On 8/17/2012 7:08 PM, Jack wrote:
On 8/17/2012 5:08 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

Apparently, you can't quote the
statute that you claim makes illegal entry a misdemeanor or felony.

I'm too busy being amused by how goofy it is consider illegal entry
not illegal (a crime).


If it's a crime, there's a statute out there making it a crime. Just
because it's illegal doesn't make it criminal. What statute is it that
makes illegal entry a crime?

On 8/17/2012 9:10 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Make sure that all contributions go into a kitty. Each kitty is for a
certain office. Each kitty is divided up equally between all
qualifying office seekers. It all must be spent for the particular
election or returned to the kitty for the next election. NOBODY gets
specific contributions, NOBODY gets more than any other 'contestant',
and NOBODY takes home millions just for trying. It removes the money
from the political game. Now _try_ to get that one through CONgress.

It wouldn't work even if it was a good idea, which I don't think it is.
The same First Amendment that gives you a constitutional right to post
to newsgroups gives others the right to political speech. People have
the constitutional right to support their favored candidates. To
abridge that right would require a constitutional amendment (which ain't
gonna happen), not a mere statute.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:01:53 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
This is absurd. Unless someone FORCES you to work for them, how
on earth are they "taking advantage" of you? You are the seller
(of labor), the employer is the buyer.

As usual, you're here just to raise **** Daneliuk. A family to
support, bills to pay, rent to pay, whatever, you are essentially
forced to work if you have any morals or responsibility at all.

Got a family Daneliuk? Work to support yourself or them? You don't
have to be forced to do anything, you just have to be responsible.
Obviously, you're not.

Look at the job market you twit. Jobs are not there to switch from
week to week if you don't like the one you're in.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:10:06 -0400, "
As usual, your sweeping statements and incredible lack of humanity is
overwhelming.

As usual, content of your posts matches your IQ; zero.

Oh ouch, that hurts. I'd rather be me with a zero IQ than be the
sanctimonious asshole you are every day of the week.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:11:14 -0400, "
You're a leftist kook, but I've always known that.

+1

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:19:48 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
That's the kind of thinking that I have a problem with Dave. The statement
that the average worker does not need something is a presumptuous statement.
That presumes a level of living upon people. Can't agree with that.

I was addressing the comparison of getting to work against the need
for a SawStop.

Are you telling me that everybody needs a SawStop? Hell, most of the
general population probably doesn't even know what one is.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:09:17 -0400, Jack wrote:
Let me put it so [hopefully] even a dimwit can understand. If I make
minimum wage $10/hr or $100/hr, Saw Stop will raise the price of their
saw relative to the raise in wages, as everyone wages will rise.
(adding zeros to everyone's freaking money does nothing)

Why should I be surprised? As usual, it all comes down to the bee up
your ass about the SawStop. Grow up and learn to live with it jackASS.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:56:04 -0400, Jack wrote:
I do know bottled water costs more than gas in spite of government
stupidity, so the gas companies are doing better than should be
expected. I also know the commies are really ****ed off that US oil is
making money, regardless of what our screwed up socialist government
throws at them.

No jackass. You know ****.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 21:08:58 -0400, Jack wrote:
Quick look on the net found PERRIER for just $19/gal. I suggest you buy
all you can for under $2 a gallon and get yourself good and filthy rich.

Naturally, you being the twit you are, you ignore his example of plain
old drinking water and introduce exotic specialty water into the mix.
You really do like being a fool don't you?

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:28:59 -0400, "
OK, so you believe that one group of people should be able to make political
contributions but another should not. How positively discriminating of you.

It's not des crimination you twit, it's called conflict of interest
and there should be laws against it in certain cases. Only someone
like you would want to make it easier for those with money to buy
influence.

Sure, it happens, but people like you would open the floodgates to
that kind of manipulation. Sad fact is, little people like you and me
would get eaten alive.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:14:29 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Han wrote:

I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
as dog catchers.

No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)

Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
possible.

I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.

Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.

However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
employee.
It's none of anyone else's damned business.

Amen brother!


The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
pay for coverage.

What your saying is true for a single insurance company, they don't
negotiate much. I once changed auto insurance companies five times in
2 months, ended back at the beginning company at significantly lower
rates.

It was a pain in the ass and I had a good deal of money tied up in
premiums until refunds were issued for canceled policies, but I
got what I wanted in the end.

