On May 3, 2:24*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


Nowhere near what Captain Feelgood is going to cost us.


And you figure that saturating us with those cute names for Mr. Obama
is eventually going to sway any of us to see things your way?
Is that your raison d'être? Is this your outlet for creative cute
names?
How sad.
How small.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
He should just go ahead and select someone from the leadership
of the Communist Party USA. He has all the votes he needs, why
bother with even the slightest pretense of caring for the
Constitution any longer...

evodawg wrote:
Remember him saying in a debate with Wolf Blixscreen, CNN he would choose
someone with no legal qualifications, just an ordinary person. Someone
with no knowledge of the Constitution. Wow, Guess his next move is to do
away with that too. Change we can believe in, **** he wants to change
everything including our way of life!!! Wish he had spent more time in
MEXICO. But then we have Joe DumbAss waiting behind the curtains or is he
hiding behind them? Every time that fool opens his mouth he sticks his foot
in it.

The tragedy here is that the Hopeium smokers still don't get what an incredible
menace this guy is. It's what happens when the adults don't pay attention
and drunks, drug addicts, and intellectual children control the vote...

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under
the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the
socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation,
without knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas, Presidential
Candidate, U.S. Socialist Party, 1948

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Robatoy wrote:
On May 3, 2:19 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


What I'm saying is way simpler than this: The government's only role
in markets is to ensure their transparency and integrity, and to
interdict in matters of fraud. Period.

That's right. You had the Repuglicans look after 'transparency' and
'integrity'.

No administration has been more secretive on all issues than BushCo.
So much for transparency. Say hello to Mr. Paulson.
The words Bush administration and the word integrity.... I'm sorry.. I
can't make a sentence with both words in it.
There has never been a more corrupt bunch of greedy *******s in a
single administration than in the last one, and you want those foxes
to guard the hen house?

Now I KNOW you've lost your mind, Timbo.

CC wrote:

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
He should just go ahead and select someone from the leadership
of the Communist Party USA. He has all the votes he needs, why
bother with even the slightest pretense of caring for the
Constitution any longer...

CC wrote:
Like Bush really cared about the Constitution while taking away our rights
over the last 8 years

"The difference between Democrats and Republicans is:
Democrats have accepted some ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while
Republicans have accepted them reluctantly.”
Norman Thomas, Presidential
Candidate, U.S. Socialist Party, 1948

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Robatoy wrote:
On May 3, 2:19 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


What I'm saying is way simpler than this: The government's only role
in markets is to ensure their transparency and integrity, and to
interdict in matters of fraud. Period.

That's right. You had the Repuglicans look after 'transparency' and
'integrity'.

No administration has been more secretive on all issues than BushCo.
So much for transparency. Say hello to Mr. Paulson.
The words Bush administration and the word integrity.... I'm sorry.. I
can't make a sentence with both words in it.
There has never been a more corrupt bunch of greedy *******s in a
single administration than in the last one, and you want those foxes
to guard the hen house?

Now I KNOW you've lost your mind, Timbo.

Greed is good, so I'll let that pass.

Let's talk about corruption. In the eight years of the Bush administration
there was ONE individual convicted of a crime. One. And his crime was giving
false information to the FBI regarding events that were not criminal.

This one conviction is the smallest number in like forever. Based on
empirical evidence, it is a fact that the Bush administration is the least
corrupt in modern history. The Obama administration may well do better -
we'll have to wait and see.

You're right, there was a lack of transparency during the Bush
admisitration. But it wasn't for lack of trying.

The Bush administration tried three times during eight years to pass
legislation for more oversight and reporting by Mae & Mac. All three
attempts were blocked by Democrats.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

not have to be the same process as US citizens. Except for a few, we have
failed to provide them any judicial process.


Wrong, wrong, wrong, and more wrong. There have been formal military tribunals
in GTMO with counsel present to act exclusively in defense of the accused.
This is not something your arch-nemesis W invented. Military tribunals in
such circumstances have a long and studied history in the United States.
Again, a history book might be in order. Note that I'm not saying I love this
as a way to handle the problem, merely that it is lawful and has precedent.

You again presume ignorance on the people holding different views from you. You
weaken your arguments by such disrespect.

But first, the tribunals you discuss -- are they the ones that the Supreme Court
outlawed in 2006? Or the 11 planned or held military commissions since? We
still have 223 prisoners in limbo.

I've read far more than one history book. Tribunals, including the one that
convicted and hanged the Lincoln assassins lean towards expediency and away from
justice.

