On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:40:25 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

''' looked at how this nation has prospered because of economic
freedom ...

You really have the nerve to claim that given the current economic
crisis? And you say liberals are illogical?

Unregulated free markets work great when everybody involved has the
common good as a goal. That's about as likely as the communist dogma
that man could be perfected :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Well Mark,
I am certainly glad that you cleared this up for me. Any time a member
of the conservative bloc finds the time and inclination to rise up on
his hind legs and clarify the world situation, it is indeed a red letter
day.

That said, this was an incredible collection of absolute drivel. The
only thing more incredible than your astounding ignorance is your
inability to rid yourself of it.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:40:25 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

''' looked at how this nation has prospered because of economic
freedom ...

You really have the nerve to claim that given the current economic
crisis? And you say liberals are illogical?

Unregulated free markets work great when everybody involved has the
common good as a goal. That's about as likely as the communist dogma
that man could be perfected :-).


You really have the nerve to say that the crisis we are currently in is
the result of a free, unregulated market? Yeah, liberals are definitely
illogical (and don't have any sense of history either).

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

On Mar 28, 1:25*am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:40:25 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

''' looked at how this nation has prospered because of economic
freedom ...

You really have the nerve to claim that given the current economic
crisis? *And you say liberals are illogical?

Unregulated free markets work great when everybody involved has the
common good as a goal. *That's about as likely as the communist dogma
that man could be perfected :-).

* You really have the nerve to say that the crisis we are currently in is
the result of a free, unregulated market?

When lending money was unregulated, the insurance of same was also
unregulated, the fox ate the chicken. (Eskimo fable) You cannot trust
greedy people who use money to keep score of their 'success'.*

Yeah, liberals are definitely
illogical

I tend to see and subscribe to the ideological side of what used to be
called conservatism. That, however, is miles removed from having one's
head in the clouds and insisting that "if left alone, they will
regulate themselves." Well, Mark, they WERE left alone and the just
couldn't help them selves from helping themselves. The fox ate the
chicken. YOUR version of conservatism refuses to overlook the fact
that you cannot trust greedy foxes. Just because YOU are a
trustworthy, upright man with a solid Christian ethic does NOT mean
that those crazies at AIG et al, are like you. To think there is an
honesty component in that crowd....is naive.

(and don't have any sense of history either).

Let the record show that you refuse to admit that history makes it
really clear that banks, insurance companies, and gamblers cannot stop
themselves from screwing whoever they can....even after their so-
called demise, they still manage to screw the serfs.

I am not defending the Left, as they are clearly on the same path as
the previous bunch, but I can't stand it when the Right is being
defended as 'self-regulators'.. because that is just plain
incorrect...please DO check history, Mark. Your version is
revisionist. You'd do well as a Legacy Adjuster for your hero, W.

SOMEbody Made-off with a lot of money.

Robatoy wrote:

When lending money was unregulated, the insurance of same was also
unregulated, the fox ate the chicken. (Eskimo fable) You cannot trust
greedy people who use money to keep score of their 'success'.

Time For A Reality Injection

Sorry, but you are dead wrong about several things in this paragraph:

1) Money lending is not unregulated. Banking is a fairly regulated
industry throughout most of the West anyway.

2) Ditto insurance - also a regulated industry, in the US it is done
primarily by the States.

What went wrong here was multiple course of *government* intervention
of the worst kind:

1) The U.S. government - in the form of its political rectal warts
like Carter, Clinton, Frank, and Dodd - *distorted* market behavior
by insisting that banks lend to borrowers who absolutely could not
qualify under normal rules. They did this by promising the bankers
they could keep the upside of such lending, but that "the government"
would protect them from the downside when such borrowers defaulted.
This created a perverse incentive for the banks (and AIG as their
mortgage default insurance company) to take lots of risk knowing
they'd never have to eat the downside. IOW, the very *regulation*
that required banks to set lending standards when qualifying
borrowers was *thwarted by the repulsive leftwing social justice
idiots in government.* It was not a *lack* of regulation that
caused it. It was the banks being *forced to ignore the regulation*
by their own government that caused the problem.

2) When the silliness of the banks became evident, the *government*
stepped in to try and save them from their bad decisions on the
grounds that they were "too big too fail." Evidently, neither
Bush nor the Obamessiah actually believe in market economies
and could/can not comprehend that letting the banks/AIG fail is
*exactly* what is needed here to clear all those toxic assets off
their books in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The banks/AIG acted foolishly and should have been left to their
own recovery.