All free market based, you have to be willing to walk with your
money if one party won't negotiate.

basilisk

On 8/18/2012 12:34 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/17/2012 7:08 PM, Jack wrote:
On 8/17/2012 5:08 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

Apparently, you can't quote the
statute that you claim makes illegal entry a misdemeanor or felony.

I'm too busy being amused by how goofy it is consider illegal entry
not illegal (a crime).

If it's a crime, there's a statute out there making it a crime.

If it is illegal, it is a crime, by definition.

Just because it's illegal doesn't make it criminal.



What statute is it that
makes illegal entry a crime?

What dictionary are you using that says an illegal act is not a crime?
I quoted (2x) exactly what dictionary.com defines as "crime" as well as
"misdemeanor" and you say I make up definitions. So, your turn, what
dictionary are you using, or are you making up your own?

--
Jack
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
http://jbstein.com

On 8/17/2012 3:15 PM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in :

I think a minimu wage is a good idea to set a floor for wages.

The "floor" is meaningless. Water seeks it's own level, government
and it's subjects thinking they can somehow control it to work better
than the free market just doesn't work, and in fact, does exactly the
opposite.

Perhaps that should be $7.50 in Alabama
(just an example - I have almost nothing against Alabama), perhaps
$10 or more in NY & NJ and thereabouts (currently $7.25 in NJ). And
no, the oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give
them more, au contraire.

I think teachers in NY should make 5 cents over minimum wage, and in
Alabama 10 cents. OK wit you?

No

Whatsamatter, you don't like someone else arbitrarily deciding pay
rates and what's a "fair" wage? There is a reason the free market
works better than government control. It's the same reason the USA at
one time was the greatest country on earth and people fought to get in,
instead of out as in government controlled (socialist) environments.

--
Jack
Got Change: Supply and Demand ====== Command and Control!
http://jbstein.com

On 8/18/2012 5:24 AM, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:09:17 -0400, Jack wrote:
Let me put it so [hopefully] even a dimwit can understand. If I make
minimum wage $10/hr or $100/hr, Saw Stop will raise the price of their
saw relative to the raise in wages, as everyone wages will rise.
(adding zeros to everyone's freaking money does nothing)

Why should I be surprised?

You should be surprised because you are an idiot!

As usual, it all comes down to the bee up
your ass about the SawStop. Grow up and learn to live with it jackASS.

I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking group,
and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop is. Some
don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw buyers to only
buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let government mandate
wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well let them mandate a the
price of the saw.

--
Jack
I'm not as dumb as you look.
http://jbstein.com

Jack wrote in :

I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking group,
and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop is. Some
don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw buyers to
only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let government
mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well let them
mandate a the price of the saw.

Yes a cow is a mammal, we get our milk from cows. Cats are mammals too,
why not get our milk from them? That's the above reasoning (IMO) ...

Actually the sawstop may be a good example of the multiple things that
are "wrong". Gass had good ideas, but when he tried to sell them,
nobody would buy. He is a good patent lawyer, so he definitely could
cover his invention to lock it up. Then he went 2-prong - he made his
own excellent (expensive) saw and he went lobbying for regulations that
would force people to buy his saw. (Something about petitioning
government for redress of grievances, perhaps - I'm not a constitutional
lawyer).

So what is wrong here? Please add your opinions. Mine a
- The saw makers were stupid. Now they are on the hook.
- Gass is a monopolist. He is a very capable lawyer and wants his
"due", to the max. - Gass deserves compensation for his inventions.
- If people are too stupid to follow simple directions about safety, let
Darwin rule. - People should be protected from having to work under
dangerous conditions.

If I have to, or want to buy a new saw, the sawstop is something I'd
give thought to. I can probably afford it. If a guy/company goes for
the easiest profit he'd ignore worker safety unless forced to obey

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:41:36 -0400, Jack
wrote:
How the hell can a minimum wage worker afford
to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he deserves full
protection, so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more than a Ryobi?

As usual, you take things to the extreme with flights into the
ridiculous. The average work needs the ability to get to his job. He
does NOT need a SawStop.

Sorry, that's one of the tests of Quality Control Thinking: take an
idea to its logical extreme and see if the idea is still meaningful.

FAIL! Both ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and skyrocketing
in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will take the people,
all of us, to bring about REAL change in our country.


