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.



Don't mean to scare you, Swingman, but we're of one mind on this subject.
Frontline tends to do a pretty good job.

On 1/1/2010 3:52 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

The banks have blatantly transferred much of their "credit card" risk
to the customer via the "debit card".

As the saying goes, "There is a sucker born every minute."

Yep, most any tool is a danger to a fool ... and that's what they count on.

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

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:26:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:

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

No, just the response thereto - and before you foam at the mouth I'll
stipulate there was enough to go around for both parties. But few will
ever forget "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie." :-).

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

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:29:07 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard
scrawled the following:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:26:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:

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

No, just the response thereto - and before you foam at the mouth I'll
stipulate there was enough to go around for both parties. But few will
ever forget "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie." :-).

And then the FEMA stepped on their genitals again, the very next time
anything went slightly wrong. I'd have nuked the whole management team
at least twice by now.

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

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:29:07 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard
scrawled the following:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:26:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:

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

No, just the response thereto - and before you foam at the mouth I'll
stipulate there was enough to go around for both parties. But few will
ever forget "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie." :-).

And then the FEMA stepped on their genitals again, the very next time
anything went slightly wrong. I'd have nuked the whole management team
at least twice by now.

--
You don't expect FEMA to actually do anything do you? They are there to
collect a paycheck. Nobody told them that working for the government
actually involved work or being competent.

On 1/1/2010 6:29 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:26:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:

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

No, just the response thereto - and before you foam at the mouth I'll
stipulate there was enough to go around for both parties. But few
will ever forget "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie." :-).

Nahhh... only a foolish few will remember the media blathering at a
poor, defenseless, convenient target of opportunity.

More to my point ... FEMA will be the same, inept, bureaucracy
regardless of which party is in power.

Having personally lost a home in a Gulf Coast storm, and being forced to
deal with FEMA in the aftermath, I can assure you that neither
"political persuasion", nor "parties" at any level, had any bearing on
the typical inept bureaucratic "response thereto".

Now, and since you brought them up, if you've had _firsthand_ experience
to the contrary with the FEMA bureaucracy, I, for one, would love to
hear it?

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

On 1/1/2010 8:37 PM, CW wrote:

You don't expect FEMA to actually do anything do you? They are there to
collect a paycheck. Nobody told them that working for the government
actually involved work or being competent.

Not to mention that, except for the very top political appointees,
almost all bureaucracies are shielded, in day to day ineptness, from
party in power "political persuasion" ... if nothing else but from inertia.

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

Swingman wrote:

Nahhh... only a foolish few will remember the media blathering at a
poor, defenseless, convenient target of opportunity.

More to my point ... FEMA will be the same, inept, bureaucracy
regardless of which party is in power.

Having personally lost a home in a Gulf Coast storm, and being
forced to deal with FEMA in the aftermath, I can assure you that
neither "political persuasion", nor "parties" at any level, had any
bearing on the typical inept bureaucratic "response thereto".

What time frame are you talking about?

Lew

Swingman wrote:

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 ...


So that Tobasco commercial isn't too far off the mark? [Exploding
mosquito in the swamp]


Happy New Year, Dave.


--

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

Rob Leatham

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:26:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:

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

No, just the response thereto - and before you foam at the mouth I'll
stipulate there was enough to go around for both parties. But few will
ever forget "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie." :-).


Oh, I think, "The system worked" has far eclipsed that.


--

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

Rob Leatham

Robatoy wrote:

On Jan 1, 1:56Â*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

AKA the illustrious Tom Watson



--

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

Rob Leatham

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
On 1/1/2010 8:37 PM, CW wrote:

You don't expect FEMA to actually do anything do you? They are there to
collect a paycheck. Nobody told them that working for the government
actually involved work or being competent.

Not to mention that, except for the very top political appointees, almost
all bureaucracies are shielded, in day to day ineptness, from party in
power "political persuasion" ... if nothing else but from inertia.

--
The conspiracy crowd says that the government is planing a military takeover
of the US. FEMA will be instrumental in tracking down and imprisoning
uncontrollable radicals.

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:37:26 -0800, the infamous "CW"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:29:07 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard
scrawled the following:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:26:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:

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

No, just the response thereto - and before you foam at the mouth I'll
stipulate there was enough to go around for both parties. But few will
ever forget "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie." :-).

And then the FEMA stepped on their genitals again, the very next time
anything went slightly wrong. I'd have nuked the whole management team
at least twice by now.

--
You don't expect FEMA to actually do anything do you? They are there to
collect a paycheck. Nobody told them that working for the government
actually involved work or being competent.

I'm an idealist, CW. I expect everyone in business (including gov't
employees) to be personable, intelligent, and competent, and that they
enjoy their job and do the best they can at it.

Then I woke up.

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

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 19:07:29 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
scrawled the following:


Swingman wrote:

Nahhh... only a foolish few will remember the media blathering at a
poor, defenseless, convenient target of opportunity.

More to my point ... FEMA will be the same, inept, bureaucracy
regardless of which party is in power.

Having personally lost a home in a Gulf Coast storm, and being
forced to deal with FEMA in the aftermath, I can assure you that
neither "political persuasion", nor "parties" at any level, had any
bearing on the typical inept bureaucratic "response thereto".