-- Doug

"HeyBub" wrote:

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:


The Left and the Right talk past each other: The Left sees all the
issues as crimes and constitution. The Right sees the issues as war
problems. The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments deal with "crimes" as in
"In all criminal proceedings..." The Left asserts that detainees and
everybody else are entitled to constitutional protections.

The 5th amendment starts "No person shall..." so you'd think it
applies to more than just criminals. One of the independent clauses
continues " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law..." No crime required.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime..."

Sound like it applies to criminals to me.

Your reading comprehension skills have to be better than that. Certainly it
applies to criminals. But it also applies to all people, not just criminals,
particular in the clause I quoted.


Habeas corpus is a judicial determination of whether the original sanction
was proper. In virtually all cases, the finding is that the original
incarceration (be it for civil contempt, contagion, juveniles, etc.) WAS
proper. A habeas hearing is extremely rare because all of the instances I
named, that take place many times a day, are proper.

All proper? In every instance? Nonsense. I know Habeas is fairly rare, but it
is still a crucial check and balance. If some bureaucrat can start locking
people up without the chance of judicial review, well, I'll try and save you a
seat in the cell.

The president, or his designee, determines whether an individual is an
unlawful enemy combatant.

Same point. You trust some bureaucrat to make that determination fairly without
any transparency or review?

-- Doug

On May 3, 3:23*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On May 3, 2:19 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

What I'm saying is way simpler than this: The government's only role
in markets is to ensure their transparency and integrity, and to
interdict in matters of fraud. Period.

That's right. You had the Repuglicans look after 'transparency' and
'integrity'.

No administration has been more secretive on all issues than BushCo.
So much for transparency. Say hello to Mr. Paulson.
The words Bush administration and the word integrity.... I'm sorry.. I
can't make a sentence with both words in it.
There has never been a more corrupt bunch of greedy *******s in a
single administration than in the last one, and you want those foxes
to guard the hen house?

Now I KNOW you've lost your mind, Timbo.

Greed is good, so I'll let that pass.

Let's talk about corruption. In the eight years of the Bush administration
there was ONE individual convicted of a crime. One. And his crime was giving
false information to the FBI regarding events that were not criminal.

This one conviction is the smallest number in like forever. Based on
empirical evidence, it is a fact that the Bush administration is the least
corrupt in modern history. The Obama administration may well do better -
we'll have to wait and see.

You're right, there was a lack of transparency during the Bush
admisitration. But it wasn't for lack of trying.

The Bush administration tried three times during eight years to pass
legislation for more oversight and reporting by Mae & Mac. All three
attempts were blocked by Democrats.

*moving HeyBub over to the Apologists column*

-MIKE- wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
If they hadn't had the AG
pictures, all they needed was some pictures from Hollywood to convince AQ
recruits (conservative Muslims by definition) of the utter depravity of
the country occupying theirs.


I agree with everything you said until here. Defining AQ simply as
"conservative Muslims" isn't exactly fair to the billion or so
conservative Muslims who haven't swallowed the jihad coolaid.


Sorry, didn't mean to imply that *all* conservative muslims were potential
jihadists. My comment was intended to indicate the pool from which most
jihadists come.


And don't think for a second they actually care about depravity.
The terrorist pilots of 9/11 were regulars at the strip joint near
their pilot training school.


There was a bit of dichotomy there. However, if you look at their generic
complaints about the west, the depravity of the west is one of the things
against which they consistently rail.




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

Han wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in news:gtitkj$gan$3
@news.motzarella.org:

Robatoy wrote:
You guys had your ass handed to you, now suck it up and try again.
Simply being against Obama for the sake of being contrary is a weak
position and laughable.

That's very true.

Thankfully, I have two very good reasons to be against him.

1. His domestic policy.

With what he has been handed, he is doing the best he can. The only
alternative would have been to hand out money directly to individuals
to clear their debts and after that had been done, to purchase
high-value consumer goods.

Investing in technologies that will be needed in the future is good
business sense.

To invest in technologies and policies that increase the
cost-effective use of healthcare in all its aspects is good economics
and sensible.

etc, etc.

Agreed. Investment is good. When investment is done by the government,
however, weatlth, initative, and progress are destroyed. Government cannot,
and must not, be the driving engine behind progress.

Here's just one example: The current drive for ethanol - mandated by the
government - drives up the cost of food, harms the environment, and does not
address the underlying causes for the "ethanol solution."

Insisting that ethanol is the panacea today is very much like a novelist
proposed regarding soy beans some fifty years ago.

Han wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

Han wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

Han wrote:
And the country will pay literally and figuratively for all those
maimed physically and mentally for decades and decades. Ask anyone
caring for veterans.

Oh the glory!