W acted stupidly and prematurely and is properly condemned for his
ridiculous bailout spending.

Obamessiah is acting *purposely* and with great malice toward market
economies so as to install his socialist idiocy. He has managed to
sell this as the bank's fault to the sheeple (as have his communist-lite
fellow travelers around the world) while managing to keep most of
the spotlight off the evil little trolls like Carter and Frank who
actually precipitated the root causes of this whole mess.

The good news is that money and economies are neither neocon nor
drooling-idiot liberal institutions. Economies happily ignore
the ideological stupidities of either group. The Obamessiah's
spending binge is a self-limiting problem that - while it is likely
to result in vast destruction of Western wealth and American
prestige - may have the salutary effect of reminding a new
generation - the same silly children that voted for the Hopechangey
Administration - just why their elders fought the cold war in opposition
to the socialist/collectivist/communist regimes of the 20th century.
Perhaps a few hundred million starving in the Western world will
serve to teach them never to entrust their freedom and future to
political offal like the current POTUS.

P.S. Don't forget to turn ON every light in your house at 8:30pm local
time tonight.



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

On Mar 28, 5:17*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
*IOW, the very *regulation*
* *that required banks to set lending standards when qualifying
* *borrowers was *thwarted by the repulsive leftwing social justice
* *idiots in government.* *It was not a *lack* of regulation that
* *caused it. *It was the banks being *forced to ignore the regulation*
* *by their own government that caused the problem.

LOL.
Didn't the The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act change the regulators required?

Robatoy wrote:
On Mar 28, 5:17 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
IOW, the very *regulation*
that required banks to set lending standards when qualifying
borrowers was *thwarted by the repulsive leftwing social justice
idiots in government.* It was not a *lack* of regulation that
caused it. It was the banks being *forced to ignore the regulation*
by their own government that caused the problem.

LOL.
Didn't the The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act change the regulators required?

Not as regards to this issue, as best as I understand it.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley allowed commercial and investment banks to merge which
does not directly bear on the government forcing retail mortgage
banks to give Wanda The Welfare Queen a mortgage for a home she
could in no way actually afford.

Note that I am NOT defending the banks or insurance companies here.
They acted stupidly and placed their faith blindly in a quant model
that they never really shook out thoroughly. See:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant

But there is a simple way to solve the bad banking decisions: Let them
go under and let a healthier bank buy the assets at a discount in
bankruptcy court. This is an orderly and well understood process we've
used for a very long time to cleanup messes of this sort. First W,
and now - in a hugely bigger way - Obamessiah are just delaying this
kind of healthful market correction by their incessant market meddling
and wasting all of our money. Unlike W, however, Obamessiah is
doing this *intentionally* which makes him doubly scary...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:17:56 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

The U.S. government - in the form of its political rectal warts
like Carter, Clinton, Frank, and Dodd - *distorted* market behavior
by insisting that banks lend to borrowers who absolutely could not
qualify under normal rules. They did this by promising the bankers
they could keep the upside of such lending, but that "the government"
would protect them from the downside when such borrowers defaulted.
This created a perverse incentive for the banks (and AIG as their
mortgage default insurance company) to take lots of risk knowing
they'd never have to eat the downside.

I know you won't believe this, Tim, but the majority of defaulted loans
were made by mortgage brokers thru non-bank finance companies. I don't
recall the exact numbers, but I posted them here once before.

The banks problems were that they bough up the securitized mortgages
believing the housing market would go up forever.

And then there's the speculators who simply walked away when the bubble
started leaking. Or haven't you read about all the renters that are
being evicted because their landlord bailed out?

Trying to blame the CRA just won't fly. It's been debunked too often.
Can you show me language in that or any other law that requires lending
to unqualified individuals.

And it wasn't the government that invented "liar loans" either.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:51:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

... the government forcing retail mortgage banks to give Wanda The
Welfare Queen a mortgage for a home she could in no way actually afford.

Once again Tim, show us the legal requirement.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Larry Blanchard" wrote:

I know you won't believe this, Tim, but the majority of defaulted
loans
were made by mortgage brokers thru non-bank finance companies.

Larry, you haven't blocked this idiot yet?

You disappoint me.

Lew

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:51:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

... the government forcing retail mortgage banks to give Wanda The
Welfare Queen a mortgage for a home she could in no way actually afford.