What time frame are you talking about?

I'll bet he's thinking "this lifetime", Lew.

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

On Jan 2, 9:23*am, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:37:26 -0800, the infamous "CW"
scrawled the following:







"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:29:07 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard
scrawled the following:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:26:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:

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

No, just the response thereto - and before you foam at the mouth I'll
stipulate there was enough to go around for both parties. *But few will
ever forget "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie." :-).

And then the FEMA stepped on their genitals again, the very next time
anything went slightly wrong. I'd have nuked the whole management team
at least twice by now.

--
You don't expect FEMA to actually do anything do you? They are there to
collect a paycheck. Nobody told them that working for the government
actually involved work or being competent.

I'm an idealist, CW. *I expect everyone in business (including gov't
employees) to be personable, intelligent, and competent, and that they
enjoy their job and do the best they can at it.

Then I woke up.


The 'waking up' part ain't so bad... it's that bitch-slap with a
pillow-case full of ice-cubes that got me.
Seems like only yesterday :-)

On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 06:49:11 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Jan 2, 9:23*am, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:37:26 -0800, the infamous "CW"
scrawled the following:







"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:29:07 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard
scrawled the following:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:26:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:

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

No, just the response thereto - and before you foam at the mouth I'll
stipulate there was enough to go around for both parties. *But few will
ever forget "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie." :-).

And then the FEMA stepped on their genitals again, the very next time
anything went slightly wrong. I'd have nuked the whole management team
at least twice by now.

--
You don't expect FEMA to actually do anything do you? They are there to
collect a paycheck. Nobody told them that working for the government
actually involved work or being competent.

I'm an idealist, CW. *I expect everyone in business (including gov't
employees) to be personable, intelligent, and competent, and that they
enjoy their job and do the best they can at it.

Then I woke up.


The 'waking up' part ain't so bad... it's that bitch-slap with a
pillow-case full of ice-cubes that got me.
Seems like only yesterday :-)

My sister's going through that stage with the tax folks in CA right
now. Her CPA screwed her with them, too. Anger causes fast defrost
from that, but the repercussions last quite a long while, I'm told.
I told her to sue the CPA for the damages and she just might do that.
I hate lawyers, but they do have a -small- rightful place.

--
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness.
--Thomas Paine

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

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.

Exactly. Keep the rednecks stirred up about abortion, gay marriage.
prayer in school while our pockets keep getting picked by the special
interests and their lobbyists/representatives.
Vote your pocketbook, people because you can bet your next quarterly IRS
payment that big banks and corporations don't give a rat's ass about any of
those issues except to the extent that it keeps the electorate's eyes off
the shell with the pea under it.

Dave in Houston

On 1/2/2010 10:46 AM, Dave In Texas wrote:


"Swingman" wrote in message
...

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.

Exactly. Keep the rednecks stirred up about abortion, gay marriage.
prayer in school while our pockets keep getting picked by the special
interests and their lobbyists/representatives.
Vote your pocketbook, people because you can bet your next quarterly IRS
payment that big banks and corporations don't give a rat's ass about any
of those issues except to the extent that it keeps the electorate's eyes
off the shell with the pea under it.

Dave in Houston

Yeah ... and make sure the peons use divisive, inflammatory, buzzword
rhetoric toward each other to keep the division going.

Part of the problem, dude ... not the solution.

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

On Jan 2, 11:46*am, "Dave In Texas" wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message

...

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.

* * Exactly. *Keep the rednecks stirred up about abortion, gay marriage.
prayer in school while our pockets keep getting picked by the special
interests and their lobbyists/representatives.
Vote your pocketbook, people because you can bet your next quarterly IRS
payment that big banks and corporations don't give a rat's ass about any of
those issues except to the extent that it keeps the electorate's eyes off
the shell with the pea under it.

Dave in Houston

These banking *******s live by these rules. The fewer tentacles a bank
has in a person's life, the better. But even now, they give out
student loans to those who will only be able to repay after graduation/
landing a good job..JUST as they're starting out a new life.... but
the *******s have you the short and curlies from day one. Here, in
'socialist' Canada, you CANNOT declare bankruptcy on a student loan.
My daughter's cousin (I dunno what she is to me now because that's an
ex-wife thing) in 3rd year medschool got a credit card, unsolicited
with a $ 100,000 cap on it.
So I remind everybody to read this, at least 4 times a year...

The Bankers Manifesto of 1892


Revealed by US Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. from Minnesota
before the US Congress sometime during his term of office between the
years of 1907 and 1917 to warn the citizens.

"We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made,
for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless
commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently
yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated
that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized
resistance. The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in
the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and
we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our
interest or disrupt them.

At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men
must attend and direct its movement, or else there will be set on foot
such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This
at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such
a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through
combination ( conspiracy) and legislation.

The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds
and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their
homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the
influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central
power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers.
People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.

History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known
among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of
the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a
state of political antagonism.

The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization
known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the
reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in
fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to
the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has
been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."

Revealed by Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. to the U.S. Congress
sometime between 1907 and 1917.

