the individuals are,
each of your own lives. Government is formed only to preserve
that fundamental privilege. Pretty profound stuff and incredibly
effective. In something less than 300 years that notion did more
good for more people than the previous recorded 9700 years of
human history combined. Pity this current generation of
beneficiaries of the Lockian/Jeffersonian ideal is so utterly
deaf to it.

It would be nice to live in the world posited by rational anarchists,
but a very long thread of human history demonstrates that liberty
is not the default condition of humans and that there must be
an instrument of force to preserve it. And that force being granted
to government is exactly why government's purview must be strictly
limited to matters of liberty. When government is permitted to use
force (or the threat thereof) beyond those matters that affect
and effect our liberty (defending the borders, interdicting domestically
in matters of force/fraud/threat between citizens) then an *imbalance*
of liberty occurs. When government, say, acts to prevent us from
beating each other up, we all benefit in a notionally equal amount.
But, say, when government redistributes wealth from those making
more than $250K/year to those making less, then there is a clear
*imbalance* created - the less wealthy benefit in direct proportion
to harm done to the wealthier citizen. The balance of liberty is undone.




Being mindful of your previous thought, I do not see you as an
anarchist but as some sort of what is colloquially called a
"libertarian".

That concept needs serious definition.


I am nearly completely libertarian in my views with two critical
differences:

1) Libertarians as a group gloss over the nuances and difficulties
of the abortion debate, and rather irrationally ignore the
legitimate demands of protections of citizenship that ought
to be accorded to the unborn but viable child. There is a
point at which the unborn child becomes a citizen with all
the privileges thereof. The fact that this moment is hard
to pinpoint does not make this issue irrelevant, but Libertarians
usually skip to "abortion is a matter of choice" without
showing their work. I dissent.


2) Libertarians have - in my view - an unworkable model for the
projection of military force. One does not have to wait until
the guy in the bar threatening to kill you actually raises and
swings the bottle at your head. If the threat is credible and
there is evidence he is moving to pick up that bottle you have
every moral and ethical right to prevent him from doing so
via *preemptive force*. So to it is with nations. One of
government's only legitimate tasks is to secure the borders.
A credible threat can and should be preemptively flattened
before any damage can be done - all the more so in a nuclear
world.

Call it hawkish, pro-life libertarianism.

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

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Your idea of winning is fomenting chants of "Kill HIM" during either
one of your candidate's rallies without either candidate saying a
word about it?

Clue: High probability it was a plant from the opposition to get
just the reaction you provided. Proof? No more proof than you have
that it was a McCain supporter. However, this is a very anomalous
incident -- nice to see you are on board with the main stream media
meme though, it shows you absorb propaganda very well.

http://www.timesleader.com/news/brea...ounded_ .html

Even worse....it was either the over active imagination or a outright
invention/lie from the original reporter. The numerous on the scene secret
service agents whom respond to "kill chants" very seriously did not hear it
nor did anyone else that was interviewed. When certain large segments of the
media forgo any semblance of ethical standards in support of electing their
guy ....many so called news stories are simply bunk. Rod





..

On Oct 15, 11:19*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:


* You are amazingly funny in a deviously twisted and deficient way. *

FINALLY a compliment. I can't believe it! Mark 'gets it!'

In summation:
The Wreck is a wonderful source of relevant woodworking information...
AND a lot of fun.
So many here are so serious! It is impossible to resist the incredible
beauty of Tim chowing down on a lure and then tailwalking the
shimmering lake towards the horizon, dragging a few thousand feet of
12 pound test behind him.

Priceless.

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
for n 0:

It's no longer necessary to argue pertinent points with you, because all you
ever do is reply with some irrelevant phrase intended to deflect the subject
at hand.

Wow!

So, all you're going to get from me at this point is the plain truth (which
a few consider to be factless substance) and that is that you're a
grandstanding liar with a delusional belief in you own grandeur.

I guess that could be true as your warped little mind sees it. I don't
recall you ever making any points other than innuendo and ad hominem
attack, as exhibited above. The few times you actually address an issue
or statement made by Tim, you simply show how sensible his argument. You
are not alone either, but you are probably the worst offender.
Personally, I don't mind personal attacks much, but something of
substance should be said besides "you're a grandstanding liar with a
delusional belief in you own grandeur"

As they stand by themselves, my comments *are* lacking in substance, no
argument.

Standing alone or in a crowd, your comments are pretty much just attacks
against the man, as exhibited above. No substance at all.

But criticism of me is not as you think, any type of support for
you.

Criticism of you stands alone. You make few arguments. In fact, about
all you do is make Tim and others you argue with look good.

Criticism of my comments has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Considering that your posts are generally nothing more than ad hominem
attacks against Tim, or whomever else you might reply against, then it
could be reasonably assumed criticism of your comments are either
support for Tim, or, pleas from his detractors to shut up as you make it
too easy for Tim.

Yet, as soon as you enter the mix, that all changes.

Nope, you do it with most everyone that disagrees with you. Personal
attacks with little or no reflection on the argument presented.

My comments quite correctly change into fact where you're concerned. There's no way you can
repudiate any similar type of comments except to come out with ever
increasing lies, (aka bull****).

You mean when you say "you're a grandstanding liar with a delusional
belief in you own grandeur" thats not an ad hominem attack? Perhaps you
think by saying "it's no longer necessary to argue pertinent points"
you have a free card to do nothing other than make personal attacks?
That's not how it works, you look even worse when you make lame excuses
for having no argument. You would be better off sitting on your hands.

It's long past the point where most everybody sees you as a clown.

I'm rather certain "most everybody" sees Tim as a principled man that
puts forth well written, reasonable arguments, even if they disagree
with him. Those such as you that can't address his arguments with much
more than personal attacks clearly show you have no other reasonable
recourse. In other words, it is you that look like the clown.

For now anyway, I'm still getting enjoyment
out of poking you with a stick because it's so very easy to do.