Once again Tim, show us the legal requirement.


Who's "us"?

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:51:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

... the government forcing retail mortgage banks to give Wanda The
Welfare Queen a mortgage for a home she could in no way actually afford.

Once again Tim, show us the legal requirement.


I'm not sure I understand the question. Please restate.

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

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:17:56 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

The U.S. government - in the form of its political rectal warts
like Carter, Clinton, Frank, and Dodd - *distorted* market behavior
by insisting that banks lend to borrowers who absolutely could not
qualify under normal rules. They did this by promising the bankers
they could keep the upside of such lending, but that "the government"
would protect them from the downside when such borrowers defaulted.
This created a perverse incentive for the banks (and AIG as their
mortgage default insurance company) to take lots of risk knowing
they'd never have to eat the downside.

I know you won't believe this, Tim, but the majority of defaulted loans
were made by mortgage brokers thru non-bank finance companies. I don't
recall the exact numbers, but I posted them here once before.

The banks problems were that they bough up the securitized mortgages
believing the housing market would go up forever.

And then there's the speculators who simply walked away when the bubble
started leaking. Or haven't you read about all the renters that are
being evicted because their landlord bailed out?

Trying to blame the CRA just won't fly. It's been debunked too often.
Can you show me language in that or any other law that requires lending
to unqualified individuals.

And it wasn't the government that invented "liar loans" either.


All of this is more-or-less true, but you're missing the point. The
CRA created an *environment* or a *mentality* in which the bankers
became comfortable with laying off risk to the public taxpayer while
keeping the upside for themselves. Brother Obama has confirmed that this
is, indeed, the case, by bailing their butts out of all the above.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote:

I know you won't believe this, Tim, but the majority of defaulted
loans
were made by mortgage brokers thru non-bank finance companies.

Larry, you haven't blocked this idiot yet?

You disappoint me.

Lew




Poor Lew - in the absence of a coherent counterpoint, you go
for the personal attack. Truly the sign of the absence of any
real thought on your part.

Lew, if you will (privately) send me your snail mail, I shall send you
earplugs so as to never hear a dissenting opinion ever again.

I may sometimes be wrong, and occasionally abrasive, but I assure
you I am never an "idiot". Was it William F. Buckley who said
words to the effect that liberals love to hear all other points of
view until they discover there actually *are* other points of view ...


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

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:17:56 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

The U.S. government - in the form of its political rectal warts
like Carter, Clinton, Frank, and Dodd - *distorted* market behavior
by insisting that banks lend to borrowers who absolutely could not
qualify under normal rules. They did this by promising the bankers
they could keep the upside of such lending, but that "the government"
would protect them from the downside when such borrowers defaulted.
This created a perverse incentive for the banks (and AIG as their
mortgage default insurance company) to take lots of risk knowing
they'd never have to eat the downside.

I know you won't believe this, Tim, but the majority of defaulted loans
were made by mortgage brokers thru non-bank finance companies. I don't
recall the exact numbers, but I posted them here once before.

The banks problems were that they bough up the securitized mortgages
believing the housing market would go up forever.

And then there's the speculators who simply walked away when the bubble
started leaking. Or haven't you read about all the renters that are
being evicted because their landlord bailed out?

Trying to blame the CRA just won't fly. It's been debunked too often.
Can you show me language in that or any other law that requires lending
to unqualified individuals.

You really don't get it do you?

The CRA didn't have language in it that said, "you will loan to
unqualified people". Instead, it used language about "fair housing"
and "non-discriminatory lending practices". At that point, various groups
such as community activists (ever heard of ACORN?) and the Janet Reno
justice department began threatening civil and legal action against banks
that did not meet "fair lending criteria". Those criteria used various
things such as number of loans to various favored political classes as
evidence of discriminatory lending practices. This, coupled with
increasingly lowered qualification requirements promulgated by Fannie and
Freddie served as the catalyst for both the bubble and the creation of the
bundled securities. While lending institutions are not free of blame from
this, they are not the root cause of the problem.

http://www.allbusiness.com/personal-finance/real-estate-mortgage-loans/456805-1.html

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?status=article&id=31276678171 6725&secid=1501

http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/ag/speeches/1998/0320_agcom.htm

Sure seems like government coercion at work.

In the beginning, the banks simply determined that the best approach was
to roll over and take the losses (some of which were covered by taxpayers
anyway) rather than deal with an ACORN lawsuit for every loan turned down.