How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful status
quo vehicle.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 18 Aug 2012 15:47:37 GMT, Han wrote:

Jack wrote in :

I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking group,
and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop is. Some
don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw buyers to
only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let government
mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well let them
mandate a the price of the saw.

Yes a cow is a mammal, we get our milk from cows. Cats are mammals too,
why not get our milk from them? That's the above reasoning (IMO) ...

Actually the sawstop may be a good example of the multiple things that
are "wrong". Gass had good ideas, but when he tried to sell them,
nobody would buy. He is a good patent lawyer, so he definitely could
cover his invention to lock it up. Then he went 2-prong - he made his
own excellent (expensive) saw and he went lobbying for regulations that
would force people to buy his saw. (Something about petitioning
government for redress of grievances, perhaps - I'm not a constitutional
lawyer).

So what is wrong here? Please add your opinions. Mine a
- The saw makers were stupid. Now they are on the hook.

According to lawyers, they could have been on the hook by accepting
the safety device, too. Moot point.

- Gass is a monopolist. He is a very capable lawyer and wants his
"due", to the max. - Gass deserves compensation for his inventions.

Yes, damned greedy monopolist. He deserves compensation and could
have made millions without all the patents and nefarious doings.


- If people are too stupid to follow simple directions about safety, let
Darwin rule. - People should be protected from having to work under
dangerous conditions.

Aren't these two contradictory? Anyway, tablesaws have safety devices
installed on them now, by gov't mandate. SawStop isn't necessary but
could be considered an additional safety device. It should be a
person's own choice, not the government's. I'm with Darwin.

As to the culpability of the initial case for SawStop, I'd have ruled
50% idiot's fault and 50% contractor's fault. ZERO fault of mfgr.
It's both a company's and a worker's responsibility to be safe on the
worksite, and neither was acting responsible in Osorio's case. Those
saws have looked/worked like that for 100 years and were not faulty as
the damned speaking weasels maintained. It sickens me.


If I have to, or want to buy a new saw, the sawstop is something I'd
give thought to. I can probably afford it. If a guy/company goes for
the easiest profit he'd ignore worker safety unless forced to obey

People with the money have the choice of expensive saws, where the
SawStop is comparable in price. It's too expensive for most of us po
unwashed folks who have to save up for a $100 saw, or save for years
for a Grizzly 1023. Splitters and guards rule!

--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will

On 8/18/2012 8:21 AM, Jack wrote:
On 8/18/2012 12:34 AM, Just Wondering wrote:

If it's a crime, there's a statute out there making it a crime.

If it is illegal, it is a crime, by definition.


Not so, There are a myriad things that are illegal that are not crimes.

On 8/18/2012 9:49 AM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and skyrocketing
in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will take the people,
all of us, to bring about REAL change in our country.

How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful status
quo vehicle.

Plus, your (or my) idea of what change should be made may be very
different from the change Larry wants. So, who decides whose vision of
change will be adopted?

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:22:15 -0400, Jack wrote:
don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw buyers to only
buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let government mandate
wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well let them mandate a the
price of the saw.

Every conversation you get into, you bring up the SawStop. What Gass
did, has done, or attempted is completely irrelevant because it's the
insurance industry that's pushing the SawStop into businesses.

Fact is, you're just too stupid to let it go. Your continuing wasted
outrage is old and stale. Get a life for Christ's sake.

Jack writes:
On 8/17/2012 11:46 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
And no, the
oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more, au
contraire.

I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes than they
make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one analysis with
supporting citation:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...xes_excee.html

It is the *government* that is subsidized by the oilcos not the other way
around....

Recently heard on TV that oil companies make about 6-8 cents on a gallon
of gas. Government makes 40 to 66 cents on the same gallon. In
Californica the gov makes 66 cents on a gallon.

5 minutes of research would show that california makes 35.3 cents on
a gallon (WA 37.5 cents, NC 35.2 cents, maine 30 cents, Minnesota 27 cents).
When you add local (e.g. sales) taxes, CA is 50 cents, Connecticut is 51 cents,
Hawaii 49 cents, Illinois 50.6 cents, usw).

http://www.californiagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx

Don't believe everything you hear on TV, especially on Fox News.

On 08/18/2012 10:49 AM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and skyrocketing
in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will take the people,
all of us, to bring about REAL change in our country.


