On 6/3/2012 5:46 PM, Bill wrote:

IMO, the two parties are so far apart that I will probably have a
difficult time deciding who to vote for.

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and free
enterprise, the Republican party.

I know many Republicans, like Bush and McCain are seemingly so damned
liberal they look much like the Marxists Dems, but the party in general
still has plenty of those that support the individual rather than the
collective, and it is getting better by the day.

If you can't see who to vote for, you are not looking, regardless if a
communist or patriot, the choice is clear as a bell.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:36 -0400, Jack wrote:

I know many Republicans, like Bush and McCain are seemingly so damned
liberal they look much like the Marxists Dems, but the party in general
still has plenty of those that support the individual rather than the
collective, and it is getting better by the day.

Is there something about woodworking that generates this kind of
thinking? Perhaps the sawdust drifts in through the ears and displaces
brain tissue?

There are reasonable conservatives in this group. Myself, I tend to be
liberal on some issues and conservative on others. I haven't seen any
avowed socialists or communists, although there may be a few. But we
sure seem to attract a plethora of the far right wing.

Most would do well to remember one thing. If you think you've got a
simple solution to a complicated problem, the odds are overwhelming that
you're wrong :-).

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

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:56:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Most would do well to remember one thing. If you think you've got a
simple solution to a complicated problem, the odds are overwhelming that
you're wrong :-).

The fact is there are simple solutions to our complicated problems.
The issue is those solutions require actions that are unpopular with a
portion of the voting public. If getting re-elected was not a
concern, politicians could make these simple solutions without fear of
losing the next election. Problem solved.

Here's another simple solution; if an elected official does not do
what he says he will do while campaigning he/she should be fined
and/or imprisoned for fraud. Problem solved.

Another simple solution; anyone receiving government assistance such
as, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance or any other hand out
that they haven't contributed to would be ineligible to vote due to a
conflict of interest. Problem solved.

I'm sure there are many other simple solutions, but that would be a
good start.

Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:56:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Most would do well to remember one thing. If you think you've got a
simple solution to a complicated problem, the odds are overwhelming that
you're wrong :-).

The fact is there are simple solutions to our complicated problems.
The issue is those solutions require actions that are unpopular with a
portion of the voting public. If getting re-elected was not a
concern, politicians could make these simple solutions without fear of
losing the next election. Problem solved.

Here's another simple solution; if an elected official does not do
what he says he will do while campaigning he/she should be fined
and/or imprisoned for fraud. Problem solved.

I agree with you in spirit, however, politicians make "promises" (or
"describe their ideals") in the absense of complete information--and the
voters are basically aware of this, so I don't think you don't have a
basis for "fraud".




Another simple solution; anyone receiving government assistance such
as, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance or any other hand out
that they haven't contributed to would be ineligible to vote due to a
conflict of interest. Problem solved.

It worked something like that before the Civil War, no? And woman
didn't get the right to vote or run for office until the early 20th
century. Do you wish to undo these transitions?

What surprises me, a bit, is that we allow "anyone" to have as many
children (or turn out as many voters) as they wish to--even if they
cannot provide for them. Certain organizations use to preach
procreation, having a political agenda in mind.



I'm sure there are many other simple solutions, but that would be a
good start.

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:39:02 -0400, Bill wrote:

Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:56:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Most would do well to remember one thing. If you think you've got a
simple solution to a complicated problem, the odds are overwhelming that
you're wrong :-).

The fact is there are simple solutions to our complicated problems.
The issue is those solutions require actions that are unpopular with a
portion of the voting public. If getting re-elected was not a
concern, politicians could make these simple solutions without fear of
losing the next election. Problem solved.

Here's another simple solution; if an elected official does not do
what he says he will do while campaigning he/she should be fined
and/or imprisoned for fraud. Problem solved.

I agree with you in spirit, however, politicians make "promises" (or
"describe their ideals") in the absense of complete information--and the
voters are basically aware of this, so I don't think you don't have a
basis for "fraud".

You're standing up for the complete **** pols hand us? Why?


Another simple solution; anyone receiving government assistance such
as, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance or any other hand out
that they haven't contributed to would be ineligible to vote due to a
conflict of interest. Problem solved.

It worked something like that before the Civil War, no? And woman
didn't get the right to vote or run for office until the early 20th
century. Do you wish to undo these transitions?