Unintended consequences suck.





And it wasn't the government that invented "liar loans" either.


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

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:48:56 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

All of this is more-or-less true, but you're missing the point. The CRA
created an *environment* or a *mentality* in which the bankers became
comfortable with laying off risk to the public taxpayer

And I'll give you the point that the banks caved in, although I doubt it
was as extensive as you claim. Too many banks, including mine, rode out
the housing bubble with few or no problems. But again, banks, even under
pressure, didn't make most of the bad loans. Non-bank finance companies
did and they were under no government pressure.

The banks lost more money buying those securities than they did on bad
mortgages they made. And they also lost some money they loaned to the
non-bank mortgagors.

And we haven't even discussed the hedge funds that also bought the
securitized mortgages.

Mortgage brokers, finance companies, and hedge funds were all
unregulated. Could the government have prevented a lot of the crisis
with good regulation? Yes. Would they have crafted "good" regulations?
That's open to question :-).

I noted the news last night stated that legislators of both parties are
getting campaign contributions from executives of bailed out firms - the
dance goes on.


--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:47:16 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:51:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

... the government forcing retail mortgage banks to give Wanda The
Welfare Queen a mortgage for a home she could in no way actually
afford.

Once again Tim, show us the legal requirement.


I'm not sure I understand the question. Please restate.

You answered the question in your prior post. Pressure, not a legal
requirement.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:28:39 -0700 (PDT), Charlie Self
wrote:

On Mar 17, 3:14*am, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:57:53 -0500, Steve Turner



wrote:
wrote:
It looks like we are going to have to a large horse chestnut tree
taken out. Is the wood good for anything?

If so, who might want it?

The trunk is about 2-3 feet across near the bottom. It looks like
there might be some interesting burl-like pieces in several places.

None of the tree books I have that describe Horsechestnut say anything
about the properties of the lumber, but they do say that it's an
"introduced" member of the Buckeye family, native to Asia and
southeastern Europe. *However, "The Encyclopedia of Wood" by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture has this to say about Buckeye:

========
Buckeye consists of two species, yellow buckeye (Aesculus octandra) and
Ohio buckeye (a. glabra). *These species range from the Appalachians of
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina westward to Kansas, Oklahoma,
and Texas. *Buckeye is not customarily separated from other species when
manufactured into lumber and can be used for the same purposes as aspen
(Populus), basswood (Tilia), and sapwood of yellow-poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera).

The white sapwood of buckeye merges gradually into the creamy or
yellowish white heartwood. *The wood is uniform in texture, generally
straight grained, light in weight, weak when used as a beam, soft, and
low in shock resistance. *It is rated low on machinability such as
shaping, mortising, boring, and turning.

Buckeye is suitable for pulping for paper; in lumber form, it has been
used principally for furniture, boxes and crates, food containers,
wooden ware, novelties, and planing mill products.
========

Based on all that, I don't think I would bother having it milled...

I don't want it myself. I used to do a little woodworking, but not
anymore. I just thought I'd see if is worth offering it to anyone.

It sounds like it is too soft for most uses.

I'm on here late, but as far as I can tell, almost no wood is too soft
or too hard but what some woodworker can't use it for something, even
if it's firewood in the stove. I've got bits of an old Chinese
chestnut here that are good for turning, eventually, and two friends
who are good turners.

Check around locally for people you know who are woodworkers. If you
can't find any, check the shop teachers at your local HS for some
names.

I wish I had thought of the local high schools. Too late now. It's all
gone to the chipper.

It might not have been much good anyway. The reason we had to take it
out was that it had serious root damage and started leaning. The tree
guy showed me some of the cross sections. The damaged wood went pretty
far in. He said the tree had been badly pruned for many years.

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:40:25 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , jo4hn
wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Upscale
wrote:

.. snip

I think you DO know who Rush is.

I've heard of him, and seen and read some news reports and commentary
about him and the people who hate him. I have never listened to him, as
I don't live in the US, and don't really care for the American style of
blow-hard pundit talk radio regardless of the politics of the blow-hard
pundit. Which is why I rarely listen to the radio when I do travel to
the US. It's pretty much crap.