But we will pay - or our great grandchildren will

Yes, thanks to uncontrolled financial systems systems and
uncontrolled greed on all sides. And almost everyone is guilty,
unless now they do hold a useful job and have a positive net worth at
the bottom of this recession.

- far more for far longer to pick up the tab for Comrade Obama's
spending spree to get reelected ...

You just should NOT have re-elected that fake Bush, who charmed YOU
into a crusade against windmills instead of doing what should have
been done.
How much have the wars cost us to date? How much do you think are
all
those poor kids going to cost us for the next 50-60 years? Who
reaped the war profits?


Nowhere near what Captain Feelgood is going to cost us.

That will be impossible to separate in separate columns. The war now
needs to be concluded and that is going to cost. Whoever is going to
claim credit for the next boom, will not concede to be responsible for
the next bust.


The problem here is that in two single pieces of legislation, The One has
eclipsed all of the spending excesses of the previous administration.
Concluding the war is going to cost more money, however, that does not
excuse 8 Billion going to ACORN that is contained in the stimulus pork
package -- a package that was nothing more than the dems paying off their
patrons with your money.

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

-MIKE- wrote:

Robatoy wrote:
He did what he had to do because what he inherited. It was a brave
thing to do.


That's a tired, worn out, inaccurate argument.
If you're going with that, then you have to say that Bush inherited it
from Bill Clinton and Barney Frank. The Bush administration tried to
warn about the eminent Fannie/Freddie collapse 18 times over several
years. You can watch the hearings on youtube and see how Frank and his
cohorts tried to demonize the alarm ringers as racists and fear mongers,
saying "there's nothing wrong with Fannie/Freddie" over and over again.



Even more amazing is that NOW Barney Frank is acting like he never said
those things. His most recent rantings have been saying that the
Republicans were the ones who wanted everyone to own houses and he has been
saying that some people aren't going to be in a position to do that, so
they need affordable, quality rental housing.

The dems are the ones who keep throwing crap up against the wall to see
what will stick and old lying Barney's most recent rants are just
outrageous in terms of the complete hypocrisy of that wing of that party.

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

DGDevin wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:

I have no disdain for anyone.
My point was that Mrs. Palin has had much more executive experience
than Mr President.

She has more executive experience than Abraham Lincoln did when he
became President too, or JFK for that matter. Would you suggest that
she would make a better potential President than either of them on
that basis?

Sure. You should have picked different examples.

JFK accomplished two things: One good, staring down the Ruskies regarding
missles in Cuba, and one bad, the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Not one of his
legislative proposals passed during his tenure. Not one.

Lincoln was directly responsible for the deaths of 600,000 Americans. But,
since cotton accounted for 80% of America's trade at the time, it was
imperative to keep the bucks flowing to the overall country. Like all
Republicans, it is claimed, Lincoln cared more for business than the common
man.


If you figure "community organizer" is the portion of Obama's life
that is the most important when assessing whether he's qualified to
be President, then why not evaluate Palin's qualifications to be Vice
President on what she was doing at an equivalent point in her
career--sports reporter.

Good point. I think, however, it's more prudent to compare the job each had
that had the most responsibility, respect, and ability to get things done.
Obama was a community organizer, then went downhill. Palin was a reporter,
then went up (which is about the only direction you can move if you're a
reporter).

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in news:gtitkj$gan$3
@news.motzarella.org:

Robatoy wrote:
You guys had your ass handed to you, now suck it up and try again.
Simply being against Obama for the sake of being contrary is a weak
position and laughable.

That's very true.

Thankfully, I have two very good reasons to be against him.

1. His domestic policy.

With what he has been handed, he is doing the best he can. The only
alternative would have been to hand out money directly to individuals
to clear their debts and after that had been done, to purchase
high-value consumer goods.

Investing in technologies that will be needed in the future is good
business sense.

To invest in technologies and policies that increase the
cost-effective use of healthcare in all its aspects is good economics
and sensible.

etc, etc.

Agreed. Investment is good. When investment is done by the government,
however, weatlth, initative, and progress are destroyed. Government
cannot, and must not, be the driving engine behind progress.

Hah, what are taxes and tax exemptions for if not stimulating or
punishing specific finaicial decisions, especially concerning investment?

Here's just one example: The current drive for ethanol - mandated by
the government - drives up the cost of food, harms the environment,
and does not address the underlying causes for the "ethanol solution."

I agree. It is part protectionism (Brazil makes ethanol cheaper than the
US), and the laws of unintended consequences. The legislation was made
to enhance the income of corn producers. While corn has many good
qualities, one of the worst (and most unheralded) is that it depletes the
soil of nutrients. In fact, rotating corn and legumes is almost
necessary, unless you really want to support the fertilizer chemists.