Poking is easy, making a reasonable argument rather than simply a
personal attack and nothing else is less so.

Maybe that
makes me a clown too, just not the same as you.

Not in the same pew, not in the same church, not even in the same country.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Robatoy wrote:

My, my, you guys are getting desperate. (Pssst.. did you know he's
shhhh... black??? shhhhh)

Jack asks:
While it's still fresh in my mind, before I forget it, it sounds to me
like you are the racist?

Nope. Not me. Read that original post of mine again. It is a
question.

I took it more as a statement than a question, but OK.

Let me translate it for you. " What's next? Are the rightwingers going
to make his race an issue next??"

I translate that as you bringing race into the issues at hand. I don't
believe I've read anything Tim has said that brought race into the
issues he's presented. If I'm wrong, please show me where he has done
that?

It is a whisper heard behind the hands of the hypocritical right wing
illustrating that they'll stop at nothing to stop Obama.

Interesting. I see the race card brought up by the left wing
constantly, just as you seem to have done in your statement above.

All I did, was point out that his race has been put into play, out in
the open at least, yet.

Was it put into play by Tim? Could be, but I missed it.

And then we get some clown stating that 'The Right' isn't
racist.....as in 'none of them'...

There is plenty of racism to go around, but sure seems to me most of it
is coming from the Obama camp. For starters, something like 98% of
blacks support Obama, even if they have no idea what he stands for.
This is pure racism by a large number of Obama supporters. A large
number of left wing socialists support Obama, and that's OK, he's an
anti American socialist so they should support him, but 98% of blacks
are not anti American socialists.

Personally, I would vote for Walter Williams in a second, I would
probably campaign for him. I think Tim would as well. Race is a non
issue to MOST conservatives in this country.

The important issues to a conservative (such as you) would be Acorn
stuffing voter registrations just as the left wing democrats did in
Florida when trying to punch multiple voter cards and then crying when
the resulting hanging chads were tossed, or perhaps Obama attending an
anti-white, racist church that spewed and encouraged racism from the
pulpit, or him associating with an anti-American terrorist socialist
like Ayers and having him support his campaign. These are some, not
all, of the glaring issues facing him, not to mention in his short time
in the Congress, he has the most left wing, socialist voting record in
the senate.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Robatoy wrote:

In summation:
The Wreck is a wonderful source of relevant woodworking information...
AND a lot of fun.

So many here are so serious! It is impossible to resist the incredible
beauty of Tim chowing down on a lure and then tailwalking the
shimmering lake towards the horizon, dragging a few thousand feet of
12 pound test behind him.

The picture I get is more like a ski boat towing around a fallen skier
that refuses to let go of the rope.

You're right, it is a lot of fun.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

On Oct 16, 10:59*am, Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
In summation:
The Wreck is a wonderful source of relevant woodworking information...
AND a lot of fun.
So many here are so serious! It is impossible to resist the incredible
beauty of Tim chowing down on a lure and then tailwalking the
shimmering lake towards the horizon, dragging a few thousand feet of
12 pound test behind him.

The picture I get is more like a ski boat towing around a fallen skier
that refuses to let go of the rope.

You're right, it is a lot of fun.

--
Jackhttp://jbstein.com

Especially if you can imagine him yelling: "I'm skiing!! I'm skiing!!"

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:59:58 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

Priceless.

And quite easy too.

Mark

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:59 am, Jack Stein wrote:

The picture I get is more like a ski boat towing around a fallen skier
that refuses to let go of the rope.

You're right, it is a lot of fun.

Especially if you can imagine him yelling: "I'm skiing!! I'm skiing!!"

Much more colorful than my vision of an angry/impatient guy sitting at
his keyboard in Des Plaines taking it out on all the "unworthies"
because John Galt hasn't (yet) invited him to Happy Valley in the
Colorado Rockies.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Oct 16, 12:17*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:59 am, Jack Stein wrote:
The picture I get is more like a ski boat towing around a fallen skier
that refuses to let go of the rope.

You're right, it is a lot of fun.

Especially if you can imagine him yelling: "I'm skiing!! I'm skiing!!"

Much more colorful than my vision of an angry/impatient guy sitting at
his keyboard in Des Plaines taking it out on all the "unworthies"
because John Galt hasn't (yet) invited him to Happy Valley in the
Colorado Rockies.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

BTW, my apologies for my bit of fun at Tim's expence. I know you're
not fond of the flames. I will try to behave. .....but it's so
hard!!!!!!
174 hits isn't too shabby though...*guilty grin*

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
Poking is easy, making a reasonable argument rather than simply a
personal attack and nothing else is less so.

All your comments *may* be true, but you've missed one important key
concept. As well as engaging in useless bantering with Tim, I attempt to
make helpful suggestions for other woodworkers, experience permitting. Even
currently while taking pokes at Tim, I still contribute as can to the
woodworking aspect of this newsgroop. Fell free to verify my claim.

Tim, on the other hand does not. As far back as I can see, no woodworking
comments. He immerses himself in some off topic conversation and offers
*zero* information about woodworking. He doesn't offer suggestions, he
doesn't offer links to woodworking, he contributes absolutely nothing to the
topic of conversation.

If he's not here (even partly) to contribute to woodworking, then he's here
solely to troll. And that being said, I'll continue to a will, attack him,
his character and any other facet of his delusional life that I see fit.

Comment Jack?

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:22:51 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
for n 0:

It's no longer necessary to argue pertinent points with you, because all you
ever do is reply with some irrelevant phrase intended to deflect the subject
at hand.

So, all you're going to get from me at this point is the plain truth (which
a few consider to be factless substance) and that is that you're a
grandstanding liar with a delusional belief in you own grandeur.