You see, in the mind of those on the left, if one holds conservative
values it cannot be because the conservative has looked at history and
observed what has worked, looked at how this nation has prospered because
of economic freedom and the ability to keep much of the fruits of one's
labors, or observed how, in every place it has been tried, the socialist
agenda being promoted has always produced more poverty, more misery, and
left its people lacking for even basic necessities. No, in the mind of the
left, if one holds conservative values, it is because you are a mindless
drone who has been brainwashed by someone such as Rush.

This is complete bull**** and you are either a complete idiot or
completely selfish. The latter is hilarious, because I doubt your net
worth is anywhere near the level where any of Bush, the criminal's tax
cuts would benefit you.

Yes, that's name calling, so sue me.

No one is advocating socialism. I certainly am not.

The funny thing is, this is simple projection -- for the most part, the
left doesn't *think*, it *feels*. Decisions are made with emotions.

The funny thing is that the idiot right howls with righteaous
indignation when skewered and then goes right on doing the skewering.
How is tyhis statement not calling a whole group mindless (emotional)
dolts? Hypocrital dip****.

You
see people who are poor? Of course it just *feels* right that money should
be taken from those considered rich and given to the poor.

Let me guess. You are a big fan of Ayn Rand, right? You probably even
named one of your kids John Galt, unless, thank god you are sterile
and cannot reproduce more mindless dolts.

The fact that
trillions of dollars have been spent this way since the 60's and those in
poor areas are worse off now than before doesn't matter.

Citations, please, showing that this money was all spent on socialist
programs (and you don't get to assign the label) and they are worse
off than they would have been without that money.

It *felt* like
the right thing to do and the people who did so should be judged by their
intentions, not the results and unintended consequences. The ones being
led are those on the left who are pushed by the media and their leaders to
*feel* the problems pointed out and to use those *feelings* to support
those in power who want to continue the failed policies of the past, or to
implement policies that have been shown not to work all over the world --
only this time, their chosen, caring leaders are going to do it better, and
it's going to work *this* time.

An absolutely amazing pile of non-sequiturs and pure horse****.

The gap between rich and poor in this country is getting worse. US
corporations exploited the workers in absolutely immoral and obscene
ways giving rise to labor unions. They then turned to raping the
developing world for natural resources (including human resources).
Now that the developing world is getting smarter, the corporations
have turned to finance as a way to rape everyone. And your buddy, the
criminal Bush, along with the entire congress (both parties) happily
colluded in eliminating regulations to that hedge funds and
derivatives, especially credit swaps, could rape the entire world
economy.

Conservatives have opposed every kind of equality (racial, worker,
gender) and still do.

Bottom line, you are an idiot and an asshole.

There, I'm done. I feel much better.

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:21:50 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Mar 27, 5:40*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
*

* The funny thing is, this is simple projection -- for the most part, the
left doesn't *think*, it *feels*. *Decisions are made with emotions. *

I think I feel the need to point out that by saying that, aren't you
projecting?

Of course, typical conservative double standard. It's OK, though,
because god told him so.

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:45:39 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

"Three Lefts" wrote:
...everyone
has: an opinion and an asshole. And they both stink.

And here I thought it was two things every asshole gets were
hemorrhoids & cowboy boots.

Live and learn.

Lew

Any reason both can't be true? ;-)

On Mar 29, 2:44*pm, Lurfys Maw wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:21:50 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

wrote:
On Mar 27, 5:40*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
*

* The funny thing is, this is simple projection -- for the most part, the
left doesn't *think*, it *feels*. *Decisions are made with emotions. *

I think I feel the need to point out that by saying that, aren't you
projecting?

Of course, typical conservative double standard. It's OK, though,
because god told him so.

Hey, be glad he's not like my first wife. Everything she did was OK
because SHE did it. And she's a liberal.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:48:56 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

All of this is more-or-less true, but you're missing the point. The CRA
created an *environment* or a *mentality* in which the bankers became
comfortable with laying off risk to the public taxpayer

And I'll give you the point that the banks caved in, although I doubt it
was as extensive as you claim. Too many banks, including mine, rode out
the housing bubble with few or no problems. But again, banks, even under
pressure, didn't make most of the bad loans. Non-bank finance companies
did and they were under no government pressure.

The banks lost more money buying those securities than they did on bad
mortgages they made. And they also lost some money they loaned to the
non-bank mortgagors.

And we haven't even discussed the hedge funds that also bought the
securitized mortgages.

Mortgage brokers, finance companies, and hedge funds were all
unregulated. Could the government have prevented a lot of the crisis
with good regulation? Yes. Would they have crafted "good" regulations?
That's open to question :-).