Insisting that ethanol is the panacea today is very much like a
novelist proposed regarding soy beans some fifty years ago.

Sorry, I think a word is missing. Did you mean "like what a novelist"?
Even then I don't get it without more specifics. I do remember that soy
and soybeans are supposed to a panacea.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Since ACORN (no relationships whatsoever) seems to me a rather
heterogeneous conglomeration, it is not fair to paint the whole
organization with the brush that should be used for a few individuals.
Corruption and crimes should be punished.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Robatoy wrote in news:7826ece1-e8e5-48b9-85b5-
:

On May 3, 2:24*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


Nowhere near what Captain Feelgood is going to cost us.


And you figure that saturating us with those cute names for Mr. Obama
is eventually going to sway any of us to see things your way?
Is that your raison d'être? Is this your outlet for creative cute
names?
How sad.
How small.

You don't have to support smallness of mind with constant emphasis,
Robatoy. Sometimes people do themselves in by their own sayings.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
And the country will pay literally and figuratively for all those
maimed physically and mentally for decades and decades. Ask anyone
caring for veterans.

Oh the glory!

He that outlives this day and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is named,
[...]
Then he will strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say, 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day,'
[...]
But we in it shall be remembered,--
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentelmen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurst they were not here;
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
And don't think for a second they actually care about depravity.
The terrorist pilots of 9/11 were regulars at the strip joint near
their pilot training school.


There was a bit of dichotomy there. However, if you look at their generic
complaints about the west, the depravity of the west is one of the things
against which they consistently rail.


True. I was just pointing out that it's just a a bunch of talk. They
don't really care about it.
We could be puritans and it wouldn't change their hatred or lust for
power.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Robatoy wrote:

That is to repair the damage your buddy Bush has done. Get over it.
You had the place for 8 years, you screwed it up. Now let the majority
of your country get to work to fix your fukkup.

That's simply not true. Under Bush, we had 23 consecutive quarters of
economic growth, low unemployment, and other good things. This in spite of
two wars, Katrina, 9-11, and Beyonce.

Then the Democrats took over Congress. In less than 18 months they managed
....

Oh, well. We'll see.

-MIKE- wrote:

And don't think for a second they actually care about depravity.
The terrorist pilots of 9/11 were regulars at the strip joint near
their pilot training school.

Wasn't that "research" to catalog the debauchery of the West?

HeyBub wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
And don't think for a second they actually care about depravity.
The terrorist pilots of 9/11 were regulars at the strip joint near
their pilot training school.

Wasn't that "research" to catalog the debauchery of the West?


They were probably checking out the last skanky woman they would ever
see, since they would soon be stuck with nothing but 72 virgins for the
rest of eternity. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On May 3, 1:55*pm, Han wrote:
Robatoy wrote :



On May 3, 10:41*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Bush was wrong about some things.

Yeah, some things, those Iraqi WMDs for example, four and half
thousand
s
Americans have paid for that little mistake with their lives, not
to me
ntion
three billion bucks a week for six years.

*Obama has been an order of
magnitude
worse in 100 days than Bush was in 8 years. *Here's just one
scoreca
rd
(there are many others):

Bush * * * * * * * *- $28B Bear-Stearns

What interesting math, it seems to overlook that dear old George
got be
hind
spending more like three-quarters of a trillion on top of the then
reco
rd
deficit he'd already overseen. *By why bother with details like
what
he
signed off on before his time ran out.

The Hopeium Dealer *- $4 *Trillion* and counting in just a bit
under 4 months.

I hear he's even including the costs of two wars in the actual
budget instead of making them a side-bet, outrageous!

At current pace, Captain Marvel will spend more by the end of next
year i
n
the aggregate than Bush did in 8 years.

That is to repair the damage your buddy Bush has done. Get over it.
You had the place for 8 years, you screwed it up. Now let the majority
of your country get to work to fix your fukkup.

Don't forget about the damage that we will have to pay for for years to
come. *At least Reagan won the cold war. *Bush II "only" got us
spiritually, fiscally, and physically in hock.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Reagan *announced* that he won the Cold War. If it was a victory, he
was only the most fortunate in a long line of leaders, the one who got
to claim victory after others did about 95% of the work.

DGDevin wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

How about the right to hold up his head before the world and say
with a straight face and a clear conscience that America doesn't
employ torture?

You can still do that - that hasn't changed.

What color is the sky on your planet?

What is more distressing, however, is whether you care whether anyone
believes you. For some, the moment in their lives to which they
aspire is the time when they can shout "You like me! You really LIKE
me!"
I'd like to call your attention to John Cavett Marshall. General of
the Army, Army Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of
State, Silver Star, Legion of Honor, architect of the Marshall Plan.

