In article , Neil Brooks wrote:
On Dec 30, 8:20=A0pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Neil Brooks wrote:

How about a minimum IQ standard???

Looks good on paper but has a _bad_ history in the US, where a black Caltech
PhD couldn't pass the government's IQ test but an inbred white hick could in
some states.

They do usually point to Stanford-Binet as being *terrifyingly*
culturally biased, so ... yeah ... I agree.

It's not just the Stanford-Binet -- they *all* are. Not as badly now as they
used to be, however.

As I suggested yesterday, read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould.
It will open your eyes.

In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:
Nonny wrote:
I have long held that there should be a voting system where the
contributors to society have the say, and the takers get what's
left. In my ideal system, the citizens of our country would get
ONE VOTE for each dollar paid in Federal Income Taxes. Period.

So you're saying that Bill Gates runs the country?

Better Bill Gates than the committee of 535 baboons on Capitol Hill...

In article , krw wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:38:50 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Learn to read. Look up above - see what I wrote? Understand it? Let me
type it slowly so you don't get lost... You have no priviledge to presume
who should and who should not vote. It's just not yours to decide. It's
not necessary to put words in your mouth. I simply leave your very words
included in my replies and they speak for themselves. After that you simply
try to spin and dig yourself deeper and deeper in.

No, fool, it is *you* who needs remedial reading. I said nothing
about who should _get_ to vote.

He didn't say you did.

I said the ignorant *shouldn't*.

And he said "You have no privilege to decide who should and who should not
vote."

You might also take note of his point that he needs not put words in your
mouth -- the words you put in your own mouth are quite sufficient.

Unlike others here, I didn't advocate any position on who should have
the right to vote.

He did not say that you did.

Now, go back and read what I wrote again.

Clearly, he read what you wrote far more carefully than you read what he
wrote.

Then
you can come back with your weewee between your butt cheeks and
apologize. What a moron!

ROTFL! He's not the one who owes an apology here IMO.

[remainder of juvenile, vulgar diatribe snipped]

Sco Marlow 3, krw 0.

"krw" wrote in message
...
..

No, fool, it is ...
No, fool, it is ... What a moron!

I didn't say anything of the sort, asshole. I

I calls 'em as I sees 'em. You *are* an asshole; no question.


You're a goddamned liar, asshole.
What a fickwit.


No, asshole, it is you who is illiterate. What a ****wit.

WHat a ****wit. Can't you breathe either?

.. No, those who can't read or think, yet tell others what they write and
think are the asses, asshole.


You're a ****ing liar. No surprise, most leftist clowns are.



Quite an amazing history of intellectual discourse. See ya...

--

-Mike-

On Dec 30, 10:05*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

The formulation in question worked very nicely well into the 20th
Century. *Its dismemberment began with FDR and has been on a
downhill slide since. *Collectivism is hardly an example of of
modern "progress". *You defend a system that is demonstrably a
failure. *I defend a system that was demonstrably successful.

Eloquent sophistry.

You do nothing but pigeon hole and label.

Your labels are empty, and your arguments are no better, for ...
affixing labels IS your basic premise.

You genuinely seem bright and erudite -- TOO bright, methinks to have
to resort to such churlish and childish tactics.

I don't know what a "collectivist" is, and I don't care.

I haven't defended any "system."

'Tis a genuine shame that you can't address an actual issue on the
merits.

It may well be that I'm the only one that sees you doing this, and
recognizes it as what it is: bad form.

But ... that's okay.

On Dec 30, 9:52*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
On 12/30/09 9:15 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:



On Dec 30, 6:50 pm, Tim *wrote:

[snip[

Ohhhhh, Gee.

THIS just HAS to be your work:

"If ever there was any doubt about the elitist mentality of today’s
Left, one needs only to witness their condescension and smarm in
response to those who oppose their communist-lite healthcare agenda."

Am I right??

Wow. *On the (slightly risky, I know) presumption that it is ...
well ... take care, then. *Bye-bye.

As you spoon feed us irony as to be so condescending and smarmy with
your assertion.

I genuinely don't even understand that statement.

Labels and name-calling are a tactic for the ease and convenience --
intellectually -- of those who must oft resort to them.

What's so hard about discussing *ideas*, without the need for chronic
labeling of everything and everybody?