THE BANKERS’ MANIFESTO OF 1934

Capital must protect itself in every way, through combination and
through legislation. Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages
foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law, the
common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and
more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the
central power of wealth, under control of leading financiers. People
without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known
among our principle men now engaged in forming an IMPERIALISM of
capital to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to
expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to
us except as teachers of the common herd. Thus by discrete action we
can secure for ourselves what has been generally planned and
successfully accomplished.

On 1/2/2010 12:18 PM, Robatoy wrote:

The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization
known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the
reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in
fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to
the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has
been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."

Revealed by Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. to the U.S. Congress
sometime between 1907 and 1917.

Bingo ... bingo ... bingo!

You Demogicans and Repugnicans, "liberals and conservatives" alike, keep
in mind, as you throw your slings and arrow rhetoric at each other, YOU
are the ones being played for fools ...

Wake the **** up!

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

On 1/2/2010 12:42 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Simple enough to thwart these eeeeeeeeeeeevil bankers: Don't borrow money and
don't buy what you cannot afford.

.... and the politicians who do both?

Voting, or not voting, observably is NOT working ...

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

On Jan 2, 1:42*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 1/2/2010 12:18 PM, Robatoy wrote:





On Jan 2, 11:46 am, "Dave In Texas" wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message

om...

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.

* * Exactly. *Keep the rednecks stirred up about abortion, gay marriage.
prayer in school while our pockets keep getting picked by the special
interests and their lobbyists/representatives.
Vote your pocketbook, people because you can bet your next quarterly IRS
payment that big banks and corporations don't give a rat's ass about any of
those issues except to the extent that it keeps the electorate's eyes off
the shell with the pea under it.

Dave in Houston

These banking *******s live by these rules. The fewer tentacles a bank
has in a person's life, the better. But even now, they give out
student loans to those who will only be able to repay after graduation/
landing a good job..JUST as they're starting out a new life.... but
the *******s have you the short and curlies from day one. Here, in
'socialist' Canada, you CANNOT declare bankruptcy on a student loan.
My daughter's cousin (I dunno what she is to me now because that's an
ex-wife thing) in 3rd year medschool got a credit card, unsolicited
with a $ 100,000 cap on it.
So I remind everybody to read this, at least 4 times a year...

The Bankers Manifesto of 1892

Revealed by US Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. from Minnesota
before the US Congress sometime during his term of office between the
years of 1907 and 1917 to warn the citizens.

"We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made,
for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless
commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently
yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated
that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized
resistance. The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in
the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and
we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our
interest or disrupt them.

At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men
must attend and direct its movement, or else there will be set on foot
such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This
at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such
a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through
combination ( conspiracy) and legislation.

The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds
and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their
homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the
influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central
power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers.
People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.

History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known
among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of
the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a
state of political antagonism.

The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization
known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the
reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in
fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to
the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has
been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."

Revealed by Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. to the U.S. Congress
sometime between 1907 and 1917.

THE BANKERS’ MANIFESTO OF 1934

Capital must protect itself in every way, through combination and
through legislation. Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages
foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law, the
common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and
more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the
central power of wealth, under control of leading financiers. People
without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known
among our principle men now engaged in forming an IMPERIALISM of
capital to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to
expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to
us except as teachers of the common herd. Thus by discrete action we
can secure for ourselves what has been generally planned and
successfully accomplished.

Simple enough to thwart these eeeeeeeeeeeevil bankers: Don't borrow money and
don't buy what you cannot afford.


Here comes that little school-girl "eeeeeeeeeeeevil" whine again.

You really don't have much else in that purse-full-of-tricks, do you?

On Jan 2, 2:33*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 1/2/2010 1:28 PM, Robatoy wrote:





On Jan 2, 1:42 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 1/2/2010 12:18 PM, Robatoy wrote:

On Jan 2, 11:46 am, "Dave In Texas" wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message

news:rrydnZl33tWZwaPWnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@giganews .com...

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.

* * Exactly. *Keep the rednecks stirred up about abortion, gay marriage.
prayer in school while our pockets keep getting picked by the special
interests and their lobbyists/representatives.
Vote your pocketbook, people because you can bet your next quarterly IRS
payment that big banks and corporations don't give a rat's ass about any of
those issues except to the extent that it keeps the electorate's eyes off
the shell with the pea under it.

Dave in Houston

These banking *******s live by these rules. The fewer tentacles a bank
has in a person's life, the better. But even now, they give out
student loans to those who will only be able to repay after graduation/
landing a good job..JUST as they're starting out a new life.... but
the *******s have you the short and curlies from day one. Here, in
'socialist' Canada, you CANNOT declare bankruptcy on a student loan.
My daughter's cousin (I dunno what she is to me now because that's an
ex-wife thing) in 3rd year medschool got a credit card, unsolicited
with a $ 100,000 cap on it.
So I remind everybody to read this, at least 4 times a year...

The Bankers Manifesto of 1892

Revealed by US Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. from Minnesota
before the US Congress sometime during his term of office between the
years of 1907 and 1917 to warn the citizens.

"We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made,
for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless
commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently
yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated
that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized
resistance. The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in
the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and
we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our
interest or disrupt them.

At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men
must attend and direct its movement, or else there will be set on foot
such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This
at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such
a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through
combination ( conspiracy) and legislation.