How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful status
quo vehicle.


Which is routinely avoided and ignored by the people it is supposed to rein
in. You cannot have durable republic when the President himself has
contempt for the document and wants to pack the courts with people
that similarly don't care about limited Federal power.

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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/18/2012 07:28 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Selected SNIPs for brevity not rhetorical advantage

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:37:14 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

I used to be anti-min-wage but research showed me that it makes
little difference in the long run. Most decent businesses that I
know of, no matter how small, pay their employees that or better to
start anyway. They get better performance out of them as a result.
shrug

Ordinarily, you'd be right, it's kind of a non issue. The problem is
that we have a seriously wounded economy and the President is
busy executing policy that keeps it that way or makes it worse.
The only way the economy improves is with *Jobs*, and that means
entry level/low pay jobs are really important right now: For people
struggling who will work several lower pay jobs to make things go
and for the economy as a whole. In times like this, min wage
reduces the number of jobs that would otherwise be available.


I have to disagree Tim. When this country was great it was built upon much
more than the lowest paying jobs. The thing that has dragged this country
down is moving everything offshore in the name of profits, and leaving
nothing BUT the lowest paying jobs. So - now we are embarking upon a
journey of becoming a third world economy. Isn't that wonderful? And you
suggest that furthering this by creating low paying jobs just because people
will become desparate enough to take them - is a good thing? We
fundamentally disagree on that point.

--

-Mike-

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 15:12:23 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
nothing BUT the lowest paying jobs. So - now we are embarking upon a
journey of becoming a third world economy. Isn't that wonderful? And you
suggest that furthering this by creating low paying jobs just because people
will become desparate enough to take them - is a good thing? We
fundamentally disagree on that point.

Disagreeing with Daneliuk is like eating potato chips. One is just not
enough. Daneliuk is only here to advance discontent which doesn't and
never has had any relationship to woodworking.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 05:12:40 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:10:06 -0400, "
As usual, your sweeping statements and incredible lack of humanity is
overwhelming.

As usual, content of your posts matches your IQ; zero.

Oh ouch, that hurts. I'd rather be me with a zero IQ than be the
sanctimonious asshole you are every day of the week.

We're both happy, then. what a maroon

Jack wrote in :

On 8/17/2012 12:33 PM, Han wrote:

Full disclosu I own 130 shares of Exxon directly, probably more oil
company stock through mutual funds.

Well then, you must be filthy, steenkin rich, one of the 1 per centers,
owning a capitalist pig oil company and all...

I hope you feel damn guilty making all those windfall (8%) profits while
Micky Soft makes 30%, apple 40% and so on an so forth.

Thank you, thank you ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:25:27 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:
On 17 Aug 2012 16:48:39 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Bill wrote:

You'd have to convince me of the societal benefit of having an
economy run purely on the basis of supply and demand versus one that
provides a little for those that have a lot less than enough. Are you
willing to watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain
the purity of your religion (S & D)?


Of course. Hunger is a great motivator.

I saw this scenario on a blog, which I'll condense and paraphrase.

While working in my front-lawn flower-bed, my very liberal neighbors
passed by with their 9-year old girl. They stopped to admire the
flowers and I asked the girl "What do you want to be when you grow
up?"

"President" she replied.

"Oh," said I, "why?"

"Then I could make sure everybody had food and a home," was her
heartfelt answer.

"You don't have to become president to do that. Tell you what: I'll
give you fifty dollars each week to mow my grass and weed the flower
beds. Then you can take the fifty dollars down to the store and give
it to somebody that's hungry and homeless."

She thought for a moment, then said: "Why doesn't the homeless person
work for the fifty dollars himself?"

"Congratulations," I said. "You've just become a conservative."

Her parents became as close to spontaneous human combustion as I've
personally ever witnessed.

Nice story, and perfectly suited to an able-bodied person of sound mind.
There are others, though. Some homeless are sick, one way or another,
some paid exorbitant rents in house that suddenly blew up. And don't
misunderstand me, I don't think that abovementioned able-bodied person
should be cuddled.

Surely you're not saying that *everyone* taking public assistance is insane?
...or that *none* are able-bodied? Surely not.


I hope you don't find your hyperbole a compelling argument not to
provide any public assistance?

