Robatoy wrote:
On May 10, 6:06 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Tom Watson wrote:
Damned fine job, LRod!
You stirred up the regular retards and even added some new names to
the usual suspects list. I've forwarded the list to the state
department for them to begin deportation proceedings.
Ya know, speaking of retards, I've kind of been wondering about someone
who sang the praises of The One and denigrated those who looked upon Him as
an ivory towered elitist proclaiming that he *wanted* an elitist in office.
That same person then later provided some eloquent, admiring posts about a
particular firearm that he had purchased for himself and his son's use. He
then went on, when questioned about this, to assume a philosopher's
zen-like condescension of: "Ah, grasshopper, not so simple as you
assumed ..." and further went on to sing the praises of the NRA.

Yet, the person and party whom he supported have a record of being the
most anti-gun, anti-second amendment crowd of any administration. The One
himself voted against a law in his home state to absolve homeowners who had
defended themselves with a firearm. He consistently supported anti-gun
legislation and opposed legislation supportive of 2nd amendment rights.
His VP wrote the original scary-looking guns ban and has spoken about
wanting it re-instituted and expanded, His attorney general has already
made rumblings about further assaults on the second amendment, His DHS
secretary and Secretary of State are accusing this country of providing the
weapons to Mexico that are causing so much chaos in the drug wars down
there, distorting statistics regarding firearm tracing to support their
position.

Somehow, though, in this person's mind, the NRA will make this all better
and protect his and his son's rights to keep their firearms. Really kind
of makes one wonder who the real dumbass is.



I think that we should run one of these dumbass-tests every so often
to give us a head count on the enemy.
BTW - I located where they are getting their information from. I
thought it was from rust limberger, bland cooter and faux news but
here is the real think tank that their opinions come from:
http://www.redstateupdate.com/video/100-damn-days
On Fri, 01 May 2009 21:48:52 -0400, Tom Watson
wrote:
Damn LRod, this oughta stir up the dumb asses.
...and they've been so quiet for the last hundred days, or so...
On Fri, 01 May 2009 19:11:40 +0000, LRod wrote:
My nomination for Obama to place on the Supreme Court?
Hillary Clinton.
Just think of the permanent apoplexy that would throw Rush,
Sean, Bill O'R, Ann, and any of your conservative
acquaintances into.
Any old body can be SecState. Heck, get Madeline Albright
back. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
You heard it here first.
Let the sniping begin.
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

The biggest problem with a two-party system like yours, is that in
order to be in agreement with the NRA, you also have to buy into all
that other nut-bar whacko claptrap that comes with a Repuglican
membership.
As hard as it is to believe, it *IS* possible to adopt planks from a
variety of platforms without having to suck the whole salami.
They're called moderates. But nooooooooo, you can't be a moderate, you

No - they're called "libertarians"


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

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


This theory was settled in the 18th century by Adam Smith in "The Wealth
of Nations." He proved that when everyone worked to maximize his own
personal benefit, the nation as a whole benefited more than any other
system.

Some people just haven't kept up.


Oh-h-h-h-h-h! Then that would explain the prevailing theory of
executive compensation in today's corporate world(s).
I get it; I get it! Think AIG.

Dave in Houston
--
“I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid.
I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative.
I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle
that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”
- -- John Stuart Mill - Born 1806

Robatoy wrote:

The biggest problem with a two-party system like yours, is that in
order to be in agreement with the NRA, you also have to buy into all
that other nut-bar whacko claptrap that comes with a Repuglican
membership.

No, it's all branches on the same tree. You pick one of the following two
basic positions:

* The end justifies the means, or
* No good can come from an immoral act.

Almost everything flows from those two basic principles.

HeyBub wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
The biggest problem with a two-party system like yours, is that in
order to be in agreement with the NRA, you also have to buy into all
that other nut-bar whacko claptrap that comes with a Repuglican
membership.

No, it's all branches on the same tree. You pick one of the following two
basic positions:

* The end justifies the means, or
* No good can come from an immoral act.

Almost everything flows from those two basic principles.





There is a third, much better, proposition:

- If an action is undertaken voluntarily by an adult and that
action harms no one else, it's none of the government's business.

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

HeyBub wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

The biggest problem with a two-party system like yours, is that in
order to be in agreement with the NRA, you also have to buy into all
that other nut-bar whacko claptrap that comes with a Repuglican
membership.