As they stand by themselves, my comments *are* lacking in substance, no
argument. But criticism of me is not as you think, any type of support for
you. Criticism of my comments has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Yet, as soon as you enter the mix, that all changes. My comments quite
correctly change into fact where you're concerned. There's no way you can
repudiate any similar type of comments except to come out with ever
increasing lies, (aka bull****). It's long past the point where most
everybody sees you as a clown. For now anyway, I'm still getting enjoyment
out of poking you with a stick because it's so very easy to do. Maybe that
makes me a clown too, just not the same as you.



I'd feel really bad about myself right now except that while you
were fuming:

1) I set a Personal Record for running distance I've been trying
to hit for months.

Hey, what did you hit. I've been trying to get a new PR at 5K and 10K
all this year, got within 8 seconds on the 5K and 22 seconds on the
10K. I did run my first marathon this year at 62, didn't do so hot,
on goal (four hours) til mile 21, cramped badly, dehydrated and
potassium depleted, a true rookie mistake.

2) SWMBO just made me a magnificent beef roast which was really
yummy. So was the fresh salad and green beans

3) I had 2 lovely glasses of decent Petite Syrah.

You can fulminate all you like. I don't care. You're wrong and
you'll remain so. I'm full and I am happy and I'll remain the latter.

Ta,

With regard to the rest, good for you.

And I often wonder why you bother.

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:22:51 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
for n 0:
It's no longer necessary to argue pertinent points with you, because all you
ever do is reply with some irrelevant phrase intended to deflect the subject
at hand.

So, all you're going to get from me at this point is the plain truth (which
a few consider to be factless substance) and that is that you're a
grandstanding liar with a delusional belief in you own grandeur.

As they stand by themselves, my comments *are* lacking in substance, no
argument. But criticism of me is not as you think, any type of support for
you. Criticism of my comments has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Yet, as soon as you enter the mix, that all changes. My comments quite
correctly change into fact where you're concerned. There's no way you can
repudiate any similar type of comments except to come out with ever
increasing lies, (aka bull****). It's long past the point where most
everybody sees you as a clown. For now anyway, I'm still getting enjoyment
out of poking you with a stick because it's so very easy to do. Maybe that
makes me a clown too, just not the same as you.


I'd feel really bad about myself right now except that while you
were fuming:

1) I set a Personal Record for running distance I've been trying
to hit for months.

Hey, what did you hit. I've been trying to get a new PR at 5K and 10K
all this year, got within 8 seconds on the 5K and 22 seconds on the
10K. I did run my first marathon this year at 62, didn't do so hot,
on goal (four hours) til mile 21, cramped badly, dehydrated and
potassium depleted, a true rookie mistake.

I started running just over a year ago ... couldn't run .25 miles
the first day. I ran 10 miles yesterday. And that was the goal,
to hit the distance. 'Not quite ready to try a marathon just yet
but working my way in that direction. My 10K time is slow - just
a bit over an hour, so my next goal is to get that sub-60 mins.


2) SWMBO just made me a magnificent beef roast which was really
yummy. So was the fresh salad and green beans

3) I had 2 lovely glasses of decent Petite Syrah.

You can fulminate all you like. I don't care. You're wrong and
you'll remain so. I'm full and I am happy and I'll remain the latter.

Ta,

With regard to the rest, good for you.

And I often wonder why you bother.

Because it's like a cat playing with the mouse - he doesn't necessarily
want to kill him, it's just entertainment.



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

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:47:28 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:22:51 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
for n 0:
It's no longer necessary to argue pertinent points with you, because all you
ever do is reply with some irrelevant phrase intended to deflect the subject
at hand.

So, all you're going to get from me at this point is the plain truth (which
a few consider to be factless substance) and that is that you're a
grandstanding liar with a delusional belief in you own grandeur.

As they stand by themselves, my comments *are* lacking in substance, no
argument. But criticism of me is not as you think, any type of support for
you. Criticism of my comments has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Yet, as soon as you enter the mix, that all changes. My comments quite
correctly change into fact where you're concerned. There's no way you can
repudiate any similar type of comments except to come out with ever
increasing lies, (aka bull****). It's long past the point where most
everybody sees you as a clown. For now anyway, I'm still getting enjoyment
out of poking you with a stick because it's so very easy to do. Maybe that
makes me a clown too, just not the same as you.


I'd feel really bad about myself right now except that while you
were fuming:

1) I set a Personal Record for running distance I've been trying
to hit for months.

Hey, what did you hit. I've been trying to get a new PR at 5K and 10K
all this year, got within 8 seconds on the 5K and 22 seconds on the
10K. I did run my first marathon this year at 62, didn't do so hot,
on goal (four hours) til mile 21, cramped badly, dehydrated and
potassium depleted, a true rookie mistake.

I started running just over a year ago ... couldn't run .25 miles
the first day. I ran 10 miles yesterday. And that was the goal,
to hit the distance. 'Not quite ready to try a marathon just yet
but working my way in that direction. My 10K time is slow - just
a bit over an hour, so my next goal is to get that sub-60 mins.

Well stick with it. Slow and steady. Get your base up, but don't hurt
yourself. Consistency will pay off in future health benefits. And
when your base is up, induce a little speed work, will help your race
times.

My first 10K was over 60 minutes. But running sub 47 now and usually
winning my age.

And if you get to that marathon, when folks tell you it is tactical
not speed, listen to them. All the calculators based on shorter
distances said I had a sub four in the bag, but, I went out to fast,
didn't hydrate properly along the way and didn't get the
sodium/potassium replenishment I needed. As an experienced runner, it
was a shock to me how fast the cramps came on and I had to shut down
to a walk.


2) SWMBO just made me a magnificent beef roast which was really
yummy. So was the fresh salad and green beans

3) I had 2 lovely glasses of decent Petite Syrah.

You can fulminate all you like. I don't care. You're wrong and
you'll remain so. I'm full and I am happy and I'll remain the latter.

Ta,

With regard to the rest, good for you.

And I often wonder why you bother.