Marshall was waterboarded and he turned out okay.

Are you by any chance attempting to refer to George Catlett Marshall?
Your argument might be more convincing if you could at least get his
name right, oh, and do research that goes beyond listening to talk
radio.

Yes, GEORGE Marshall. I regret the error.

As to the waterboarding, I got my facts from an unimpeachable source:

"By the way, just to put waterboarding in perspective, it is the hazing
ritual for years at the Virginia Military Institute. George Marshall was
waterboarded as a cadet. Something that's not cool, but it's not - you know,
it's not ripping out your fingernails. And the -- but that hearing would
hurt the right -- would hurt the national security establishment." Dick
Morris on the O'Reilly Factor
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher...438488&start=2




http://op-for.com/2009/04/if_the_pre..._outlawed.html

"LEXINGTON, Va., April 30, 2009 -- False reports have been
circulating on some talk television and radio programs and on the
Internet alleging that cadets are routinely waterboarded at VMI as
part of a "ritualized hazing."

[snip self-serving denials]



Maybe Achmed al-BoomBoom will straighten up and do right.

That's funny, anything that happens to someone other than yourself
being funny even if it's kind of bad.

Of course! I've NEVER liked a pie in the face, even if others think it's
hilarious. Comedy is situational.



I'll tell you what sport, we'll strip you naked, chain you in an
agonizing postion and leave you there for a few hours, then kick the
crap out of you, then lock you in a cold cell for a few days, maybe
pound on you some more, then we'll strap you down and put a
suffocating wet cloth over your face over and over until you tell us
what we want to know. At the end of that do you figure you'll
conclude you have been tortured, or not?

Actually, it doesn't matter what I think or what you think. There's a
definition:

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted on a person ... when such pain or suffering is
inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of
a public official or other person acting in an official capacity...."

Regrettably, this doesn't help a whole lot.

It could be said that merely confining someone is equivalent to "suffering,"
or that the possiblity of arrest, no matter how remote, is the same thing as
mental pain. No, the definition has to be more specific. I think the U.S.
authorities tried to quantify, as best they could, what acts constituted
"severe pain or suffering."

I tried to find such a tabulation, but was unable. I'm pretty sure the US
definition contained such things as removal of one or more limbs without
anesthetic and the like. That is, if the act resulted in a permanent
disability, it was torture.

I'm also pretty sure that waterboarding - and other enhanced interrogation
techniques - did not fall on the side of the sheet marked 'torture.'

You may quibble with what side of the sheet waterboarding is on, but that
goes to the definition. And you're certainly entitled to put forth elected
officials who'll re-define the process. But I warn you, it isn't easy to
come up with these definitions. It's sort of like obscenity. As one Supreme
Court justice said: "I like it when I see it."

-MIKE- wrote:

They were probably checking out the last skanky woman they would ever
see, since they would soon be stuck with nothing but 72 virgins for the
rest of eternity. :-)

I like the version with "72 Virginians" better. :-

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

Han wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:0r31d6-i5t1.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

The government's only role
in markets is to ensure their transparency and integrity, and to
interdict in matters of fraud.

Now that smacks of really good (=beneficial to society and individuals)
regulation and laws. I could vote for that.

I also would vote for compassion. The fact that Dad can pay for kids
education should not mean that poor Joe and Jill can't get an education.


Government cannot practice "compassion" - only individuals can.
When the government gets into the "compassion" business, it
*always* picks a winner and loser.

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

Robatoy wrote:
On May 3, 2:19 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

What I'm saying is way simpler than this: The government's only role
in markets is to ensure their transparency and integrity, and to
interdict in matters of fraud. Period.

That's right. You had the Repuglicans look after 'transparency' and
'integrity'.

No administration has been more secretive on all issues than BushCo.
So much for transparency. Say hello to Mr. Paulson.
The words Bush administration and the word integrity.... I'm sorry.. I
can't make a sentence with both words in it.
There has never been a more corrupt bunch of greedy *******s in a
single administration than in the last one, and you want those foxes
to guard the hen house?

Now I KNOW you've lost your mind, Timbo.




You are kidding, right? It was the dimwit Dems that lied and covered
up the mess *they* created with Fannie/Freddie going back almost two
decades ago. That vile little weasel Barney Frank looked into the
cameras and repeatedly said with a straight face something he KNEW was
a lie: "Fannie/Freddie are not in trouble" when *BushCo* tried to warn
folks otherwise.