Did he -say- anything about women or slaves not voting? No.


What surprises me, a bit, is that we allow "anyone" to have as many
children (or turn out as many voters) as they wish to--even if they
cannot provide for them. Certain organizations use to preach
procreation, having a political agenda in mind.

When I'm king, parties seeking welfare would undergo voluntary
sterilization (both parties.) My step-niece, once removed, is a
welfare queen and I can't stand to talk to her. Seven kids, 6 fathers,
one of which raped their 4 year old daughter and was doing something
to the 5 y/o boy.



I'm sure there are many other simple solutions, but that would be a
good start.

I'm with Gordon.

--
Silence is more musical than any song.
-- Christina Rossetti

On 6/8/2012 7:08 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

-- Silence is more musical than any song. -- Christina Rossetti


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdD52DAaFRs

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:39:02 -0400, wrote:

Gordon Shumway wrote:

Here's another simple solution; if an elected official does not do
what he says he will do while campaigning he/she should be fined
and/or imprisoned for fraud. Problem solved.

I agree with you in spirit, however, politicians make "promises" (or
"describe their ideals") in the absense of complete information--and the
voters are basically aware of this, so I don't think you don't have a
basis for "fraud".

You're standing up for the complete **** pols hand us? Why?

I am most certainly Not. I just pointed out where Shumway's simple
solution breaks down. That only means that the work on the simple
solution is not finished. Better to realize that now, than to find out
in the courts. I am all for "better politics".

People sometimes describe me as having some sort of aversion to
politics. I frequently just say what I think. I am also not saying
that's the best way to be. The world doesn't like the truth so much.

Bill

Jack wrote:
On 6/3/2012 5:46 PM, Bill wrote:

IMO, the two parties are so far apart that I will probably have a
difficult time deciding who to vote for.

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and free
enterprise, the Republican party.

I know many Republicans, like Bush and McCain are seemingly so damned
liberal they look much like the Marxists Dems, but the party in general
still has plenty of those that support the individual rather than the
collective, and it is getting better by the day.

If you can't see who to vote for, you are not looking, regardless if a
communist or patriot, the choice is clear as a bell.


Both parties appear to me to be "SELFISH"!

I'd be more inclined toward what you characterize as "the constitution,
the individual and free enterprise" if it were not for corruption--e.g.
dishonesty/deception in food labeling ("pink slime" is just the tip of
an iceberg).

When I listen to John Boener (R), speaker of the house, he reminds me of
what I don't care for in the republican party. Last summer's "stalemate"
was the worst. Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I
have voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.

Jack wrote:

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
free
enterprise, the Republican party.
----------------------------------------
It's really rather straight forward.

If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
friends.

If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
your friends.

If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
friends.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Jack wrote:

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
free
enterprise, the Republican party.
----------------------------------------
It's really rather straight forward.

If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
friends.

If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
your friends.

If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
friends.

It is "clever" that the republican party made this (abortion) a
political issue, securing votes that "shouldn't belong to them"--by
making people choose between their pocketbooks and their religion.
That seems wrong to me. 'Course, you may be able to tell from my
calculations that I'm something of an idealist. And no, I am not
claiming that being an idealist is ideal. Economics suggests we follow
our strengths.


Lew

On 6/8/2012 12:34 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Jack wrote:

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
free
enterprise, the Republican party.
----------------------------------------
It's really rather straight forward.

If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
friends.

If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
your friends.

If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
friends.

Wow, talk about drinking the kool-aid, you are swimming in it!

--
Jack
If Ignorance is Bliss, You must be One Happy Liberal!
http://jbstein.com

On 6/8/2012 7:27 AM, Jack wrote:
On 6/8/2012 12:34 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Jack wrote:

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
free
enterprise, the Republican party.
----------------------------------------
It's really rather straight forward.

If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
friends.

If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
your friends.

If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
friends.

Wow, talk about drinking the kool-aid, you are swimming in it!


The California brainwashing experiment is going well. ;~)

On 06/07/2012 09:34 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Jack wrote:

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
free
enterprise, the Republican party.
----------------------------------------
It's really rather straight forward.

If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
friends.

If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
your friends.

If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
friends.