Because it's like a cat playing with the mouse - he doesn't necessarily
want to kill him, it's just entertainment.

got it.

Frank

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
t wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:46:17 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
But you didn't. And I didn't (having much the same experience as you
describe). In fact most everyone I know didn't. Yet, somehow, this
whole fiasco is being sold as the "banks' problem". It is nonsense.
Still picking on the poor eh Tim? As representatives of the stockholders,
No. I am defending property rights for those who actually earned
said property.

So, your are in favor of an Oligarchy?

The country that you are currently living in has rejected that as a
philosophical concept.



tom watson

I (unlike you evidently) am opposed to theft, force, threat and their
various close relatives. Anyone willing to use force to *make* others
dispose of their legitimately obtained property and/or assets against
their will is a scoundrel. You can doll up your arguments with as much
obscure literary reference and high minded sanctimony as you like,
but this is not complicated: Either people have the right to dispose
of their property as they wish (absent fraud, force, or threat)
or someone - in part or in whole - can force them to do something
other than what the owner wishes. The latter appears to be what you're
defending. It's a moral abyss and shameful.

This site has good price for many products. I have used it many time.
http://www.thehardoncity.com/

:-)

Tim,

Please don't mention green beans again.

cm


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:22:51 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
for n 0:
It's no longer necessary to argue pertinent points with you, because
all you
ever do is reply with some irrelevant phrase intended to deflect the
subject
at hand.

So, all you're going to get from me at this point is the plain truth
(which
a few consider to be factless substance) and that is that you're a
grandstanding liar with a delusional belief in you own grandeur.

As they stand by themselves, my comments *are* lacking in substance, no
argument. But criticism of me is not as you think, any type of support
for
you. Criticism of my comments has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Yet, as soon as you enter the mix, that all changes. My comments quite
correctly change into fact where you're concerned. There's no way you
can
repudiate any similar type of comments except to come out with ever
increasing lies, (aka bull****). It's long past the point where most
everybody sees you as a clown. For now anyway, I'm still getting
enjoyment
out of poking you with a stick because it's so very easy to do. Maybe
that
makes me a clown too, just not the same as you.


I'd feel really bad about myself right now except that while you
were fuming:

1) I set a Personal Record for running distance I've been trying
to hit for months.

Hey, what did you hit. I've been trying to get a new PR at 5K and 10K
all this year, got within 8 seconds on the 5K and 22 seconds on the
10K. I did run my first marathon this year at 62, didn't do so hot,
on goal (four hours) til mile 21, cramped badly, dehydrated and
potassium depleted, a true rookie mistake.

I started running just over a year ago ... couldn't run .25 miles
the first day. I ran 10 miles yesterday. And that was the goal,
to hit the distance. 'Not quite ready to try a marathon just yet
but working my way in that direction. My 10K time is slow - just
a bit over an hour, so my next goal is to get that sub-60 mins.


2) SWMBO just made me a magnificent beef roast which was really
yummy. So was the fresh salad and green beans

3) I had 2 lovely glasses of decent Petite Syrah.

You can fulminate all you like. I don't care. You're wrong and
you'll remain so. I'm full and I am happy and I'll remain the latter.

Ta,

With regard to the rest, good for you.

And I often wonder why you bother.

Because it's like a cat playing with the mouse - he doesn't necessarily
want to kill him, it's just entertainment.



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

cm wrote:
Tim,

Please don't mention green beans again.

cm

I'm sorry if I offended you with that remark. My sincerest
apologies. How do you feel about brussel sprouts?



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

Tim,

You are a good person. Don't worry. I never hid brussel sprouts in my pocket
as a kid.

Grins,

cm
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
cm wrote:
Tim,

Please don't mention green beans again.

cm

I'm sorry if I offended you with that remark. My sincerest
apologies. How do you feel about brussel sprouts?



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

Jack Stein wrote:

Robatoy wrote:

.... snip

There is plenty of racism to go around, but sure seems to me most of it
is coming from the Obama camp. For starters, something like 98% of
blacks support Obama, even if they have no idea what he stands for.

Just to throw a little gasoline onto that fire, the following was
forwarded to me:

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=194983

I was actually surprised at the source


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

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:22:50 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


I suspect you have no idea what I know. I'm sure you would love to
explain how you also spent full semesters of work studying to gain
the "real" definition of socialism.




I am the very model of a modern Major-General
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical

I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse

With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotepotenuse

I'm very good at integral and differential calculus
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral
I am the very model of a modern Major-General

In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral
He is the very model of a modern Major-General

I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's
I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous

I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies
I know the croaking chorus from the Frogs of Aristophanes
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore

And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinapinafore

Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform
And tell you ev'ry detail of Caractacus's uniform
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral
I am the very model of a modern Major-General

In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral
He is the very model of a modern Major-General

In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin"
When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at
And when I know precisely what is meant by "commissariat"

When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy
You'll say a better Major-General had never sat a gee

You'll say a better Major-General had never sat a gee
You'll say a better Major-General had never sat a gee
You'll say a better Major-General had never sat a sat a gee

For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral
I am the very model of a modern Major-General

But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral
He is the very model of a modern Major-General


Gilbert and Sullivan



[Pirates of Penzance]

t wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:59:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

.... snip

If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to
get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.

... snip
I suspect that you don't have a working definition of Socialism.


Given your professed deep knowledge of the definitions of socialism,
Marxism, and communism, please help the rest of us by participating in the
following exercise:

1) Compare and contrast Marx's infamous quote: "From each according to his
ability, to each according to their need" with the following quote from The
One in response to the question, "You're going to raise my taxes, aren't
you?":
"... its not that I want to punish your success €“ I just want to make sure
that everybody who is behind you €“ that they've got a chance at success
too. ... and I think when you spread the wealth around, its good for
everybody*.€�




2) Background: In one day, the media that has failed to fully investigate
or has attempted to divert any questioning of the various alliances and
political machinations of the current candidate, yet airdropped 300
reporters and investigators into Alaska to search out the background of the
other party's vice presidential candidate has ferreted out the life history
of the person who dared ask the question about raising taxes referenced in
question 1. In the process the media has worked diligently to destroy the
questioner's credibility and reputation. Within one day the media has made
sure that the country knows that the questioner has had a tax lien filed on
him and may have issues with proper licensing.