No, it's all branches on the same tree. You pick one of the following
two basic positions:

* The end justifies the means, or
* No good can come from an immoral act.

Almost everything flows from those two basic principles.

The NRA-ILA is pretty much single-issue--they'll back anybody, Republican,
Democrat, Libertarian, Communist, it doesn't matter, as long as he's opposed
to gun control. It's the Democrats who decided to make gun control an
issue--if they'd just DROP IT instead of continuing to beat what the Supreme
Court has decided is a dead horse then the polarization that some people see
would vanish.

Robatoy wrote:
On May 10, 1:53 pm, Jack Stein wrote:


Could be true but you would have to ignore the massive effects of
cargo ships of Obama money headed for ACORN and getting 200% of the
people voting for Obama and his socialist horde.


And in what way is that different than Bush money being shoveled by
the coffin-full to KBR/Halliburton and other fat-cat oil companies in
order to get campaign contributions so they can skew the vote?
ACORN is nothing compared to what happened in Florida in 2000. There
the vote was skewed by denying people to vote, not messing with the
registration numbers.

BTW, Jack, this is all you're getting from me on this. Have a nice
day.

Robatoy wrote:
On May 10, 1:53 pm, Jack Stein wrote:


Could be true but you would have to ignore the massive effects of
cargo ships of Obama money headed for ACORN and getting 200% of the
people voting for Obama and his socialist horde.


And in what way is that different than Bush money being shoveled by
the coffin-full to KBR/Halliburton and other fat-cat oil companies in
order to get campaign contributions so they can skew the vote?
ACORN is nothing compared to what happened in Florida in 2000. There
the vote was skewed by denying people to vote, not messing with the
registration numbers.


Sigh.

* KBR and Halliburton are not oil companies.
* Oil companies - or any corporation for that matter - may not make campaign
contributions.
* Bush won Florida in 2000 by some 500-odd votes; Acorn is responsible for
many tens of thousands.
* Vote denial in Florida was never litigated. The controversy was over the
counting of the votes.

Your objections fit the narrative but not the facts.

Dave in Houston wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


This theory was settled in the 18th century by Adam Smith in "The
Wealth of Nations." He proved that when everyone worked to maximize
his own personal benefit, the nation as a whole benefited more than
any other system.

Some people just haven't kept up.


Oh-h-h-h-h-h! Then that would explain the prevailing theory of
executive compensation in today's corporate world(s).
I get it; I get it! Think AIG.


Yes it would. Bonuses and commissions are part of the "commercial" mindset.
This differs from the "guardian" (government) philosophy where they are
generally prohibited (think "quotas" for traffic tickets).

In the case of bonuses, there were tax reasons behind them. Federal law
prohibits, in many cases, paying a salary that both the employee and the
company agree upon. These same regulations do not prohibit bonuses, so
that's how many businesses circumvent the restriction.

Governments often try to interpose themselves in the general marketplace,
but the marketplace usually finds a way to flow around the obstruction -
sometimes at great cost, but the market always wins.

In the case of AIG, be aware that AIG is the largest insurance company in
the world. They did not get that way by paying key employees an hourly rate.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
The biggest problem with a two-party system like yours, is that in
order to be in agreement with the NRA, you also have to buy into all
that other nut-bar whacko claptrap that comes with a Repuglican
membership.

No, it's all branches on the same tree. You pick one of the
following two basic positions:

* The end justifies the means, or
* No good can come from an immoral act.

Almost everything flows from those two basic principles.





There is a third, much better, proposition:

- If an action is undertaken voluntarily by an adult and that
action harms no one else, it's none of the government's business.

No, the protection of society from the foolishness or malice of the
individual is worthy of effort. Someone cooking up a batch of nitroglycerine
in his bathtub is certainly of interest to his neighbors.

Obviously the threat of punishing the ultimate act is often an insufficient
deterrent (think suicide bombers) so watchfulness and sanctions on the
prefatory actions are prudent. Laws against negligent collisions are not a
substitute for laws against driving the wrong way on a one-way street.

That's why we must kill terrorists - and potential terrorists - before their
plans mature.

On May 11, 8:16*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On May 10, 1:53 pm, Jack Stein wrote:

Could be true but you would have to ignore the massive effects of
cargo ships of Obama money headed for ACORN and getting 200% of the
people voting for Obama and his socialist horde.