The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds
and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their
homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the
influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central
power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers.
People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.

History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known
among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of
the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a
state of political antagonism.

The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization
known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the
reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in
fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to
the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has
been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."

Revealed by Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. to the U.S. Congress
sometime between 1907 and 1917.

THE BANKERS’ MANIFESTO OF 1934

Capital must protect itself in every way, through combination and
through legislation. Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages
foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law, the
common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and
more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the
central power of wealth, under control of leading financiers. People
without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known
among our principle men now engaged in forming an IMPERIALISM of
capital to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to
expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to
us except as teachers of the common herd. Thus by discrete action we
can secure for ourselves what has been generally planned and
successfully accomplished.

Simple enough to thwart these eeeeeeeeeeeevil bankers: Don't borrow money and
don't buy what you cannot afford.

Here comes that little school-girl "eeeeeeeeeeeevil" whine again.

You really don't have much else in that purse-full-of-tricks, do you?

We all know why you hate "The Bankers" ... why don't you just come out
and say so (again)...



I hate them because they are bloodsucking leeches. Lending money to
those who spend it on stupid stuff.
Why do you LIKE them so much? Because they're upright and honest? Or
because they operate on a drug-dealers' credo?

But.... don't bother with a reply as it will just be another
collection of, 'hopium', 'foaming', 'dishonest people' etc., etc. same-
old, same-old.

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

Simple enough to thwart these eeeeeeeeeeeevil bankers: Don't borrow
money and don't buy what you cannot afford.

But I really want that nice little shoulder plane from LeeVally, and Rob
does accept my credit card. So now I'm on the hook for $30 or so. Pretty
soon it'll be more, and I'll have to dip into my inheritance ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:7ek417-gn21.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

Notice, for instance, the current whining about "credit card relief".
Where I come from, that's called "not paying back what you borrowed"
and is a form of dishonesty.

I agree with much of what you said, but I would express it from a liberal
point of view. The above quote is what I disagree with. Credit card
relief should not be relief from having to pay back what you borrowed (as
was your intent to state), but it should include relief from onerous and
extortionist interest rates and exorbitant fees. Maybe it was in the small
print, and maybe the stupid borrowers could have opted out at some point,
but charging 30% APR and $25 overdraft fees is a bit much, don't you think?
Wouldn't you get a bit upset if you knew that you had $45 in your account
and knowingly overdrew it with the last of 3 transactions. These 3 being
$7 coffee at Starbucks, $15 for lunch and $50 for dinner. However, the
bank first charges the dinner charge, and levies a $25 overdraft fee, then
the lunch and coffee, each also with a $25 overdraft fee. Is that right?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 1/2/2010 1:46 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Civil and open societies only remain so on the basis of trust. When
trust fails, so does the society. It is hard to imagine trust
surviving when - from poor to rich, and everything in between - there
is this increasing cant of "Gimme what I want, that's why I elected you."

And why is there no "trust" in our representatives these days? Because
there can be NO trust if it is not firmly rooted in "morality".

IMO, the "credit/debit card issue" alone is indicative of the now almost
total absence of morality in the practice of capitalism in this society.

It is one thing for folks to be so ill educated that they can't keep
track of their own finances, but it is another for the banking industry
to foster that ignorance, then greedily, and specifically target it with
what amounts to usury and extortion ... excused by protestations that
they are "just playing by the rules" the politicians, for whom they
bought and paid, set up.

A glaring example of carefully calculated acquiescence in the blurring
of distinction between "morality" and "legality".

Granted, fools who can't manage their affairs get what they deserve, but
this blurring of the distinction between legality and morality, as in
this particular issue, has resulted in a total lack of the latter.

And, its teaching in our law schools, to be then carried into the halls
of congress by the preponderance of them being, almost to the man, a
product of same, compounds the effects until it is reaching devastating
consequences for our society.

You can put no "trust" in the *******s who represent us because to them,
as long as it "legal", it's OK, and morality does not even enter into
the equation.

Ultimately, capitalism will NOT survive without a moral component ...
end of story.

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

On 1/2/2010 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
Tim wrote in news:7ek417-gn21.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

Notice, for instance, the current whining about "credit card relief".
Where I come from, that's called "not paying back what you borrowed"
and is a form of dishonesty.

I agree with much of what you said, but I would express it from a liberal
point of view. The above quote is what I disagree with. Credit card
relief should not be relief from having to pay back what you borrowed (as
was your intent to state), but it should include relief from onerous and
extortionist interest rates and exorbitant fees. Maybe it was in the small
print, and maybe the stupid borrowers could have opted out at some point,
but charging 30% APR and $25 overdraft fees is a bit much, don't you think?
Wouldn't you get a bit upset if you knew that you had $45 in your account
and knowingly overdrew it with the last of 3 transactions. These 3 being
$7 coffee at Starbucks, $15 for lunch and $50 for dinner. However, the
bank first charges the dinner charge, and levies a $25 overdraft fee, then
the lunch and coffee, each also with a $25 overdraft fee. Is that right?


Don't look now, Han ... but that ain't no "liberal point of view"!

That _is_ a "moral" point of view!

Good on you, brother!!