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

Robatoy wrote:
On May 3, 3:23 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On May 3, 2:19 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
What I'm saying is way simpler than this: The government's only role
in markets is to ensure their transparency and integrity, and to
interdict in matters of fraud. Period.
That's right. You had the Repuglicans look after 'transparency' and
'integrity'.
No administration has been more secretive on all issues than BushCo.
So much for transparency. Say hello to Mr. Paulson.
The words Bush administration and the word integrity.... I'm sorry.. I
can't make a sentence with both words in it.
There has never been a more corrupt bunch of greedy *******s in a
single administration than in the last one, and you want those foxes
to guard the hen house?
Now I KNOW you've lost your mind, Timbo.
Greed is good, so I'll let that pass.

Let's talk about corruption. In the eight years of the Bush administration
there was ONE individual convicted of a crime. One. And his crime was giving
false information to the FBI regarding events that were not criminal.

This one conviction is the smallest number in like forever. Based on
empirical evidence, it is a fact that the Bush administration is the least
corrupt in modern history. The Obama administration may well do better -
we'll have to wait and see.

You're right, there was a lack of transparency during the Bush
admisitration. But it wasn't for lack of trying.

The Bush administration tried three times during eight years to pass
legislation for more oversight and reporting by Mae & Mac. All three
attempts were blocked by Democrats.

*moving HeyBub over to the Apologists column*

.... for citing irrefutable facts.

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

Han wrote:
Robatoy wrote in news:7826ece1-e8e5-48b9-85b5-
:

On May 3, 2:24 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Nowhere near what Captain Feelgood is going to cost us.

And you figure that saturating us with those cute names for Mr. Obama
is eventually going to sway any of us to see things your way?
Is that your raison d'être? Is this your outlet for creative cute
names?
How sad.
How small.

You don't have to support smallness of mind with constant emphasis,
Robatoy. Sometimes people do themselves in by their own sayings.



And sometimes you have to use rhetorical flourishes to keep the
small minds' attention...

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

Douglas Johnson wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

not have to be the same process as US citizens. Except for a few, we have
failed to provide them any judicial process.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and more wrong. There have been formal military tribunals
in GTMO with counsel present to act exclusively in defense of the accused.
This is not something your arch-nemesis W invented. Military tribunals in
such circumstances have a long and studied history in the United States.
Again, a history book might be in order. Note that I'm not saying I love this
as a way to handle the problem, merely that it is lawful and has precedent.

You again presume ignorance on the people holding different views from you. You
weaken your arguments by such disrespect.

Not so intended and I apologize if I came across that way.


But first, the tribunals you discuss -- are they the ones that the Supreme Court
outlawed in 2006? Or the 11 planned or held military commissions since? We
still have 223 prisoners in limbo.

That's true, and like I said, secret tribunals are not my preferred mechanism.
(I'd prefer public military hearings followed by the death sentence for the
guilty with a publicly stated policy of feeding the remains to feral pigs
so that the convicted terrorist can spend eternity as pig excrement.)
But to listen to the Left, you'd think W had *invented* tribunals and it just
ain't so.


I've read far more than one history book. Tribunals, including the one that
convicted and hanged the Lincoln assassins lean towards expediency and away from
justice.


Be that as it may, they have legal standing and precedent.

-- Doug


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

On May 3, 5:52*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On May 3, 2:19 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

What I'm saying is way simpler than this: The government's only role
in markets is to ensure their transparency and integrity, and to
interdict in matters of fraud. Period.

That's right. You had the Repuglicans look after 'transparency' and
'integrity'.

No administration has been more secretive on all issues than BushCo.
So much for transparency. Say hello to Mr. Paulson.
The words Bush administration and the word integrity.... I'm sorry.. I
can't make a sentence with both words in it.
There has never been a more corrupt bunch of greedy *******s in a
single administration than in the last one, and you want those foxes
to guard the hen house?

Now I KNOW you've lost your mind, Timbo.

You are kidding, right? *It was the dimwit Dems that lied and covered
up the mess *they* created with Fannie/Freddie going back almost two
decades ago. *That vile little weasel Barney Frank looked into the
cameras and repeatedly said with a straight face something he KNEW was
a lie: "Fannie/Freddie are not in trouble" when *BushCo* tried to warn
folks otherwise.

Wowsers.. you drank a LOT of KoolAid. Yes indeed. BushCo, being the
upright people they were, were so concerned whilst letting billions of
dollars float through their fingers to unscrupulous contractors in
Iraq...oh wait.. those were their friends... my bad.

On May 3, 5:10*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

How about the right to hold up his head before the world and say
with a straight face and a clear conscience that America doesn't
employ torture?

You can still do that - that hasn't changed.

What color is the sky on your planet?