And in what way is that different than Bush money being shoveled by
the coffin-full to KBR/Halliburton and other fat-cat oil companies in
order to get campaign contributions so they can skew the vote?
ACORN is nothing compared to what happened in Florida in 2000. There
the vote was skewed by denying people to vote, not messing with the
registration numbers.

Sigh.

* KBR and Halliburton are not oil companies.
* Oil companies - or any corporation for that matter - may not make campaign
contributions.
* Bush won Florida in 2000 by some 500-odd votes; Acorn is responsible for
many tens of thousands.
* Vote denial in Florida was never litigated. The controversy was over the
counting of the votes.

The controversy was over the fact that many thousands were denied the
right to vote because of convenient purging of the voter lists which
cost the Dems WAY more than those 500 votes. IOW, fraud.
The concept being discussed is fraudulent votes, which ACORN is
accused of orchestrating (maybe accurately accused of doing)
The fact it was never litigated doesn't mean it didn't happen, just
like the fact that Bush hasn't been convicted of war crimes doesn't
exonerate him of being a war criminal.

Your objections fit the narrative but not the facts.

Ahhh yes, facts, a Repuglican specialty. (When it suits them..you
know, the situational kind.. like their ethics and morals.)

In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
The biggest problem with a two-party system like yours, is that in
order to be in agreement with the NRA, you also have to buy into all
that other nut-bar whacko claptrap that comes with a Repuglican
membership.

No, it's all branches on the same tree. You pick one of the
following two basic positions:

* The end justifies the means, or
* No good can come from an immoral act.

Almost everything flows from those two basic principles.





There is a third, much better, proposition:

- If an action is undertaken voluntarily by an adult and that
action harms no one else, it's none of the government's business.

I would modify that slightly: "... harms, or threatens harm to, ..."

No, the protection of society from the foolishness or malice of the
individual is worthy of effort. Someone cooking up a batch of nitroglycerine
in his bathtub is certainly of interest to his neighbors.

Foolish or malicious acts from which society needs to be protected do not fall
into the category of "action [that] harms no one else" -- making
nitroglycerine in one's bathtub being an example.

Obviously the threat of punishing the ultimate act is often an insufficient
deterrent (think suicide bombers) so watchfulness and sanctions on the
prefatory actions are prudent. Laws against negligent collisions are not a
substitute for laws against driving the wrong way on a one-way street.

That's why we must kill terrorists - and potential terrorists - before their
plans mature.

I can't agree. Killing as a preventive measure is morally unjustifiable.
Imprisonment, certainly.

HeyBub wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
The biggest problem with a two-party system like yours, is that in
order to be in agreement with the NRA, you also have to buy into all
that other nut-bar whacko claptrap that comes with a Repuglican
membership.
No, it's all branches on the same tree. You pick one of the
following two basic positions:

* The end justifies the means, or
* No good can come from an immoral act.

Almost everything flows from those two basic principles.




There is a third, much better, proposition:

- If an action is undertaken voluntarily by an adult and that
action harms no one else, it's none of the government's business.

No, the protection of society from the foolishness or malice of the
individual is worthy of effort. Someone cooking up a batch of nitroglycerine
in his bathtub is certainly of interest to his neighbors.

Right - because it represents threat and is thus is legitimately
within the scope of government action. Contrast that with a much more
common case, however, of the government sticking its snout into the
pharma and sexual habits of its citizens, neither of which are
remotely a threat to others in and of themselves.

More broadly, the government has no business whatsoever being in the
"what is moral" business. Both libs and conservatives just love to
peddle their own moral code as a justification for making law.
However, outside the narrow area where human action threatens, harms,
or defrauds other humans, morality - however important it is - is,
again, none of the government's business. It is moral to be faithful
to one's spouse but adultery is not the government's business. It is
moral to be eleemosynary but it is not the government's job to do the
collecting and handing out.


Obviously the threat of punishing the ultimate act is often an insufficient
deterrent (think suicide bombers) so watchfulness and sanctions on the
prefatory actions are prudent. Laws against negligent collisions are not a
substitute for laws against driving the wrong way on a one-way street.

That's why we must kill terrorists - and potential terrorists - before their
plans mature.

No argument here. When you're in a bar fight you do not have to wait until
someone actually hits you. If they threaten to hit you and have the
likely means to do so, you are morally justified hitting them "preemtively"
when the beer bottle they're holding is on the backswing.