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

On Jan 2, 4:04*pm, Swingman wrote:

It is one thing for folks to be so ill educated that they can't keep
track of their own finances, but it is another for the banking industry
to foster that ignorance,

THIS!

Swingman wrote in
:

On 1/2/2010 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
Tim wrote in news:7ek417-gn21.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

Notice, for instance, the current whining about "credit card
relief". Where I come from, that's called "not paying back what you
borrowed" and is a form of dishonesty.

I agree with much of what you said, but I would express it from a
liberal point of view. The above quote is what I disagree with.
Credit card relief should not be relief from having to pay back what
you borrowed (as was your intent to state), but it should include
relief from onerous and extortionist interest rates and exorbitant
fees. Maybe it was in the small print, and maybe the stupid
borrowers could have opted out at some point, but charging 30% APR
and $25 overdraft fees is a bit much, don't you think? Wouldn't you
get a bit upset if you knew that you had $45 in your account and
knowingly overdrew it with the last of 3 transactions. These 3 being
$7 coffee at Starbucks, $15 for lunch and $50 for dinner. However,
the bank first charges the dinner charge, and levies a $25 overdraft
fee, then the lunch and coffee, each also with a $25 overdraft fee.
Is that right?

Don't look now, Han ... but that ain't no "liberal point of view"!

That _is_ a "moral" point of view!

Good on you, brother!!

Hey Karl, moral and liberal are definitely NOT mutually exclusive!! Au
contraire! I'm all for profit, but stealing is different.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 1/2/2010 2:22 PM, Han wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

Simple enough to thwart these eeeeeeeeeeeevil bankers: Don't borrow
money and don't buy what you cannot afford.

But I really want that nice little shoulder plane from LeeVally, and
Rob does accept my credit card. So now I'm on the hook for $30 or
so. Pretty soon it'll be more, and I'll have to dip into my
inheritance ...


So ... use a Postal Money Order that you pay for with cash - you don't
even need a bank account.

I'd like Rob's opinion on that.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 1/2/2010 3:13 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/2/2010 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
Tim wrote in news:7ek417-gn21.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

Notice, for instance, the current whining about "credit card
relief". Where I come from, that's called "not paying back what you
borrowed" and is a form of dishonesty.

I agree with much of what you said, but I would express it from a
liberal point of view. The above quote is what I disagree with.
Credit card relief should not be relief from having to pay back what
you borrowed (as was your intent to state), but it should include
relief from onerous and extortionist interest rates and exorbitant
fees. Maybe it was in the small
print, and maybe the stupid borrowers could have opted out at some
point, but charging 30% APR and $25 overdraft fees is a bit much,
don't you think?
Wouldn't you get a bit upset if you knew that you had $45 in your
account and knowingly overdrew it with the last of 3 transactions.
These 3 being $7 coffee at Starbucks, $15 for lunch and $50 for
dinner. However, the bank first charges the dinner charge, and
levies a $25 overdraft fee, then
the lunch and coffee, each also with a $25 overdraft fee. Is that
right?


Don't look now, Han ... but that ain't no "liberal point of view"!

That _is_ a "moral" point of view!

Good on you, brother!!


Morality start with integrity and honesty. So long as the bank is
behaving as it promised to - that is, there is no fraud (which is
always wrong) - it is not inherently immoral to do what is described
above. It is, however, probably very stupid from a consumer relations
point of view.

Tim, IMNSHO it is immoral and fraudulent to reverse the order of charges
in order to "legally" charge a $25 fee on each of the three above
transactions. I believe that in this case the charges were indeed
reversed, and also that it is now not anymore possible to automatically
assume (by the bank) hat the customer wants overdraft protection, but
that he/she has to ask for it, and sign a disclosure form. SO eventually
the morally correctview was adopted. Whether that would have occurred
under a Repugnicant administration is a question the answer to which we
won't know.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 1/2/2010 4:36 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You can put no "trust" in the *******s who represent us because to them,
as long as it "legal", it's OK, and morality does not even enter into
the equation.

Ultimately, capitalism will NOT survive without a moral component ...
end of story.


Capitalism is already nearly dead when you can be an irresponsible
lender, borrower, risk taker, union worker, corporate exec, etc.
and the government just whisks the downside of risk away from you.

Tim, old buddy ... do you simply just like to hear yourself spout off,
or did you not understand that is effectively the very same thing I put
forth?

LOL ... never mind. Save yourself some time and don't bother responding.

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

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:04:50 -0600, Swingman wrote:

It is one thing for folks to be so ill educated that they can't keep
track of their own finances, but it is another for the banking industry
to foster that ignorance, then greedily, and specifically target it with
what amounts to usury and extortion ... excused by protestations that
they are "just playing by the rules" the politicians, for whom they
bought and paid, set up.

A glaring example of carefully calculated acquiescence in the blurring
of distinction between "morality" and "legality".

Well, for once I agree with you. I might have used "ethical" instead of
"moral", but that's a very minor quibble.

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

On Jan 2, 3:00*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 1/2/2010 2:18 PM, Robatoy wrote: On Jan 2, 2:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

SNIP

We all know why you hate "The Bankers" ... why don't you just come out
and say so (again)...