Question: Stalinism included use of propaganda to establish a personality
cult as well as extensive use of secret police to maintain social
submission and silence political dissent. The term usually defines the
style of a government rather than an ideology. In many cases, this included
the destruction of the reputation and lives of those who opposed the regime
Explain the difference between the abuses of stalinism and the recent
attacks by the information arm of the Democrat party (the media) upon a
person who simply dared ask a question. In your response, please note that
the background of the questioner should be irrelevant to a legitimately
posed question. In addition, consider the threats from the "Obama truth
squad" in the state of Missouri and the visit by the Secret Service upon a
woman who was merely rude to a caller from the Obama campaign:
http://www.lifenews.com/state3552.html



Extra credit: Explain how the tactics used above could lead to a chilling
effect upon those who might have relevant information regarding the
background and previous actions of the candidate using such tactics.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/275813.php and how this might have an impact
upon voters to make an informed choice in a national election.




*Complete redacted quote of interchange between The One and the questioner
available at http://www.ignitecast.com/p/RUgmoTIpGJ/

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

t wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:22:50 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


I suspect you have no idea what I know. I'm sure you would love to
explain how you also spent full semesters of work studying to gain
the "real" definition of socialism.




I am the very model of a modern Major-General
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical

Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,
If you want to rise to the top of the tree,
If your soul isn't fettered to an office stool,
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule €”
Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navee!

I always did prefer doggerel to "real" poetry. To whit,
and in honor of our next VP:

There are strange things done in the midnight sun
By the men who moil for gold;
The Arctic trails have their secret tales
That would make your blood run cold;
The Northern Lights have seen queer sights,
But the queerest they ever did see
Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge
I cremated Sam McGee.


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

Mark & Juanita wrote:
t wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:59:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

... snip
If the polls are right, your side is going to win, we are all going to
get
to watch as the nation goes socialist. Hope that in 5 years you are all
happy with that which you have supported.
.. snip
I suspect that you don't have a working definition of Socialism.


Given your professed deep knowledge of the definitions of socialism,
Marxism, and communism, please help the rest of us by participating in the
following exercise:

1) Compare and contrast Marx's infamous quote: "From each according to his
ability, to each according to their need" SNIP

That is his most famous quote, but there are actually several practical
pillars to Marxism. Three that leap to mind that are chilling in light of current political discussion:

1) Redistribution of wealth, by force if necessary.

2) Forced education of children by the State.

3) State takeover (by force) and ongoing ownership of the
means of production/wealth.

'Sound familiar?

Then there's plain old vulgar Communism. I once heard a man speak
who'd lived through the rise of the USSR and Iron Curtain falling
across Eastern Europe. He pointed out that in essentially every
case where the Communists took over (by force, naturally) they
did three things either on the way to getting power or shortly
thereafter:

1) Limited/eliminated the use of cash.

2) Eliminated personal ownership of weapons.

3) Strictly regulated and monitored individual travel.

'Sound familiar?


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

Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

In summation:
The Wreck is a wonderful source of relevant woodworking information...
AND a lot of fun.

So many here are so serious! It is impossible to resist the incredible
beauty of Tim chowing down on a lure and then tailwalking the
shimmering lake towards the horizon, dragging a few thousand feet of
12 pound test behind him.

The picture I get is more like a ski boat towing around a fallen skier
that refuses to let go of the rope.

You're right, it is a lot of fun.


Especially when you can ski on bare feet.

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

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

Given your professed deep knowledge of the definitions of socialism,
Marxism, and communism, please help the rest of us by participating in
the following exercise:

1) Compare and contrast Marx's infamous quote: "From each according
to his ability, to each according to their need" with the following
quote from The One in response to the question, "You're going to raise
my taxes, aren't you?":
"... its not that I want to punish your success €“ I just
want to make sure
that everybody who is behind you €“ that they've got a chance at
success too. ... and I think when you spread the wealth around, its
good for everybody*.€�




2) Background: In one day, the media that has failed to fully
investigate or has attempted to divert any questioning of the various
alliances and political machinations of the current candidate, yet
airdropped 300 reporters and investigators into Alaska to search out
the background of the other party's vice presidential candidate has
ferreted out the life history of the person who dared ask the question
about raising taxes referenced in question 1. In the process the media
has worked diligently to destroy the questioner's credibility and
reputation. Within one day the media has made sure that the country
knows that the questioner has had a tax lien filed on him and may have
issues with proper licensing.

Question: Stalinism included use of propaganda to establish a
personality cult as well as extensive use of secret police to maintain
social submission and silence political dissent. The term usually
defines the style of a government rather than an ideology. In many
cases, this included the destruction of the reputation and lives of
those who opposed the regime Explain the difference between the abuses
of stalinism and the recent attacks by the information arm of the
Democrat party (the media) upon a person who simply dared ask a
question. In your response, please note that the background of the
questioner should be irrelevant to a legitimately posed question. In
addition, consider the threats from the "Obama truth squad" in the
state of Missouri and the visit by the Secret Service upon a woman who
was merely rude to a caller from the Obama campaign:
http://www.lifenews.com/state3552.html



Extra credit: Explain how the tactics used above could lead to a
chilling effect upon those who might have relevant information
regarding the background and previous actions of the candidate using
such tactics. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/275813.php and how this
might have an impact upon voters to make an informed choice in a
national election.