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

On May 11, 10:26*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


No argument here. *When you're in a bar fight you do not have to wait until
someone actually hits you. If they threaten to hit you and have the
likely means to do so, you are morally justified hitting them "preemtively"
when the beer bottle they're holding is on the backswing.


That is only allowed if you write a quick, brief note of apology
first, THEN hit him so hard that he leaves his shoes behind as he
flies through the window.

Robatoy wrote:
On May 11, 10:26 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

No argument here. When you're in a bar fight you do not have to wait until
someone actually hits you. If they threaten to hit you and have the
likely means to do so, you are morally justified hitting them "preemtively"
when the beer bottle they're holding is on the backswing.


That is only allowed if you write a quick, brief note of apology
first, THEN hit him so hard that he leaves his shoes behind as he
flies through the window.



It actually works this way:

1) He threatens to hit you.
2) You warn him not to.
3) He picks up and swings the bottle.
4) You flatten him and pour the bottle up his nose
demanding he tell you who else is trying to hit you.
5) Your limp wristed fellow bar patrons are horrified
by all the "violence" and "inhumanity" and blame you.
6) People who live nowhere near you hear about the incident
and vilify you as evil.
7) You are run out of town on a rail.
8) The guy who now has your job writes a long letter of apology
even though he wasn't in the bar at the time, has never been
in a fight, doesn't know how to do your job, and has lived off
of others his entire life.
9) The world relaxes with Hope.


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

On Mon, 11 May 2009 10:55:01 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Robatoy wrote:
On May 11, 10:26 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

No argument here. When you're in a bar fight you do not have to wait until
someone actually hits you. If they threaten to hit you and have the
likely means to do so, you are morally justified hitting them "preemtively"
when the beer bottle they're holding is on the backswing.


That is only allowed if you write a quick, brief note of apology
first, THEN hit him so hard that he leaves his shoes behind as he
flies through the window.



It actually works this way:

1) He threatens to hit you.
2) You warn him not to.
3) He picks up and swings the bottle.
4) You flatten him and pour the bottle up his nose
demanding he tell you who else is trying to hit you.
5) Your limp wristed fellow bar patrons are horrified
by all the "violence" and "inhumanity" and blame you.
6) People who live nowhere near you hear about the incident
and vilify you as evil.
7) You are run out of town on a rail.
8) The guy who now has your job writes a long letter of apology
even though he wasn't in the bar at the time, has never been
in a fight, doesn't know how to do your job, and has lived off
of others his entire life.
9) The world relaxes with Hope.





A Lesson From Recent History:

1. You tell him to put down the bottle.
2. He shows you that he does not have a bottle in either of his
hands.
3. You shoot him, insisting that he had a bottle.
4. You say, "Miission Accomplished".
5. You spend years looking for bottles that were never there.
6. You move back to Texas.
7. The guy who replaces you makes noises about prosecuting you for
shooting a man without a bottle.
8. You ask some of your friends if they will have Texas secede so
that you will not be extradited.
9. ...to be continued...
Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

"Robatoy" wrote in message
likely means to do so, you are morally justified hitting them
"preemtively"
when the beer bottle they're holding is on the backswing.

That is only allowed if you write a quick, brief note of apology
first, THEN hit him so hard that he leaves his shoes behind as he
flies through the window.

No! No! No! You convince him to let you buy him some more beer first and
when he sits down to drink it, then you clock him.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
It actually works this way:

1) He threatens to hit you.
2) You warn him not to.
3) He picks up and swings the bottle.
4) You flatten him and pour the bottle up his nose
demanding he tell you who else is trying to hit you.
5) Your limp wristed fellow bar patrons are horrified
by all the "violence" and "inhumanity" and blame you.
6) People who live nowhere near you hear about the incident
and vilify you as evil.
7) You are run out of town on a rail.
8) The guy who now has your job writes a long letter of apology
even though he wasn't in the bar at the time, has never been
in a fight, doesn't know how to do your job, and has lived off
of others his entire life.
9) The world relaxes with Hope.


I like you.


--

-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

Tom Watson wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2009 10:55:01 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Robatoy wrote:
On May 11, 10:26 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

No argument here. When you're in a bar fight you do not have to wait until
someone actually hits you. If they threaten to hit you and have the
likely means to do so, you are morally justified hitting them "preemtively"
when the beer bottle they're holding is on the backswing.

That is only allowed if you write a quick, brief note of apology
first, THEN hit him so hard that he leaves his shoes behind as he
flies through the window.