I hate them because they are bloodsucking leeches. Lending money to
those who spend it on stupid stuff.

And just who gets to decide what is "stupid stuff"? *Me? *You? *We
all vote? *A central idea of being free is that you are free to be
an idiot - witness pop culture and almost all of TV *for trenchant
examples.

Why do you LIKE them so much? Because they're upright and honest? Or
because they operate on a drug-dealers' credo?

I neither like- nor dislike them as a group. *They provide a necessary
service just like my mechanic, my doctor, and my grocery store. *In
economic terms, banks "reduce the friction" of trading with one
another. *When bankers are actually dishonest in their dealings they
should be dealt with like any other entity in society that is being
fraudulent - they should be prosecuted and sentenced as the crime
dictates. *(Either that, or they can become Sec. Of Treasury under
for the Obama administration.)

More particularly, it is not the banks' fault that people act irresponsibly.
Signing a credit card agreement is to sign a *contract*. *Either understand
its terms before signing it, or get someone who does to explain it to you..
Screaming that "I don't understand what I signed" is just another example
of "I want what I want and I don't want to be responsible for myself"
behavior so common in society.

You have such a thoroughly cultivated and deeply entrenched narrow
view of this world. It's not amazing, actually, because it's not
rare, but ... still ....

In a transaction such as lending (former mortgage bank employee,
here ... way back when), you have two parties -- the borrower and the
lender.

While you can judge (I specifically chose that word. It fits you
beautifully) that the borrower SHOULD "know better" or have a certain
level of basic financial sophistication ... the lender ABSOLUTELY DOES
know better AND have a much higher level of financial acumen.

Most of the de-regulation of the lending industry was as a result of
huge, expensive, compelling lobbying efforts on behalf of the LENDERS,
who -- as a group -- felt like they were being short-changed by not
being able to make higher profit, higher risk loans to people to whom
they should never have MADE said loans.

And ... again ... while you may say that the borrowers SHOULD have
been somewhat sophisticated ... it's a certainty that the lenders
WERE.

They were simply greedy sons of bitches, is all.

And now we're all paying for their avarice.

Remove those regulations (as was done, by both parties), and ... more
Social Darwinism.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

On 1/2/2010 4:42 PM, Han wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 1/2/2010 3:13 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/2/2010 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
Tim wrote in news:7ek417-gn21.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

Notice, for instance, the current whining about "credit card
relief". Where I come from, that's called "not paying back what you
borrowed" and is a form of dishonesty.

I agree with much of what you said, but I would express it from a
liberal point of view. The above quote is what I disagree with.
Credit card relief should not be relief from having to pay back what
you borrowed (as was your intent to state), but it should include
relief from onerous and extortionist interest rates and exorbitant
fees. Maybe it was in the small
print, and maybe the stupid borrowers could have opted out at some
point, but charging 30% APR and $25 overdraft fees is a bit much,
don't you think?
Wouldn't you get a bit upset if you knew that you had $45 in your
account and knowingly overdrew it with the last of 3 transactions.
These 3 being $7 coffee at Starbucks, $15 for lunch and $50 for
dinner. However, the bank first charges the dinner charge, and
levies a $25 overdraft fee, then
the lunch and coffee, each also with a $25 overdraft fee. Is that
right?


Don't look now, Han ... but that ain't no "liberal point of view"!

That _is_ a "moral" point of view!

Good on you, brother!!


Morality start with integrity and honesty. So long as the bank is
behaving as it promised to - that is, there is no fraud (which is
always wrong) - it is not inherently immoral to do what is described
above. It is, however, probably very stupid from a consumer relations
point of view.

Tim, IMNSHO it is immoral and fraudulent to reverse the order of charges
in order to "legally" charge a $25 fee on each of the three above
transactions. I believe that in this case the charges were indeed
reversed, and also that it is now not anymore possible to automatically
assume (by the bank) hat the customer wants overdraft protection, but
that he/she has to ask for it, and sign a disclosure form. SO eventually
the morally correctview was adopted. Whether that would have occurred
under a Repugnicant administration is a question the answer to which we
won't know.


If you think there is any significant difference between the Rs and the Ds
on these matters, think again. If anything, the Ds are worse. Goldman
alone has given noticeably more money to Ds over time, for example.
Anyone that thought the corrupt Chicago political machine was going to
produce and honorable and decent administration is really kidding
themselves...


A couple of things here. A better distinction that R & D is statist vs.
conservative or federalist. Statists believe that all ills can be cured if
we just have the right laws with sufficient federal oversight. This
viewpoint looks for increasing federal involvement in all elements of
individual lives. Conservative or federalist thought believes that
government is necessary to preserve the peace, ensure the safety of the
borders and see to the common defense with as little involvement or
interference in private lives or state governance as possible. An example
of encroaching statism: there are apparently regulations on vending machines
in some elements of the health care bills under consideration right now
(ostensibly to make sure you don't make yourself fat and therefore unhealthy
by purchasing vending machine products). Now, unfortunately, both parties
have statists within them. The Democrat party has by far the largest gaggle
of such folks and pushes statism as far as they can. The Republicans,
particularly the northeast establishment republicans are also dominated by
statists -- their only plaint is that they will impose statism more slowly
and less onerously than the Dems. OTOH, there is also a significant group
of conservatives in the Republican party fighting for control who do believe
that less government and government involvement in private lives leads to
both a more prosperous and more free country.