I cannot think of any case in my lifetime where government regulation
has been particularly effective in reducing fraud or stupidity.
Regulation only works when the regulated are behaving in a sane manner ...
in which case the regulation is largely unnecessary.


I noted the news last night stated that legislators of both parties are
getting campaign contributions from executives of bailed out firms - the
dance goes on.



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

Nucular Reaction wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:40:25 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , jo4hn
wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Upscale
wrote:

.. snip
I think you DO know who Rush is.
I've heard of him, and seen and read some news reports and commentary
about him and the people who hate him. I have never listened to him, as
I don't live in the US, and don't really care for the American style of
blow-hard pundit talk radio regardless of the politics of the blow-hard
pundit. Which is why I rarely listen to the radio when I do travel to
the US. It's pretty much crap.
You see, in the mind of those on the left, if one holds conservative
values it cannot be because the conservative has looked at history and
observed what has worked, looked at how this nation has prospered because
of economic freedom and the ability to keep much of the fruits of one's
labors, or observed how, in every place it has been tried, the socialist
agenda being promoted has always produced more poverty, more misery, and
left its people lacking for even basic necessities. No, in the mind of the
left, if one holds conservative values, it is because you are a mindless
drone who has been brainwashed by someone such as Rush.

This is complete bull**** and you are either a complete idiot or
completely selfish. The latter is hilarious, because I doubt your net

I am completely selfish and proud of it. If I worked for it (that
is, I didn't steal or defraud to get it) it is none of your business
how or where I spend it.

worth is anywhere near the level where any of Bush, the criminal's tax
cuts would benefit you.

Yes, that's name calling, so sue me.

No one is advocating socialism. I certainly am not.

The Obamessiah is in everything but name. His Hopechangey administration
is all about distracting people from his utter incompetence while he
pays for the poor vote by stealing it from the middle class, all the while
paying off the rich. Not terribly different that Soviet-era Russia.


The funny thing is, this is simple projection -- for the most part, the
left doesn't *think*, it *feels*. Decisions are made with emotions.

The funny thing is that the idiot right howls with righteaous
indignation when skewered and then goes right on doing the skewering.
How is tyhis statement not calling a whole group mindless (emotional)
dolts? Hypocrital dip****.

You
see people who are poor? Of course it just *feels* right that money should
be taken from those considered rich and given to the poor.

Let me guess. You are a big fan of Ayn Rand, right? You probably even
named one of your kids John Galt, unless, thank god you are sterile
and cannot reproduce more mindless dolts.

Let me guess. You think you are smarter and more worthy to decide what
happens with the hours of my life - and the product thereof - than I am.
You are a petty tyrant.


The fact that
trillions of dollars have been spent this way since the 60's and those in
poor areas are worse off now than before doesn't matter.

Citations, please, showing that this money was all spent on socialist
programs (and you don't get to assign the label) and they are worse
off than they would have been without that money.

cf New Deal, Great Society, Urban Renewal for starters. Then, go for a ride
on Chicago's West side, LA Watts, NYC Harlem, or pretty much anywhere in
Detroit, New Orleans, Baltimore, and good parts of Miami. Social
spending has been a complete failure except for the very rare few.


It *felt* like
the right thing to do and the people who did so should be judged by their
intentions, not the results and unintended consequences. The ones being
led are those on the left who are pushed by the media and their leaders to
*feel* the problems pointed out and to use those *feelings* to support
those in power who want to continue the failed policies of the past, or to
implement policies that have been shown not to work all over the world --
only this time, their chosen, caring leaders are going to do it better, and
it's going to work *this* time.

An absolutely amazing pile of non-sequiturs and pure horse****.

The gap between rich and poor in this country is getting worse. US

This is arguable, but even if true, so what?

corporations exploited the workers in absolutely immoral and obscene
ways giving rise to labor unions. They then turned to raping the
developing world for natural resources (including human resources).
Now that the developing world is getting smarter, the corporations
have turned to finance as a way to rape everyone. And your buddy, the
criminal Bush, along with the entire congress (both parties) happily
colluded in eliminating regulations to that hedge funds and
derivatives, especially credit swaps, could rape the entire world
economy.

Your pharma is showing. This is irredeemable nonsense on pretty
much every level.


Conservatives have opposed every kind of equality (racial, worker,
gender) and still do.