*Complete redacted quote of interchange between The One and the
questioner available at http://www.ignitecast.com/p/RUgmoTIpGJ/


Mark and/or Juanita -

Do you keep an Excel spreadsheet log of how much time you spend
blathering on usenet? Because, if you divide that time by the number of
minds you've changed with your lockstep conservative pedantry, the
result is... oh, darn, I seem to recall something from Algebra I about
dividing by zero.

"Elrond Hubbard" wrote in message
...
Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

Given your professed deep knowledge of the definitions of socialism,
Marxism, and communism, please help the rest of us by participating in
the following exercise:

1) Compare and contrast Marx's infamous quote: "From each according
to his ability, to each according to their need" with the following
quote from The One in response to the question, "You're going to raise
my taxes, aren't you?":
"... it?Ts not that I want to punish your success ?" I just
want to make sure
that everybody who is behind you ?" that they've got a chance at
success too. ... and I think when you spread the wealth around, it?Ts
good for everybody*.?�




2) Background: In one day, the media that has failed to fully
investigate or has attempted to divert any questioning of the various
alliances and political machinations of the current candidate, yet
airdropped 300 reporters and investigators into Alaska to search out
the background of the other party's vice presidential candidate has
ferreted out the life history of the person who dared ask the question
about raising taxes referenced in question 1. In the process the media
has worked diligently to destroy the questioner's credibility and
reputation. Within one day the media has made sure that the country
knows that the questioner has had a tax lien filed on him and may have
issues with proper licensing.

Question: Stalinism included use of propaganda to establish a
personality cult as well as extensive use of secret police to maintain
social submission and silence political dissent. The term usually
defines the style of a government rather than an ideology. In many
cases, this included the destruction of the reputation and lives of
those who opposed the regime Explain the difference between the abuses
of stalinism and the recent attacks by the information arm of the
Democrat party (the media) upon a person who simply dared ask a
question. In your response, please note that the background of the
questioner should be irrelevant to a legitimately posed question. In
addition, consider the threats from the "Obama truth squad" in the
state of Missouri and the visit by the Secret Service upon a woman who
was merely rude to a caller from the Obama campaign:
http://www.lifenews.com/state3552.html



Extra credit: Explain how the tactics used above could lead to a
chilling effect upon those who might have relevant information
regarding the background and previous actions of the candidate using
such tactics. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/275813.php and how this
might have an impact upon voters to make an informed choice in a
national election.




*Complete redacted quote of interchange between The One and the
questioner available at http://www.ignitecast.com/p/RUgmoTIpGJ/


Mark and/or Juanita -

Do you keep an Excel spreadsheet log of how much time you spend
blathering on usenet? Because, if you divide that time by the number of
minds you've changed with your lockstep conservative pedantry, the
result is... oh, darn, I seem to recall something from Algebra I about
dividing by zero.



Elrond Hubbard ,

Of course you don't complain likewise about the liberals.......

cm

"cm" wrote in :

Mark and/or Juanita -

Do you keep an Excel spreadsheet log of how much time you spend
blathering on usenet? Because, if you divide that time by the number of
minds you've changed with your lockstep conservative pedantry, the
result is... oh, darn, I seem to recall something from Algebra I about
dividing by zero.



Elrond Hubbard ,

Of course you don't complain likewise about the liberals.......

cm


It's true, my posts can't hold a candle to yours in terms of even-handedness. I'll try harder. To care.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:42:21 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

the media that has failed to fully investigate

the media has worked diligently to destroy

the media has made sure that the country knows

by the information arm of the Democrat party (the media)


It's all a vast left-wing media conspiracy!!!

Tell that to Rupert Murdoch. Or to Fox news. Or to the legions of right
wing ranters on radio and TV.

BTW, our local newspaper endorsed almost all national, regional, and local
Republicans and still gets accused of being liberal.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote:

It's all a vast left-wing media conspiracy!!!

And to think, the above idea can be laid at the feet of Nixon as a
result of his 1962 election loss comments.

Hell of a foundation.

Lew

Elrond Hubbard,



You must be keeping an Excel spread sheet between Robotoy, Tim D, Tom W.,
and Marks posts????......

cm


"Elrond Hubbard" wrote in message
...
"cm" wrote in
:

Mark and/or Juanita -

Do you keep an Excel spreadsheet log of how much time you spend
blathering on usenet? Because, if you divide that time by the number of
minds you've changed with your lockstep conservative pedantry, the
result is... oh, darn, I seem to recall something from Algebra I about
dividing by zero.



Elrond Hubbard ,

Of course you don't complain likewise about the liberals.......

cm


It's true, my posts can't hold a candle to yours in terms of
even-handedness. I'll try harder. To care.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:42:21 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

the media that has failed to fully investigate

the media has worked diligently to destroy

the media has made sure that the country knows

by the information arm of the Democrat party (the media)


It's all a vast left-wing media conspiracy!!!

Tell that to Rupert Murdoch. Or to Fox news.

OK, you've got a partial one: Fox News is not exclusively conservative and
gets most of its news feeds from AP -- a news organization that has stated
it is OK for reporters to attempt to influence opinion.

So, that's almost 1, while the rest: CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, LA
Times, Time, Newsweek, that all lean left. It's so obvious anymore it's
not even debateable.


Or to the legions of right
wing ranters on radio and TV.
"legions?" Funny thing is, given all of the media sources that the Dems
own as stated above, Nancy Pelosi, et al still want to shut down
those "legions" by reinstating the fairness doctrine. Bottom line is the
Dems just can't stand that there is an opposition voice out there and they
plan to do whatever they have to to silence it once they assume full power.


BTW, our local newspaper endorsed almost all national, regional, and local
Republicans and still gets accused of being liberal.

Probably because of the news feeds they use.

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

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:33:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:

BTW, our local newspaper endorsed almost all national, regional, and local
Republicans and still gets accused of being liberal.

Probably because of the news feeds they use.

One can't argue with that kind of logic.