It actually works this way:

1) He threatens to hit you.
2) You warn him not to.
3) He picks up and swings the bottle.
4) You flatten him and pour the bottle up his nose
demanding he tell you who else is trying to hit you.
5) Your limp wristed fellow bar patrons are horrified
by all the "violence" and "inhumanity" and blame you.
6) People who live nowhere near you hear about the incident
and vilify you as evil.
7) You are run out of town on a rail.
8) The guy who now has your job writes a long letter of apology
even though he wasn't in the bar at the time, has never been
in a fight, doesn't know how to do your job, and has lived off
of others his entire life.
9) The world relaxes with Hope.





A Lesson From Recent History:

1. You tell him to put down the bottle.

So does everyone else in the world. He ignores you.

2. He shows you that he does not have a bottle in either of his
hands.

Actually, he refuses to show you his hands or anywhere he
might have stashed a bottle. You demand - repeatedly -
that he allows you to see his hands. He pees on your shoes.

3. You shoot him, insisting that he had a bottle.

Because there are credible witnesses from all over the world
who say he has - including your own beer spies.

4. You say, "Miission Accomplished".

As it was. Then along comes your own Department Of Being Nice
To Everyone and demands you go to house of the man you
smacked and fix his toilet.


5. You spend years looking for bottles that were never there.

While at the same time trying to undo the damage that decades
of beer dictatorship have inflicted. You add schools, power,
clean water, sewer, and medical care to far flung corners of
the old empire, almost entirely at your own cost.

6. You move back to Texas.

Because almost anywhere is better to live than Washington D.C.

7. The guy who replaces you makes noises about prosecuting you for
shooting a man without a bottle.

Because he is inept and needed to have many powerful friends to
get your job. Now that he is in the job he needs others to actually
do it for him.

8. You ask some of your friends if they will have Texas secede so
that you will not be extradited.

!

9. ...to be continued...

10. While the world stays buzzed on Hopium, the brothers and friends of the
man whose brains you bashed in rejoin forces again, assured that your
replacement is utterly incompetent. They don't even bother buying beer
anymore, just the bottles, and very large bottle launchers. They hire
PR flacks to tell the world how utterly unfair their lot in life is
while they hit 5 year old children over the head with the bottles and
use the glass shards to mutilate their own wives and daughters.

To be continued indeed ...

Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/


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

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
8) The guy who now has your job writes a long letter of apology
even though he wasn't in the bar at the time, has never been
in a fight, doesn't know how to do your job, and has lived off
of others his entire life.
9) The world relaxes with Hope.

Sounds perfect as long as it's cash coming out of your pocket. That's really
anybody could ask for. It's whiners like you who contribute absolutely
nothing else that really deserve to be fleeced.

Robatoy wrote:
On May 11, 8:16 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On May 10, 1:53 pm, Jack Stein wrote:

Could be true but you would have to ignore the massive effects of
cargo ships of Obama money headed for ACORN and getting 200% of the
people voting for Obama and his socialist horde.

And in what way is that different than Bush money being shoveled by
the coffin-full to KBR/Halliburton and other fat-cat oil companies
in order to get campaign contributions so they can skew the vote?
ACORN is nothing compared to what happened in Florida in 2000. There
the vote was skewed by denying people to vote, not messing with the
registration numbers.

Sigh.

* KBR and Halliburton are not oil companies.
* Oil companies - or any corporation for that matter - may not make
campaign contributions.
* Bush won Florida in 2000 by some 500-odd votes; Acorn is
responsible for many tens of thousands.
* Vote denial in Florida was never litigated. The controversy was
over the counting of the votes.

The controversy was over the fact that many thousands were denied the
right to vote because of convenient purging of the voter lists which
cost the Dems WAY more than those 500 votes. IOW, fraud.
The concept being discussed is fraudulent votes, which ACORN is
accused of orchestrating (maybe accurately accused of doing)
The fact it was never litigated doesn't mean it didn't happen, just
like the fact that Bush hasn't been convicted of war crimes doesn't
exonerate him of being a war criminal.

There was purging of the voter rolls in Florida and as many as 100,000 names
were removed from the voter registration lists. The main reason for the
removal was a prior felony conviction (felons could not vote in Florida in
2000). Of course this cut down on the Democratic vote tremendously.