It was *Republicans* that fought for, and passed, the racial equality
laws of the early 1960s (and I am NOT a Republican) that the
Dem president signed. The liberals of that time were largely closet
racists.


Bottom line, you are an idiot and an asshole.

There, I'm done. I feel much better.

You are still, however, illiterate in history, economics, and Reality,
not to mention being rather rude.



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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Nucular Reaction wrote:
SNIP

Conservatives have opposed every kind of equality (racial, worker,
gender) and still do.

It was *Republicans* that fought for, and passed, the racial equality
laws of the early 1960s (and I am NOT a Republican) that the
Dem president signed. The liberals of that time were largely closet
racists.

That should read: "The *Democrats* of that time were largely closet
racists." e.g., Robert "KKK" Byrd (though there were plenty of others).


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

Nucular Reaction wrote:

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:40:25 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , jo4hn
wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Upscale
wrote:

.. snip

I think you DO know who Rush is.

I've heard of him, and seen and read some news reports and commentary
about him and the people who hate him. I have never listened to him, as
I don't live in the US, and don't really care for the American style of
blow-hard pundit talk radio regardless of the politics of the blow-hard
pundit. Which is why I rarely listen to the radio when I do travel to
the US. It's pretty much crap.

You see, in the mind of those on the left, if one holds conservative
values it cannot be because the conservative has looked at history and
observed what has worked, looked at how this nation has prospered because
of economic freedom and the ability to keep much of the fruits of one's
labors, or observed how, in every place it has been tried, the socialist
agenda being promoted has always produced more poverty, more misery, and
left its people lacking for even basic necessities. No, in the mind of
the left, if one holds conservative values, it is because you are a
mindless drone who has been brainwashed by someone such as Rush.

This is complete bull**** and you are either a complete idiot or
completely selfish. The latter is hilarious, because I doubt your net
worth is anywhere near the level where any of Bush, the criminal's tax
cuts would benefit you.

Yes, that's name calling, so sue me.


Lots of ad hominem, no facts or substance. Yep, you pretty much make my
point, the left *feels*, it doesn't think.



No one is advocating socialism. I certainly am not.


Let's see, nationalizing banks, taking over auto companies
and "suggesting" that the CEO leave, Turbo-tax Timmy pushing for the power
to not only restructure bailed out institutions, but also to be able to
take over any other companies that *he* thinks may be in trouble. Nope, no
socialism there, uh-uh. You could be partially right, partial state
ownership in this respect is pretty well closer to fascism, but then that's
kind of a matter of degree.


.... snip of more fuming that certainly reflects the nome de plume of this
poster

You
see people who are poor? Of course it just *feels* right that money
should be taken from those considered rich and given to the poor.

Let me guess. You are a big fan of Ayn Rand, right? You probably even
named one of your kids John Galt, unless, thank god you are sterile
and cannot reproduce more mindless dolts.

The fact that
trillions of dollars have been spent this way since the 60's and those in
poor areas are worse off now than before doesn't matter.

Citations, please, showing that this money was all spent on socialist
programs (and you don't get to assign the label) and they are worse
off than they would have been without that money.

This is one of those cases where one would think that the old engineering
textbook caveat "the proof is straightforward and left to the reader" would
be 5'th grade obvious.


.... snip of more meltdown. My 2-year-old used to melt-down that way too.

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

wrote:

.... snip

It might not have been much good anyway. The reason we had to take it
out was that it had serious root damage and started leaning. The tree
guy showed me some of the cross sections. The damaged wood went pretty
far in. He said the tree had been badly pruned for many years.

What kinds of things make up "badly pruning"? I have to admit that I
don't have a really good feel for pruning well and would like to make sure
that I don't do something that would irreparably damage any of the few
trees that we have growing here.


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

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:02:31 -0700 (PDT), Charlie Self
wrote:

On Mar 29, 2:44*pm, Lurfys Maw wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:21:50 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

wrote:
On Mar 27, 5:40*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
*

* The funny thing is, this is simple projection -- for the most part, the
left doesn't *think*, it *feels*. *Decisions are made with emotions. *

I think I feel the need to point out that by saying that, aren't you
projecting?

Of course, typical conservative double standard. It's OK, though,
because god told him so.

Hey, be glad he's not like my first wife. Everything she did was OK
because SHE did it. And she's a liberal.

That's a completely different matter -- and a higher power than god.