If you are an unborn woman, Dems are definitely not your friend:

http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/delivering-the-male



--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 6/7/2012 11:34 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Jack wrote:

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
free
enterprise, the Republican party.
----------------------------------------
It's really rather straight forward.

If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
friends.

If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
your friends.

If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
friends.

Lew




NOBODY in government is your friend!

On 6/8/2012 9:44 AM, Leon wrote:


NOBODY in government is your friend!

That would depend on your definition of "is".. I mean, "friend"!

At this point, anyone that is for less government control is my "friend".

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

"Jack" wrote:

At this point, anyone that is for less government control is my
"friend".
-----------------------
You accept gov't services, you just don't want to pay for them.

Lew

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:34:55 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Jack wrote:

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
free
enterprise, the Republican party.
----------------------------------------
It's really rather straight forward.

If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
friends.

If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
your friends.

If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
friends.

Lew


You are a perfect example of why birth control should be retroactive!

On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:
Jack wrote:

If you can't see who to vote for, you are not looking, regardless if a
communist or patriot, the choice is clear as a bell.

Both parties appear to me to be "SELFISH"!

If you mean take money from those that do and give it to those that
don't, even if they enslave entire groups of people doing it, yeah,
perhaps.

I'd be more inclined toward what you characterize as "the constitution,
the individual and free enterprise" if it were not for corruption--e.g.
dishonesty/deception in food labeling ("pink slime" is just the tip of
an iceberg).

Yeah, we need more laws against "pink slime" salt, sugar, meat, smoking,
table saws... ooops, not table saws...

When I listen to John Boener (R), speaker of the house, he reminds me of
what I don't care for in the republican party. Last summer's "stalemate"
was the worst.

Yeah, I have the same problem. The republicans were elected to stop
spending more than they have, instead, they went along with the
socialist party and raised the debt limit to hurry along the death of
the US.

Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.

So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
control is the simple answer to everything?
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

Jack wrote:
On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:

Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.

So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
control is the simple answer to everything?

No. But I would have a difficult time seeing people go hungry. John
Boener comes across to me as pretty cool (cold). I might be inclined to
vote for the party that didn't seem like they had to have everything
their way (remember I used the term "selfish" to describe the language I
have heard from both parties).

On related ground, are you proud of the skyrocketing costs of medical
care? Medicare might be a lifesaver.

On 06/08/2012 03:00 PM, Bill wrote:
Jack wrote:
On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:

Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.

So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
control is the simple answer to everything?

No. But I would have a difficult time seeing people go hungry. John
Boener comes across to me as pretty cool (cold). I might be inclined to
vote for the party that didn't seem like they had to have everything
their way (remember I used the term "selfish" to describe the language I
have heard from both parties).

On related ground, are you proud of the skyrocketing costs of medical
care? Medicare might be a lifesaver.

Except the O defunded it by a half trillion bucks for his affordable
health care thing.

In fact, he defunded SS and medicare by 50% for the last year with his
big break on payroll taxes on the individual - not the employers.

And now, I have several of my health care providers telling me they may
not be able to keep myself and my wife as patients as the cuts to
medicare won't allow them to stay in business as the cuts put them below
the break even line.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 06/08/2012 03:00 PM, Bill wrote:
Jack wrote:
On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:

Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.

So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
control is the simple answer to everything?

No. But I would have a difficult time seeing people go hungry. John
Boener comes across to me as pretty cool (cold). I might be inclined to
vote for the party that didn't seem like they had to have everything
their way (remember I used the term "selfish" to describe the language I
have heard from both parties).

On related ground, are you proud of the skyrocketing costs of medical
care? Medicare might be a lifesaver.

Except the O defunded it by a half trillion bucks for his affordable
health care thing.

In fact, he defunded SS and medicare by 50% for the last year with his
big break on payroll taxes on the individual - not the employers.

And now, I have several of my health care providers telling me they may
not be able to keep myself and my wife as patients as the cuts to
medicare won't allow them to stay in business as the cuts put them below
the break even line.

Let me know when he goes out of business. Seriously. Something may
just need to be adjusted to move the break even line (I would suggest
that alot of things could probably be adjusted with health care). Health
care costs are part of the problem--somewhat explainable by inelastic
demand, meaning if you are hurting enough you'll receive services and
ask questions later...a recipe for a high bill. Hey and that's pretty
much the way hospital billing works, isn't it?