Just as an aside, the largest beneficiaries of campaign donations from
banks and investment firms was not the Republican party, but the Democrats.
Goldman Sachs was particularly skewed:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000085






--

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

Rob Leatham

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 03:10:38 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
It's OK, I was bored.

Problem is, that you're bored about exactly the same thing every time.
You whine and gripe nonstop about how you're getting ripped off and
how the current administration is spending your money.

Apparently, your boredom *is* your life. Why not inject something new
into your life such as woodworking? Considering how you consistently
fail to talk about woodworking at all here in this woodworking
newsgroup, talking about and learning something about woodworking
might actually contribute something to your boring life.

On Jan 3, 2:08*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 1/2/2010 7:02 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
SNIP

And with it ... went the context of my post. Sigh.

You have such a thoroughly cultivated and deeply entrenched narrow
view of this world. *It's not amazing, actually, because it's not
rare, but ... still ....

So it is now a "narrow view of the world" that people signing
contracts ought to understand the content of their agreements? I'd say
this is more just simple common sense. Where does this end? If I enter
into a contract with my plumber (who has superior knowledge of
plumbing) can I then refuse to pay him in full because he "charged me
too much because I didn't understand the nature of plumbing*? It's
absurd, but that's effectively what you're arguing.

Ah, the slipper slope argument.

My "view of the world" incidentally is far less invasive of others
than yours appears to be. I don't want to engage in fraud, refuse to
abide by my commitments, blame others when things don't go my way, or
make others pay for what I want. This is hardly narrow, judgmental,
unkind, or mean. It's called being an adult.

With certain capacities and abilities that others may not have.

I understand that there are situations where agreements entered into
with good faith intentions cannot be met.

But seem NOT to understand how often good faith isn't a part of these
transactions.

But that's what bankruptcy
and asset recovery are for. It's hardly ethical to just wipe the slate
clean in favor of the borrower as if they are the injured party and
the lender is some monstrous beast.

Your labels, not mine.

BTW, I'd just love to see what these maxed out credit card accounts
were used for. Anecdotal evidence is always suspect, but among the
folks I've observed abusing their credit it's simply not for a heart
valve replacement for Junior. It's for flat screen TVs, expensive
vacations, and luxury goods. It's hard for me to work up a lot of
sympathy for people that need to get their consumer fix to buy the
latest trinket who then go on to howl about the unfair and evil
lending practices of their banks.

What's the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in America?

In a transaction such as lending (former mortgage bank employee,
here ... way back when), you have two parties -- the borrower and the
lender.

While you can judge (I specifically chose that word. *It fits you
beautifully) that the borrower SHOULD "know better" or have a certain
level of basic financial sophistication ... the lender ABSOLUTELY DOES
know better AND have a much higher level of financial acumen.

So what? *There's a gun to the head of the borrower? *They have no
other choice?

Luckily, our system of laws looks at situations like these QUITE
differently than you do.

Most of the de-regulation of the lending industry was as a result of
huge, expensive, compelling lobbying efforts on behalf of the LENDERS,
who -- as a group -- felt like they were being short-changed by not
being able to make higher profit, higher risk loans to people to whom
they should never have MADE said loans.

Again, so what? *Absent government intervention that distorts the
market, these lenders would be being punished at this very moment
for their stupidity.

Free markets: It's like letting your children raise themselves.

And ... again ... while you may say that the borrowers SHOULD have
been somewhat sophisticated ... it's a certainty that the lenders
WERE.

I'm not all that sophisticated, but I do know one thing: I cannot
consistently spend more than I earn. *This is not complicated, it
is not sophisticated, it is not arcane, it is 6th grade math.

And marginally relevant -- if it's relevant at all.

They were simply greedy sons of bitches, is all.

That is correct. *They were, and I harbor no sympathy for
most of them. *If you have to borrow to keep a family member
alive, that's one thing. *But if you're borrowing so you can
have the latest Nintendo or a Rolex, you're an idiot
and deserve to be treated like one.

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Fits your preconceived
notions of the world, I'll grant you, but ... please provide the data,
and ... ALL the data. I don't deny that some luxury purchases may
exist on the credit accounts of some who defaulted, but ... let's
review ALL the charges, shall we?

And now we're all paying for their avarice.

Remove those regulations (as was done, by both parties), and ... more
Social Darwinism.

OK, so one party was more informed than the other. I stipulate you are
entirely right. I still struggle to understand how this makes it OK
for the borrower to so so irresponsibly. *It isn't like they *couldn't*
have known better. *They just didn't bother to. Unlike the right wingers,

I don't see where I call it okay. What I see is Darwin in action. If
you don't stop the wolves from eating the rabbits, then they'll eat
the rabbits. It would be nice if parents, schools, families,
churches, and our society TAUGHT the rabbits to stay away from the
mouths of wolves, but ... not only don't they, but ... they teach the
rabbits how COOL it is to stare at the incisors of the wolf.