What is more distressing, however, is whether you care whether anyone
believes you. For some, the moment in their lives to which they
aspire is the time when they can shout "You like me! You really LIKE
me!"
I'd like to call your attention to John Cavett Marshall. General of
the Army, Army Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of
State, Silver Star, Legion of Honor, architect of the Marshall Plan.

Marshall was waterboarded and he turned out okay.

Are you by any chance attempting to refer to George Catlett Marshall?
Your argument might be more convincing if you could at least get his
name right, oh, and do research that goes beyond listening to talk
radio.

Yes, GEORGE Marshall. I regret the error.

As to the waterboarding, I got my facts from an unimpeachable source:

"By the way, just to put waterboarding in perspective, it is the hazing
ritual for years at the Virginia Military Institute. George Marshall was
waterboarded as a cadet. Something that's not cool, but it's not - you know,
it's not ripping out your fingernails. And the -- but that hearing would
hurt the right -- would hurt the national security establishment." Dick
Morris on the O'Reilly Factorhttp:

Okay... that does it. You get your info from O'Reilly Factor??? Same
network as Hannity?

Soooooooooo... when is Hannity going to do his waterboarding
experiment?

On May 3, 5:58*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
*

Not so intended and I apologize if I came across that way.


You always come across as a juggler of double-speak and fraudulent
claims of intelligence.
You're a fraud, Timbo.

No affiliation with parties left or right, just in support of those
ideas which further your anarchist greed. Never time to pay the piper
in your world. Never pulling yourself up by the bootstraps to get to
work and fix what's wrong... how could you? Everybody is wrong...
except you. I'll add to the accusation that you're a fraud... you're a
coward as well, or you'd do something about all those things that are
wrong with your country.
Never any constructive ideas, just a constant hammering at those
things that inconvenience you.
Hoard on my friend, keep all your pennies in those greedy little
hands, and then go spend them on that waterfront whore you talk about.

So, been doing any woodworking as of late? Waiting for a tree to grow,
so you can build something?

Robatoy wrote:
On May 3, 5:58 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Not so intended and I apologize if I came across that way.


You always come across as a juggler of double-speak and fraudulent
claims of intelligence.
You're a fraud, Timbo.

No affiliation with parties left or right, just in support of those
ideas which further your anarchist greed. Never time to pay the piper
in your world. Never pulling yourself up by the bootstraps to get to
work and fix what's wrong... how could you? Everybody is wrong...
except you. I'll add to the accusation that you're a fraud... you're a
coward as well, or you'd do something about all those things that are
wrong with your country.
Never any constructive ideas, just a constant hammering at those
things that inconvenience you.
Hoard on my friend, keep all your pennies in those greedy little
hands, and then go spend them on that waterfront whore you talk about.

As always, game-set-match in my favor. When you can no longer facts because
they do not favor you, off into the ad hominem puddle you jump. Thanks
(again and again) for making my arguments for me ...

So, been doing any woodworking as of late? Waiting for a tree to grow,
so you can build something?

Waiting for the weather to change so the glue will set in my unheated
shop/

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

"HeyBub" wrote:

I'd like to call your attention to John Cavett Marshall. General of
the Army, Army Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of
State, Silver Star, Legion of Honor, architect of the Marshall Plan.


I wrote:

What ever happened to George?

Must have been too subtle.

Lew

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
On May 3, 4:38 am, "LD" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message

...



I previously wrote:

Based on today's numbers, it appears the ultra conservative Republican
point of view is now supported by less than 20% of the electorate.

LD asks:

What percent do you suppose support the Extreme Left?

Good question, may I ask why do you ask?

Today's Democratic party contains a broad spectrum of views from very
conservative to very liberal.

OTOH, near as I can tell, only the ultra onservative point of view is
now
represented in the Republican party.

Everybody else has apparently bailed out.

Lew

You really think the Extreme LEFT has disappeared?

That's not what Lew said, and, in fact, he didn't even imply it.

================================================== ====

And he didn't answer my question. What percent do you suppose support the
Extreme Left?

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
On May 3, 12:18 am, "LD" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message

...



"Robatoy" wrote:

................................................ .......
You guys had your ass handed to you, now suck it up and try again.
Simply being against Obama for the sake of being contrary is a weak
position and laughable.
................................................ .

Based on today's numbers, it appears the ultra conservative Republican
point of view is now supported by less than 20% of the electorate.

What percent do you suppose support the Extreme Left?



Obama is running at about 66% support if you continue to class him as
Extreme Left. Most of us consider ourselves centrists.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the General Population. Includes non-voters, Republicans,
Independents, etc. What percent of the electorate support the extreme left?

On May 3, 7:14*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On May 3, 5:58 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Not so intended and I apologize if I came across that way.