I have a lot of respect for those whose ideas vary from mine. Hell, I
don't learn a DAMNED THING talking to people who AGREE with me.

But there's nothing to be learned from a fountain of epithets.

On Dec 31, 5:06*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Neil Brooks wrote:

On Dec 30, 8:20=A0pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Neil Brooks wrote:
How about a minimum IQ standard???

Looks good on paper but has a _bad_ history in the US, where a black Caltech
PhD couldn't pass the government's IQ test but an inbred white hick could in
some states.

They do usually point to Stanford-Binet as being *terrifyingly*
culturally biased, so ... yeah ... I agree.

It's not just the Stanford-Binet -- they *all* are. Not as badly now as they
used to be, however.

As I suggested yesterday, read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould.
It will open your eyes.

Ordered, and ... thanks.

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:24:17 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

IMHO people don't vote because there is no one that they want to try to
elect. Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
purpose, don't you think?

It has come down to voting for the lesser of several evils lately.
sigh


And to restate what I stated previously, why participate in such an
atrocity.

What, you DON'T want a say in which asshole ruins your life?

Our Oregon Demonrats are trying to ruin our state now, too. Two
corporation tax bills are on the special election next month/year.
If either is enacted, up to 70,000 jobs could be lost and businesses
would be taxed on their GROSS income, not their net. Brilliant, huh?

Why The American Revolution, v2, hasn't started yet, I'll never know.
I feel certain that it's coming, and soon. I see too many very, very
angry people every day now. Once people see their paychecks diminish
and half their neighbors are out of work...

Is your house ready to fend off rioters, if and when? Got stocks of
food, water, batteries, and ammo? Gotcher BOB (bug-out bag) ready?
Even if things don't go as sour as they look to, preparedness is a
virtue.

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:10:24 -0500, the infamous "Mike Marlow"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:24:17 -0600, Leon wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

It has come down to voting for the lesser of several evils lately.
sigh


And to restate what I stated previously, why participate in such an
atrocity.

Because it helps keep the *greater* evil out of office :-).


These days, I'm not so sure there really is a greater evil and a lesser
evil - just a different evil.

I sometimes think Leon is right. I mean, what if O brings on TAR 2.0
quicker than a nicer politician would have? We need the change, and
I'll bet he doesn't get what he campaigned for and expected.

How are hope and change working for you? wink

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:57:05 -0500, the infamous "Lee Michaels"
scrawled the following:


"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:301220091652408819%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalders tone.ca...
In article , Swingman
wrote:

A country not in decline? You've seen Detroit lately, Bubba?

Try looking at Detroit through Google Earth.

It's incredible. Entire blocks with only one house left. Lots of entire
blocks...

I saw an article recently where farmers are reclaiming industrial land in
Detroit to grow crops. They say it is cheaper to lease the land there than
in farm country.

IF you can find land which isn't saturated with PCBs, poisons, oil,
gasoline, or heavy metals. Would _you_ eat their produce? =:-0

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:20:11 -0800, the infamous "DGDevin"
scrawled the following:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message

PDFTFT

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:29:23 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

"krw" wrote in message
... .


snip of krw's garbage


Quite an amazing history of intellectual discourse. See ya...

You took the words right outa' my mouth!

He who has to resort to profanities (and in quantity no less) has lost
the argument by definition.

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

On Dec 31, 10:19*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:

PDFTFT


Lost track of the chronology, here. WHO, in this case, IS the FT??

Leon wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

Well ... we can dream.

The problem is not the Congress, it's the voters who elected the
members. An approval rating of 23% really says "I don't like 80% of
me!" ('Does this dress make me look fat?')

We don't get the Congress we deserve - we get the Congress we elect.


The problem is "who" gets to vote, and the fact that congress does
not have to get a majority of the registered voters vote.

Elected officials should not win because they simply got a majority
of the vote, they shoud get a majority of the registered voters vote.
For example if there are 10 registered voters, only 3 show up to
vote, and all 3 vote for candidate "A", that is not good enough. Candidate
"A" must get 6 or more votes to win.

Not voting is a vote that the candidates are not wanted and should be
cast aside.

Nope. I've worked the polls. Since voting is free, many people want to get
their money's worth. They will pull every lever possible, such pull
predicated on the name, office, party, or eeny-meeny-miney-moe.