As I recall, a commission was convened to examine this issue (among others).
The commission could not verify that a single eligible voter had been denied
an opportunity to vote, though they did find one woman who had been purged
from the rolls but was able to vote in her new precinct (she had registered
twice).



Your objections fit the narrative but not the facts.

Ahhh yes, facts, a Repuglican specialty. (When it suits them..you
know, the situational kind.. like their ethics and morals.)

That's the way the adversarial system works: you promote your side, I'll
promote mine, your put forth your facts, I'll show my truths, and we'll let
fair-minded folks make a judgement.

On May 11, 1:07*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
It actually works this way:

1) He threatens to hit you.
2) You warn him not to.
3) He picks up and swings the bottle.
4) You flatten him and pour the bottle up his nose
* *demanding he tell you who else is trying to hit you.
5) Your limp wristed fellow bar patrons are horrified
* *by all the "violence" and "inhumanity" and blame you.
6) People who live nowhere near you hear about the incident
* *and vilify you as evil.
7) You are run out of town on a rail.
8) The guy who now has your job writes a long letter of apology
* *even though he wasn't in the bar at the time, has never been
* *in a fight, doesn't know how to do your job, and has lived off
* *of others his entire life.
9) The world relaxes with Hope.

I like you.

--

* -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

Imagine my surprise.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
I like you.

Imagine my surprise.

Hey, you look hard enough and you can find someone for anyone. Even Timbit
has a right to happiness.... well, maybe not, but most people do.

Robatoy wrote:
On May 11, 1:07 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
It actually works this way:
1) He threatens to hit you.
2) You warn him not to.
3) He picks up and swings the bottle.
4) You flatten him and pour the bottle up his nose
demanding he tell you who else is trying to hit you.
5) Your limp wristed fellow bar patrons are horrified
by all the "violence" and "inhumanity" and blame you.
6) People who live nowhere near you hear about the incident
and vilify you as evil.
7) You are run out of town on a rail.
8) The guy who now has your job writes a long letter of apology
even though he wasn't in the bar at the time, has never been
in a fight, doesn't know how to do your job, and has lived off
of others his entire life.
9) The world relaxes with Hope.
I like you.

--

-MIKE-


Imagine my surprise.


While I enjoy your input on woodworking topics, when it comes to
politics, you've made it quite clear that you are basically a whining
name-caller with little to no substantive input.



--

-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 11, 10:22*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On May 11, 1:07 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
It actually works this way:
1) He threatens to hit you.
2) You warn him not to.
3) He picks up and swings the bottle.
4) You flatten him and pour the bottle up his nose
* *demanding he tell you who else is trying to hit you.
5) Your limp wristed fellow bar patrons are horrified
* *by all the "violence" and "inhumanity" and blame you.
6) People who live nowhere near you hear about the incident
* *and vilify you as evil.
7) You are run out of town on a rail.
8) The guy who now has your job writes a long letter of apology
* *even though he wasn't in the bar at the time, has never been
* *in a fight, doesn't know how to do your job, and has lived off
* *of others his entire life.
9) The world relaxes with Hope.
I like you.

--

* -MIKE-

Imagine my surprise.

While I enjoy your input on woodworking topics, when it comes to
politics, you've made it quite clear that you are basically a whining
name-caller with little to no substantive input.


I'm sorry you feel that way. My conscience doesn't allow me to endorse
your politics.

-MIKE- wrote:


While I enjoy your input on woodworking topics, when it comes to
politics, you've made it quite clear that you are basically a whining
name-caller with little to no substantive input.

Cut him some slack. That's what liberal do.

You can't quantify "feelings." They are what they are - there's no
explaining or justification or evidence or logic.

On May 11, 11:32*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:

While I enjoy your input on woodworking topics, when it comes to
politics, you've made it quite clear that you are basically a whining
name-caller with little to no substantive input.

Cut him some slack. That's what liberal do.

You can't quantify "feelings." They are what they are - there's no
explaining or justification or evidence or logic.

You mean ... like faith?

Robatoy wrote:
On May 11, 11:32 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:

While I enjoy your input on woodworking topics, when it comes to
politics, you've made it quite clear that you are basically a
whining name-caller with little to no substantive input.

Cut him some slack. That's what liberal do.

You can't quantify "feelings." They are what they are - there's no
explaining or justification or evidence or logic.

You mean ... like faith?