I
am NOT justifying absolutely anything the banks did. Where they
behaved badly, they ought to be held accountable. The problem here is
that *no one* is going to be held accountable. This administration has
already moved the downside from the banker to the taxpayer. Now it
proposes to pass laws like "credit card relief" that further relieves
bad behavior from individuals.

As opposed to the last administration, for example? It seems that
EVERY statement you make, and every statement you FAIL to make ...
points to ideology over objectvity. Again ... with all respect ...
you seem very bright, but you start with a premise, and then select
your points.

Understand that I'm not choosing sides here. Both borrower and lender
behaved like chimps. But that doesn't mean that they should be
insulated from the consequences of their actions. If anything, they
should face the music. This, sir, is not a defense of "Social
Darwinism". It is merely the expectation that people should be held to
their promises.

Half this country won't educate people. Half this country blames
poverty on addiction, stupidity, and sloth. Half this country won't
allow birth control to be taught in the schools. Half this country
won't allow abortions for unplanned pregnancies. Half this country
benefits from taking away all the jobs that the OTHER half USED to do,
and moving them overseas. Half this country wants to criminalize
frowning and extend prison terms. Half this country wants more than
300,000,000 guns in this country, etc., etc., etc.,

Half this country would MUCH rather abandon the other half to the
wolves. MUCH (not all) of what you say is a patent endorsement for
this philosophy.

In other nations, HALF this country would revolt -- armed, if
necessary.

On Jan 2, 5:00*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 1/2/2010 2:18 PM, Robatoy wrote: On Jan 2, 2:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

SNIP

We all know why you hate "The Bankers" ... why don't you just come out
and say so (again)...

I hate them because they are bloodsucking leeches. Lending money to
those who spend it on stupid stuff.

And just who gets to decide what is "stupid stuff"? *Me? *You? *We
all vote? *A central idea of being free is that you are free to be
an idiot - witness pop culture and almost all of TV *for trenchant
examples.


Those would be trenchant examples of stuff that _you_ don't like. So
all is cool.....if Tim likes it, wot?
That pop culture, based on idiots creating it, was rampant centuries
ago. The same stuff you listen to now, and find intellectually
stimulating, was pop culture in its day. The chamber maids used to
sell the contents of Franz Liszt's chamber pot to the screeching
groupies, many of which would get all wet when Nikkie "The Pag"
Paganini did his Ygwe Malmsteen, imitations. Everybody knows that
Rossini wrote The Barber of Seville for Mel Blanc. Bernstein used to
dream of blowing bears.
You got a real problem with that over-sized wagging finger of yours
Tim and coupled with that OCD you suffer from you must not have very
many happy moments in your life. So I understand that you're anxious
to want to participate in this group, but you want it on your terms
only. Ain't gonna ****ing happen, Tim. Not as long as you keep
dragging those straw men in here and not as long as you keep opening
these big barrels of red herrings.
Also, those paranoid delusions that the whole world is out to steal
from you require a different set of medications than the OCD. Take a
pill, take a powder...lighten-the-**** up, Tim.

On Jan 3, 10:02*am, Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 2, 5:00*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

On 1/2/2010 2:18 PM, Robatoy wrote: On Jan 2, 2:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

SNIP

We all know why you hate "The Bankers" ... why don't you just come out
and say so (again)...

I hate them because they are bloodsucking leeches. Lending money to
those who spend it on stupid stuff.

And just who gets to decide what is "stupid stuff"? *Me? *You? *We
all vote? *A central idea of being free is that you are free to be
an idiot - witness pop culture and almost all of TV *for trenchant
examples.

Those would be trenchant examples of stuff that _you_ don't like. So
all is cool.....if Tim likes it, wot?
That pop culture, based on idiots creating it, was rampant centuries
ago. The same stuff you listen to now, and find intellectually
stimulating, was pop culture in its day. The chamber maids used to
sell the contents of Franz Liszt's chamber pot to the screeching
groupies, many of which would get all wet when Nikkie "The Pag"
Paganini did his Ygwe Malmsteen, imitations. Everybody knows that
Rossini wrote The Barber of Seville for Mel Blanc. Bernstein used to
dream of blowing bears.
You got a real problem with that over-sized wagging finger of yours
Tim and coupled with that OCD you suffer from you must not have very
many happy moments in your life. So I understand that you're anxious
to want to participate in this group, but you want it on your terms
only. Ain't gonna ****ing happen, Tim. Not as long as you keep
dragging those straw men in here and not as long as you keep opening
these big barrels of red herrings.
Also, those paranoid delusions that the whole world is out to steal
from you require a different set of medications than the OCD. Take a
pill, take a powder...lighten-the-**** up, Tim.

Poetry.

On Jan 3, 1:30*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


Well, here we go again. *You make a foolish comment, have it pointed out,
and then go back to your six word dictionary. *I repeat, who decides
what is "stupid" and gets to tell the eeeeeeeeeevil bankers what they may-
or may not fund?


It is only a foolish comment because it doesn't fit your idea of that
dream world you live in, Tim.
As far as my dictionary is concerned, it works just fine. You do know
what **** off means, don't you Tim? See? My dictionary works just
fine. My selection of words was to annoy you... like your selection of
eeeeeeevil is meant to annoy me. You use words to annoy, *I* use words
in conversation with you to annoy. Now go away and take your meds.