You always come across as a juggler of double-speak and fraudulent
claims of intelligence.
You're a fraud, Timbo.

No affiliation with parties left or right, just in support of those
ideas which further your anarchist greed. Never time to pay the piper
in your world. Never pulling yourself up by the bootstraps to get to
work and fix what's wrong... how could you? Everybody is wrong...
except you. I'll add to the accusation that you're a fraud... you're a
coward as well, or you'd do something about all those things that are
wrong with your country.
Never any constructive ideas, just a constant hammering at those
things that inconvenience you.
Hoard on my friend, keep all your pennies in those greedy little
hands, and then go spend them on that waterfront whore you talk about.

As always, game-set-match in my favor. *When you can no longer facts because
they do not favor you, off into the ad hominem puddle you jump. *Thanks
(again and again) for making my arguments for me ...



So, been doing any woodworking as of late? Waiting for a tree to grow,
so you can build something?

Waiting for the weather to change so the glue will set in my unheated
shop/

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

As always, not so fast. Just because you call it, does not make it
game-set-match.
Also, calling you a coward and a fraud is not an ad hominem attack as
those labels are based on your performance in here.
Calling you an deranged lunatic obsessional ****-face could be ad
hominem.... maybe. :-)

Now go away, stomp your foot elsewhere.. you bore me.

Let us know when your uncontrolled rage finally heats up your shop and
show us some of your work. Woodwork.

Till then... tata!

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On May 3, 10:41 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Han wrote:
And the country will pay literally and figuratively for all those maimed
physically and mentally for decades and decades. Ask anyone caring for
veterans.

Oh the glory!

But we will pay - or our great grandchildren will - far more for far
longer
to pick up the tab for Comrade Obama's spending spree............

He did what he had to do because what he inherited. It was a brave
thing to do.

and then you add:

to get reelected ...

and it is those jabs which put you in the 'asshole' column.

You ARE a Repuglican. A contrary nay-sayer. A sore loser. You got your
ass handed to you. The is no party left to counter what the entire
nation has endorsed as the path to the future.
Whine and bitch all you want...and guess what? That is ALL you do.
Every post is critique, a whine, a bitch, nothing constructive.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++

53% of the Voters endorsed Obama, Not the Entire nation.

Robatoy wrote:

You are kidding, right? It was the dimwit Dems that lied and covered
up the mess *they* created with Fannie/Freddie going back almost two
decades ago. That vile little weasel Barney Frank looked into the
cameras and repeatedly said with a straight face something he KNEW
was a lie: "Fannie/Freddie are not in trouble" when *BushCo* tried
to warn folks otherwise.

Wowsers.. you drank a LOT of KoolAid. Yes indeed. BushCo, being the
upright people they were, were so concerned whilst letting billions of
dollars float through their fingers to unscrupulous contractors in
Iraq...oh wait.. those were their friends... my bad.

I'm sure if there were any provable and significant illegal antics involved
in Iraq contracting, they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law. I certainly hope so.

But don't hold your breath. Republicans, as a rule, don't do that sort of
thing.

Oh, there's the occasional transgression, I grant you. There are a few weak
souls who succumb to temptation. But theft, corruption, lying, stealing, and
the like, are just not part of the Republican Party platform. You've never
heard of Republicans paying workers to falsify voter registrations, or
trying to sell a senate seat, or storing tens of thousands of dollars in a
freezer, and so on.

Don't get me wrong; Republicans are not perfect. As I said, there is the odd
duck who sins. But when you use the word "corruption" and associate it with
a political party or machine, you're almost always referring to a Democratic
institution. One only has to think of Chicago, D.C., Detroit, John Murtha,
or Louisiana to verify of what I speak.

No, "corruption" and "Republican" are not normally found in the same
sentence. In fact, a Google-news search on corruption+Republican yields
about 1,600 hits. Substituting 'Democrat" gets far more.

Han wrote:

Insisting that ethanol is the panacea today is very much like a
novelist proposed regarding soy beans some fifty years ago.

Sorry, I think a word is missing. Did you mean "like what a
novelist"? Even then I don't get it without more specifics. I do
remember that soy and soybeans are supposed to a panacea.

Right. My mistake.

The novel was "Atlas Shrugged," and it was the insistence of the government
that all resources be placed at the call of the soybean industry. Steel
production was diverted to build combines to harvest the beans. Virtually
all rail traffice was diverted to haul the billions of tons of soybeans to
processing centers. And so on. The government marched with a single vision
to the glory of soybeans, soybeans which would free us all from want and
deprivation and usher in a new age of plenty that we could not imagine.

The beans rotted while parked in the rail cars.