If, by "faith," you mean religion, no. Religion is fact-based. For example,
Judaism and, by extension, Christianity was moved along by 100,000 eyeball
witnesses at Sinai and an unbroken tradition re-telling the event. It might
be called 'hearsay,' but that sequence has as much validity as the reporting
in the New York Times.

Or take Islam. Mohammed received communication from God via a third-party
angel, but we know it happened because his 13(?) wives testified that it
did. I don't know why a prophet's wife is more believable than the prophet
himself, but there you are.

No, religion is rational. "Feelings" are not. That's why they're called
"feelings" instead of dyspepsia.

On Tue, 12 May 2009 08:53:48 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:


No, religion is rational. "Feelings" are not. That's why they're called
"feelings" instead of dyspepsia.



"Credo quia absurdum est."


Tertullian





Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Robatoy wrote:
On May 10, 1:53 pm, Jack Stein wrote:

Could be true but you would have to ignore the massive effects of cargo
ships of Obama money headed for ACORN and getting 200% of the people
voting for Obama and his socialist horde.

And in what way is that different than Bush money being shoveled by
the coffin-full to KBR/Halliburton and other fat-cat oil companies in
order to get campaign contributions so they can skew the vote?

I guess that was the same as Clinton money being shoveled by the coffin
full and awarding no-bid contracts to Halliburton to continue its work
in the Balkans, but has little to do with ACORN being publicly funded by
left wingers and purposely stuffing the ballot box to elect nothing but
democrats.

ACORN is nothing compared to what happened in Florida in 2000.
There the vote was skewed by denying people to vote, not messing with the
registration numbers.

Thats pretty funny. The democrats stuff the ballot box with phony
ballots, greedily trying punch out 10 ballots at a time, and leave
hanging chads on the last few, so they are not counted. Of course, since
only the democrats are cheating like this, it's only democrats that have
hanging chads... Then, they bitch the hanging chad, fake ballots were
not counted... Only a socialist democrat has balls large enough to try
that. They fixed the problem though, no more hanging chads, we vote
electronically. Good thing we don't do the purple thumb thing, or
democrats would be sporting 10 purple thumbs.

BTW, Jack, this is all you're getting from me on this. Have a nice day.

BTW Robocop, I thought you said you plonked me? I guess you were just
talking out your ass, as usual? I could care less what kind of day you
have.

--
Jack
Go Penns
http://jbstein.com

HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Right now, Obama
could probably get away with not knowing how many states are in the
US, or even going to foreign soil and apologizing for being a US
citizen, assuming he is one, of course.

You're probably referring to Obama claiming there were 57 states.

Yeah, no other president has ever claimed there were 57 states, not
counting Alaska and Hawaii.

In his defense, there WERE 57 venues that got to vote in the Democratic Convention.

Counting on all my fingers and toes, and listening to his words, doing
some high level math... 57 plus 2.... 57 plus 2.... hmmmm.... BINGO 59.
I stand corrected, he actually, if I got the math right, claimed 59
states. Letterman can't seem to find any humor in that, so maybe there
really are 59 states... who really knows...


They we

* The 50 states, of course,

No, that would be 57 states, not counting Alaska and Hawaii. See above
for the math... 59

* The District of Columbia,
* Guam,
* Puerto Rico,
* The U.S. Virgin Islands,
* The Dutchy of Grand Fenwick,
* Patagonia. and
* Rhodesia.

Plus 7 states that are not states, that would be....59 plus 7
non-states.... 66 states would be what he thinks, based on his words,
and adding your words...

Chicago residents got to vote twice, and U.S. citizens abroad (unless they
were in the military) voted with their home states.

There were a number of voting districts that had more people vote than
were registered to vote. This could be a problem if the mass media ever
figures out something is wrong here. I suspect, the democrats will need
to be more careful when stuffing ballots. 120% of the voters voting is
not particularly smart. ACORN will need to get more than 76
registrations from each democrat voter or things could get messy.

--
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

On May 12, 1:43*pm, Jack Stein wrote:

[snipped the usual Steinian fishing exploits]

..

Robatoy wrote:
On May 12, 1:43 pm, Jack Stein wrote:

[snipped the usual Steinian fishing exploits]

No need to fish, the fish are jumping in the boat.

--
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

On May 13, 9:24*am, Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On May 12, 1:43 pm, Jack Stein wrote:

[snipped the usual Steinian fishing exploits]

No need to fish, the fish are jumping in the boat.




....... An empty fishing boat slowly floats to the shore. After it
beaches, Jack Stein climbs out.