--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:42:21 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Given your professed deep knowledge of the definitions of socialism,
Marxism, and communism, please help the rest of us by participating in the
following exercise:

1) Compare and contrast Marx's infamous quote: "From each according to his
ability, to each according to their need" with the following quote from The
One in response to the question, "You're going to raise my taxes, aren't
you?":


My point was about the misuse of terminology. Here is the reading
list from the seminar on Marxism and Socialist Thought:


The Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. 1848.

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Friedrich Engels.

State and Revolution. Vladimir Lenin.

The Foundations of Leninism. Joseph Stalin.

The New Class. Milovan Djilas.

The Conspiracy of the Ivory Tower Intellectuals. Laszek Kolakowski.

The New Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

On Practice. Mao Tse-tung.

Combat Liberalsim. Mao Tse-tung.

Socialist Thought, A Documentary History. Albert Fried and Ronald
Sanders.



After you are done reading these you will better understand.



tom watson

t wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:42:21 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Given your professed deep knowledge of the definitions of socialism,
Marxism, and communism, please help the rest of us by participating in the
following exercise:

1) Compare and contrast Marx's infamous quote: "From each according to
his ability, to each according to their need" with the following quote
from The One in response to the question, "You're going to raise my taxes,
aren't you?":


My point was about the misuse of terminology. Here is the reading
list from the seminar on Marxism and Socialist Thought:


The Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. 1848.

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Friedrich Engels.

State and Revolution. Vladimir Lenin.

The Foundations of Leninism. Joseph Stalin.

The New Class. Milovan Djilas.

The Conspiracy of the Ivory Tower Intellectuals. Laszek Kolakowski.

The New Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

On Practice. Mao Tse-tung.

Combat Liberalsim. Mao Tse-tung.

Socialist Thought, A Documentary History. Albert Fried and Ronald
Sanders.



After you are done reading these you will better understand.


Rather than wasting a considerable amount of time reading that dreck (I've
seen and read sufficient excerpts to get the plot), I prefer to observe the
resulting catastrophes that have resulted from their implementation -- I
absolutely understand the toll on human lives, prosperity and productivity
that such systems have inflicted upon their nations' victims. Further,
from such observation, I see no reason why any person with more than two
working brain cells to rub together would want to see their own country
headed down that same path of wealth redistributionism and command economy.
That was my point, "from each according to his ability, to each according
to his need" isn't a very far step from "I believe that when you spread the
wealth around, it helps everybody".






tom watson

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

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:51:06 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Rather than wasting a considerable amount of time reading that dreck

sigh...





tom watson

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 20:02:09 -0400, t wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:51:06 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Rather than wasting a considerable amount of time reading that dreck

sigh...

See. You just can't argue with that kind of logic.



--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

t wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:42:21 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Given your professed deep knowledge of the definitions of socialism,
Marxism, and communism, please help the rest of us by participating in the
following exercise:

1) Compare and contrast Marx's infamous quote: "From each according to his
ability, to each according to their need" with the following quote from The
One in response to the question, "You're going to raise my taxes, aren't
you?":


My point was about the misuse of terminology. Here is the reading
list from the seminar on Marxism and Socialist Thought:


The Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. 1848.

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Friedrich Engels.

State and Revolution. Vladimir Lenin.

The Foundations of Leninism. Joseph Stalin.

The New Class. Milovan Djilas.

The Conspiracy of the Ivory Tower Intellectuals. Laszek Kolakowski.

The New Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

On Practice. Mao Tse-tung.

Combat Liberalsim. Mao Tse-tung.

Socialist Thought, A Documentary History. Albert Fried and Ronald
Sanders.



After you are done reading these you will better understand.



tom watson

It should be noted that several years after he wrote Das Capital (sp)
Karl Marx decided that communism would not work as a practical matter.
In 1991 he was proven right by the fall of the Soviet Union.

Dave Nagel

t wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:51:06 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Rather than wasting a considerable amount of time reading that dreck

sigh...





tom watson


Thank-you Tom. My purpose in making the above post was two-fold. First,
I wanted to elicit that elitist "if you don't do all of this you can't
possibly know what you are talking about response". You didn't disappoint.
Frankly, the idea that in order for someone to be able to discuss the
merits/demerits of socialized, collectivized, or other re-distributionist
command economy approaches they must complete that reading list or be
considered unworthy of debating the points is beyond absurd and elitist.
If you feel that a specific definition for some term must be employed in a
discussion -- spit it out, let us know the definition to which you want to
work. My second purpose was a bit more serious; that reading list is
considerable and represents an immense investment of time and preparation
for someone putting together such a seminar and a large investment of time
on the part of those participating in such a seminar. The first question
one should ask is what the purpose of such investment should be. Could this
not be distilled into an examination of the key teachings of marxist
doctrines along with an examination of the results of their attempted
implementation? Were similar seminars offered that delved with equivalent
depth into the bases of the representative democracy formed under the
Constitution? Was equivalent depth provided for the federalist and
anti-federalist papers, the writings of Locke, Jefferson, Madison and the
founders? Similarly, were similar seminars offered on the workings of
free-market economies? I know that the answer for that at several
institutions of higher learning with which I was acquainted even 25 years
ago would have been "no". There seems to be a fascination in academia with
the works of Marx and his fellow travelers that is not exhibited toward
those elements of the society that has enabled this and other western
countries to achieve the levels of accomplishments that they have enjoyed.


The origin of this discussion, the fact that the democrat candidate has in
multiple instances indicated the desire to implement re-distributionist
policies and continued implementation of socialist policies was the heart
of the original elements of the discussion. If you want to categorize and
refine the degree of socialism and more specifically identify with which
statist phylum his ideas are associated, that's fine, it doesn't change the
idea that this candidate is seeking greater government control, larger
government aggrandizement of wealth for the purpose of re-distributing it
to his political gain, and punishing success in the name of fairness.