So, then, what's a potential voter to do who knows none of the candidates,
none of the issues, none of the promises? Would you FORCE him to vote for
SOMEBODY? Those in this category, who stay home thereby leaving the decision
up to those who presumably are educated on the concept, are doing the right
thing.

Personally, I think TOO MANY people vote. I would limit voting to people:
1. Who registered, each year, in January, and
2. Who owned property, and
3. Who paid a modest fee ($10 sounds about right), and
4. Who've never been convicted of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:53:06 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 12/31/2009 12:10 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
SNIP

It is
you that defend force - the force of the collective against
the individual. I do not wish to take anything for you
or anyone else. I'm merely resisting the idea that you and your
collective should be able to pillage what is mine.

You describe Social Darwinism -- no less. Survival of the fittest.
Law of the jungle. I've elaborated on it for you, so ... what I mean
should be clear.

It is astonishing to me that someone of evident intellectual
abilities could be so intentionally obtuse. I am opposed
to *forced wealth redistribution by means of government*.

No. You just object in government forcing it to being redistributed in
a new direction that is slightly more equitible.

On 12/31/2009 3:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:
wrote in message

Personally, I think TOO MANY people vote. I would limit voting to people:
1. Who registered, each year, in January, and
2. Who owned property, and
3. Who paid a modest fee ($10 sounds about right), and
4. Who've never been convicted of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude.

5. Served their country in the military, Peace Corps, et al.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:05:48 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 12/31/2009 3:52 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:53:06 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 12/31/2009 12:10 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
SNIP

It is
you that defend force - the force of the collective against
the individual. I do not wish to take anything for you
or anyone else. I'm merely resisting the idea that you and your
collective should be able to pillage what is mine.

You describe Social Darwinism -- no less. Survival of the fittest.
Law of the jungle. I've elaborated on it for you, so ... what I mean
should be clear.

It is astonishing to me that someone of evident intellectual
abilities could be so intentionally obtuse. I am opposed
to *forced wealth redistribution by means of government*.

No. You just object in government forcing it to being redistributed in
a new direction that is slightly more equitible.


You are utterly wrong. I don't support wealth redistribution whether
it is for lazy drug addicts or corporate CEOs.

You are utterly wrong.

On Dec 31, 7:57*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/31/2009 6:28 PM, wrote:





On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:05:48 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 12/31/2009 3:52 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:53:06 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 12/31/2009 12:10 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
SNIP

It is
you that defend force - the force of the collective against
the individual. *I do not wish to take anything for you
or anyone else. *I'm merely resisting the idea that you and your
collective should be able to pillage what is mine.

You describe Social Darwinism -- no less. *Survival of the fittest.

On Dec 31, 3:53*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Tim.... have you ever read the bile you spew sometimes?
Bile like this:

It is astonishing to me that someone of evident intellectual
abilities could be so intentionally obtuse.

How arrogant is it that you seem to think you're in a position the
award somebody intellect? Just so you can then elevate yourself above
that intellect?

The good old "You are SMART, but *I* am even smarter!!"
IOW, you stand on shoulders that you create. You are a fraud. A hollow
shell that creates an illusion which has no real substance.
There is more substance in a dog's fart. ( I know, I used a profanity
because I'm a Liberal...**** off with that **** already.)

Happy New Year O Fraudulent One!

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:57:17 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 12/31/2009 6:28 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:05:48 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 12/31/2009 3:52 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:53:06 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 12/31/2009 12:10 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
SNIP

It is
you that defend force - the force of the collective against
the individual. I do not wish to take anything for you
or anyone else. I'm merely resisting the idea that you and your
collective should be able to pillage what is mine.

You describe Social Darwinism -- no less. Survival of the fittest.
Law of the jungle. I've elaborated on it for you, so ... what I mean
should be clear.

It is astonishing to me that someone of evident intellectual
abilities could be so intentionally obtuse. I am opposed
to *forced wealth redistribution by means of government*.

No. You just object in government forcing it to being redistributed in
a new direction that is slightly more equitible.


You are utterly wrong. I don't support wealth redistribution whether
it is for lazy drug addicts or corporate CEOs.

You are utterly wrong.


Do you know my wife?

LOL - I doubt that she would appreciate your response to that one :-)

Neil, I learned long ago not to have an exchange of views with this guy;

Funny, do you notice that he never has anything to offer in terms of
woodworking? He just offers his lizard-brain thoughts on politics.