Let's put this into an analogy to which you should be able to relate. You
have posted extensively about you and your son's participation in pine car
derby as well as the accompanying successes. What if the pine car derby
judges were to make the following pronouncement for next year's contest:
Given that you and your son and other winners have been so successful over
the past several years, being able to savor the joy of victory and
competition, the judges have determined that it is not fair that other
disadvantaged children, often not of their own fault, not be capable of
enjoying some degree of success. Therefore, in order to implement a policy
of fairness and assure that the most disadvantaged be able to do well also,
those who have, for the past several years been finalists and winners (the
top 5%) will be required to build and provide two pine cars -- the judges
will then choose one of those entries and provide that car to one of the
losers from previous years (you know the ones, the kid who shows up with
the wheels nailed to the pine car block, not all of them touching the
ground, if he took some time, he may have decorated it with crayon or magic
marker) so that child will also be able to enjoy the thrill of the
competition. We're sure you see the fairness in this new approach and look
forward to your two entries in the coming derby.

That, in a nutshell is what the re-distributionist, "I think when you
spread the wealth around, everybody benefits" policy of the democrat
nominee is proposing. It is no longer about government revenue or seeing
to the constitutionally defined roles of the federal government, it is
about "fairness". Earlier this summer, when it was pointed out to him that
increasing capital gains tax rates have actually been shown to reduce
revenue, he stated he didn't care, it was just fair that capital gains be
taxed at a higher rate than they are now.

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

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Thank-you Tom. My purpose in making the above post was two-fold. First,
I wanted to elicit that elitist "if you don't do all of this you can't
possibly know what you are talking about response". You didn't disappoint.
Frankly, the idea that in order for someone to be able to discuss the
merits/demerits of socialized, collectivized, or other re-distributionist
command economy approaches they must complete that reading list or be
considered unworthy of debating the points is beyond absurd and elitist.

Perhaps so - and on the other hand there are those who believe that
skimming Cliff Notes or a Schaum Outline is sufficient to consider
themselves educated in a subject area.

I've always been fascinated that the men I've tended to think of as the
"great thinkers" among our founding fathers found it necessary to learn
Greek and Latin so as to be able to read what they considered great
writings in the originators' own language and words...

If you feel that a specific definition for some term must be employed in a
discussion -- spit it out, let us know the definition to which you want to
work. My second purpose was a bit more serious; that reading list is
considerable and represents an immense investment of time and preparation
for someone putting together such a seminar and a large investment of time
on the part of those participating in such a seminar. The first question
one should ask is what the purpose of such investment should be. Could this
not be distilled into an examination of the key teachings of marxist
doctrines along with an examination of the results of their attempted
implementation? Were similar seminars offered that delved with equivalent
depth into the bases of the representative democracy formed under the
Constitution? Was equivalent depth provided for the federalist and
anti-federalist papers, the writings of Locke, Jefferson, Madison and the
founders? Similarly, were similar seminars offered on the workings of
free-market economies? I know that the answer for that at several
institutions of higher learning with which I was acquainted even 25 years
ago would have been "no". There seems to be a fascination in academia with
the works of Marx and his fellow travelers that is not exhibited toward
those elements of the society that has enabled this and other western
countries to achieve the levels of accomplishments that they have enjoyed.

That's too bad - and does not speak well of either faculties nor
administrations of those institutions. Perhaps as an alumnus you can
advocate for the missing balance.

Could it be that the fascination you describe is more with the various
notions of Utopia than with practical, real-world systems of governance?

The origin of this discussion, the fact that the democrat candidate has in
multiple instances indicated the desire to implement re-distributionist
policies and continued implementation of socialist policies was the heart
of the original elements of the discussion. If you want to categorize and
refine the degree of socialism and more specifically identify with which
statist phylum his ideas are associated, that's fine, it doesn't change the
idea that this candidate is seeking greater government control, larger
government aggrandizement of wealth for the purpose of re-distributing it
to his political gain, and punishing success in the name of fairness.

Interesting. With the substitution of "productivity" for "success",
that's pretty much how I'd have characterized the behavior of the
current administration. :-)

Let's put this into an analogy to which you should be able to relate. You
have posted extensively about you and your son's participation in pine car
derby as well as the accompanying successes. What if the pine car derby
judges were to make the following pronouncement for next year's contest:
Given that you and your son and other winners have been so successful over
the past several years, being able to savor the joy of victory and
competition, the judges have determined that it is not fair that other
disadvantaged children, often not of their own fault, not be capable of
enjoying some degree of success. Therefore, in order to implement a policy
of fairness and assure that the most disadvantaged be able to do well also,
those who have, for the past several years been finalists and winners (the
top 5%) will be required to build and provide two pine cars -- the judges
will then choose one of those entries and provide that car to one of the
losers from previous years (you know the ones, the kid who shows up with
the wheels nailed to the pine car block, not all of them touching the
ground, if he took some time, he may have decorated it with crayon or magic
marker) so that child will also be able to enjoy the thrill of the
competition. We're sure you see the fairness in this new approach and look
forward to your two entries in the coming derby.

Another scenario: If your child's car did not finish in the top 1/5,
then your child is required to contribute toward the purchase of
(expensive) ball bearing wheels to be distributed only to that top 20%.

That, in a nutshell is what the re-distributionist, "I think when you
spread the wealth around, everybody benefits" policy of the democrat
nominee is proposing. It is no longer about government revenue or seeing
to the constitutionally defined roles of the federal government, it is
about "fairness". Earlier this summer, when it was pointed out to him that
increasing capital gains tax rates have actually been shown to reduce
revenue, he stated he didn't care, it was just fair that capital gains be
taxed at a higher rate than they are now.

A good compromise solution might be to boost short-term capital gains
taxes (to discourage disruptive speculation) and simultaneously
decreasing long-term capital gains taxes (to encourage responsible
investment).

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/