Swingman wrote:
On 12/31/2009 3:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:
wrote in message

Personally, I think TOO MANY people vote. I would limit voting to
people: 1. Who registered, each year, in January, and
2. Who owned property, and
3. Who paid a modest fee ($10 sounds about right), and
4. Who've never been convicted of a felony or a crime of moral
turpitude.

5. Served their country in the military, Peace Corps, et al.

I dunno. I'm tempted to say anybody who works for any agency of government
is automatically disqualified from voting.

In the case of the military, they may vote for a candidate who promises them
more opportunities to kill people and blow things up (not that that's a bad
thing). In my view, the basis for a war should be something greater than the
fun it provides its prosecutors.

On 1/1/2010 6:42 AM, Perry Aynum wrote:
Neil, I learned long ago not to have an exchange of views with this guy;

When your argument gets its fuzzy little ass whipped, let the ad hominem
attacks begin ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 1/1/2010 9:46 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Swingman wrote:


5. Served their country in the military, Peace Corps, et al.

I dunno. I'm tempted to say anybody who works for any agency of government
is automatically disqualified from voting.

I could agree with that, but "serving your country" definitely has a
different connotation to some of us.

In the case of the military, they may vote for a candidate who promises them
more opportunities to kill people and blow things up (not that that's a bad
thing). In my view, the basis for a war should be something greater than the
fun it provides its prosecutors.

Stange POV. Personally, I never knew a soldier that really wanted to go
into a battle, or thought of it as "fun".

Ever been in combat yourself? Doesn't sound like you have ...

Now, you get above field grade rank, and into the "politician general"
arena where you don't have to go into combat yourself, all bets are off.

Many of these guys are politicians, not soldiers, and just as
chicken**** as a congressman ... more interested in serving themselves
than their country.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

A country not in decline? You've seen Detroit lately, Bubba?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hlbsw3bQy8

Did you think that you would ever see the likes of this in the USA?

Not in delcine, eh?

Now that _is_ "bull"!



I wonder if the decline corrrelates to the lizard-brain Republicans who ran
the country between 1994 and 2008?

Or has superman Obama really managed to do so much evil in 11 months?

See if you can wrap your brain around that concept.

My contention is still that it is a direct result of this (idealistic)
concept that has, demonstrably and observably, insured the very _absence_
of a well-educated and well-informed electorate.

Looking around, it is difficult to surmise otherwise?



2000 and 2004 support your view on this.

Perry Aynum wrote:

A country not in decline? You've seen Detroit lately, Bubba?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hlbsw3bQy8

Did you think that you would ever see the likes of this in the USA?

Not in delcine, eh?

Now that _is_ "bull"!



I wonder if the decline corrrelates to the lizard-brain Republicans who
ran the country between 1994 and 2008?

Or has superman Obama really managed to do so much evil in 11 months?

See if you can wrap your brain around that concept.

See if you can wrap *your* brain around the facts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On 1/1/2010 10:50 AM, Perry Aynum wrote:
A country not in decline? You've seen Detroit lately, Bubba?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hlbsw3bQy8

Did you think that you would ever see the likes of this in the USA?

I wonder if the decline corrrelates to the lizard-brain Republicans who ran
the country between 1994 and 2008?

Or has superman Obama really managed to do so much evil in 11 months?

See if you can wrap your brain around that concept.

LOL ... actually, the current situation has unarguably been been bought
and paid for by 60 years of Democrat policies with nary a "lizzard brain
Republican" around.

That's not the point ... as long as you idiots keep your divisive
"Democrat vs Republican", "conservative vs liberal" bickering going, as
you do above, those who want you divided so they can conquer you, will
continue to do just that.

Wake up ....

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

See if you can wrap *your* brain around the facts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw

Steven Crowder - now there's critical thinking for ya...

Wake up ....



Thanks Swingman. What could I have been thinking all these years.

You seen New Orleans, Bubba?

Perry Aynum wrote:


See if you can wrap *your* brain around the facts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw

Steven Crowder - now there's critical thinking for ya...

Didn't think you could wrap yourself around the facts that were presented.
i.e. that Detroit has been led by statist Democrats since 1961. Yeah, it's
the Republicans' fault that Detroit is in the condition it finds itself.
Went after the messenger instead.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 12:01:54 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

On 1/1/2010 10:50 AM, Perry Aynum wrote:
A country not in decline? You've seen Detroit lately, Bubba?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hlbsw3bQy8

Did you think that you would ever see the likes of this in the USA?

I wonder if the decline corrrelates to the lizard-brain Republicans who ran
the country between 1994 and 2008?

Or has superman Obama really managed to do so much evil in 11 months?

See if you can wrap your brain around that concept.

LOL ... actually, the current situation has unarguably been been bought
and paid for by 60 years of Democrat policies with nary a "lizzard brain
Republican" around.

That's not the point ... as long as you idiots keep your divisive
"Democrat vs Republican", "conservative vs liberal" bickering going, as
you do above, those who want you divided so they can conquer you, will
continue to do just that.

Wake up ....

Swingy, ah rectum that Señor Perineum might be a troll.

Please act accordingly.

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

On 1/1/2010 12:29 PM, Perry Aynum wrote:
You seen New Orleans, Bubba?

Yeah, my home state ... do notice that the part of NOLA settled when the
population looked after themselves and exercised common sense in still
intact and thriving.

But, let's see, we have an irrrational need to blame a natural disaster
on a political persuasion, eh?

What ****ing bloody idiocy you guys can foster ... you really should be
ashamed.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 1/1/2010 1:28 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:

I really want to get back to Nawlins. I've been a couple of times,
before Katrina hit. Love the city, and the people. Well, some of the
people...

Still plenty of good folks ... most of the bad ones are now living in
Houston!

But never again in the summer.

Does take some getting used to ...

Happy New Year, Dave.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Yeah, my home state ... do notice that the part of NOLA settled when the
population looked after themselves and exercised common sense in still
intact and thriving.

But, let's see, we have an irrrational need to blame a natural disaster on
a political persuasion, eh?

What ****ing bloody idiocy you guys can foster ... you really should be
ashamed.


Burning ants on a sidwalk with a magnifying glass is almost as fun as
watching rednecks take the bait.....

On Jan 1, 1:56*pm, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 12:01:54 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:





On 1/1/2010 10:50 AM, Perry Aynum wrote:
A country not in decline? You've seen Detroit lately, Bubba?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hlbsw3bQy8

Did you think that you would ever see the likes of this in the USA?

I wonder if the decline corrrelates to the lizard-brain Republicans who ran
the country between 1994 and 2008?

Or has superman Obama really managed to do so much evil in 11 months?

See if you can wrap your brain around that concept.

LOL ... actually, the current situation has unarguably been been bought
and paid for by 60 years of Democrat policies with nary a "lizzard brain
Republican" around.

That's not the point ... as long as you idiots keep your divisive
"Democrat vs Republican", "conservative vs liberal" bickering going, as
you do above, those who want you divided so they can conquer you, will
continue to do just that.

Wake up ....

Swingy, ah rectum that Señor Perineum might be a troll.



AKA Buck Turgidson

On 1/1/2010 12:27 PM, Perry Aynum wrote:

Wake up ....



Thanks Swingman. What could I have been thinking all these years.

Could it possibly be the "thinking" part that you've been stumbling over
"all these years", Perry?

You have a happy and prosperous New Year, Perry ... it's been fun
talking to you.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:
On 1/1/2010 12:29 PM, Perry Aynum wrote:
You seen New Orleans, Bubba?

Yeah, my home state ... do notice that the part of NOLA settled when
the population looked after themselves and exercised common sense in
still intact and thriving.

But, let's see, we have an irrrational need to blame a natural
disaster on a political persuasion, eh?

What ****ing bloody idiocy you guys can foster ... you really should
be ashamed.

It is a know fact that Bush started the hurricane. Don't you listen to
NPR?

On 1/1/2010 2:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

It is a know fact that Bush started the hurricane. Don't you listen to
NPR?

Watched the recent PBS FrontLine thing on credit cards last night
(tivoed from Tuesday) ... sickening, that.

Despite the predictable and thinly veiled jabs at Repugnantlicans, it
was painful to see to what extent both parties can be bought by lobbyist.

Then again, stupid is as stupid does ... keep 'em ignorant, to the point
that they can't balance their check books, so the bankers and their paid
for politicians can steal 'em blind.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)