No, I don't want to eliminate it at all. I want to *LIMIT* it severely,
though. Say, 10% of what it is now? From 47% of the people on assistance, of
some sort, to say, 5% or even 1%?

Jack wrote in :

On 8/17/2012 12:44 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:
On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
And no, the
oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them
more, au contraire.

I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes
than they make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one
analysis with supporting citation:

You should actually _read_ your citations to make sure they support
your assertions before posting.


http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b..._taxes_excee.h
tml

The citation here points out that taxes paid by consumers (e.g. taxes
paid at the pump or when refilling a farm tank),

Hey, a dimwit at large.

when added to the minimal taxes paid by the oil companies,

Also paid by the consumer unless the oil company also has a printing
press in the basement printing out the cash for taxes.

exceeds oil company profits. That's adding
apples and oranges and comparing them to bananas.

In the words of KRW, Idiot.

It surely doesn't support your assertions. Fact is that the oil
companies make profits, very large ones.

8% profit is not so large, particularly when the governments make far
more than that on oil company earnings, and plenty of companies make
FAR greater profits, like MS, Apple and a ton of others (Not
government motors though)

Please refer to the relevent 10K and 10Q reports for the
actual facts, not some silly blog.

Ask Han what his return on investment is on his $11,000 worth of EOM
stock, not counting his pension fund?

XOM is at just about 52-week high. This is a link to the kind of data
you wanted:
http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/js...fo/Ratios.jsp?
tkr=xom
Currently Quicken tells me cost basis is ~8200, market value indeed
around 11,500. I am currently taking dividends in cash.

Being liberal does not mean I live in lala land. My Dad taught me the
rules of prudent investing, though he flaunted the rules to his detriment
later in life.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 08/18/2012 02:30 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 05:12:40 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:10:06 -0400, "
As usual, your sweeping statements and incredible lack of humanity is
overwhelming.

As usual, content of your posts matches your IQ; zero.

Oh ouch, that hurts. I'd rather be me with a zero IQ than be the
sanctimonious asshole you are every day of the week.

We're both happy, then. what a maroon


PDFTT

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

On 18 Aug 2012 15:47:37 GMT, Han wrote:

Jack wrote in :

I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking group,
and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop is. Some
don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw buyers to
only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let government
mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well let them
mandate a the price of the saw.

Yes a cow is a mammal, we get our milk from cows. Cats are mammals too,
why not get our milk from them? That's the above reasoning (IMO) ...

Actually the sawstop may be a good example of the multiple things that
are "wrong". Gass had good ideas, but when he tried to sell them,
nobody would buy. He is a good patent lawyer, so he definitely could
cover his invention to lock it up. Then he went 2-prong - he made his
own excellent (expensive) saw and he went lobbying for regulations that
would force people to buy his saw. (Something about petitioning
government for redress of grievances, perhaps - I'm not a constitutional
lawyer).

So what is wrong here? Please add your opinions. Mine a
- The saw makers were stupid.

No, they weren't.

Now they are on the hook.

Not yet.

- Gass is a monopolist. He is a very capable lawyer and wants his
"due", to the max. - Gass deserves compensation for his inventions.

He *only* deserves compensation to the extent that people are willing to give
him is pound of flesh. If *they* decide that his invention is not worth the
money, *they* should be free to pass on it.

- If people are too stupid to follow simple directions about safety, let
Darwin rule. - People should be protected from having to work under
dangerous conditions.

The government can't protect idiots. With your extension of the nanny state,
I guess we'd better outlaw hydrogen hydroxide, too.

If I have to, or want to buy a new saw, the sawstop is something I'd
give thought to. I can probably afford it.

Good for you. I can, too, but chose not to. You'd rather take that choice
away from me. How tyrannical of you.

If a guy/company goes for
the easiest profit he'd ignore worker safety unless forced to obey

The worker can chose to work for the guy with the SawStop, too.

Han wrote:


Being liberal does not mean I live in lala land.

I knew it Han! - You aren't really liberal!

--

-Mike-

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 13:08:19 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:22:15 -0400, Jack wrote:
don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw buyers to only
buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let government mandate
wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well let them mandate a the
price of the saw.

Every conversation you get into, you bring up the SawStop. What Gass
did, has done, or attempted is completely irrelevant because it's the
insurance industry that's pushing the SawStop into businesses.

The issue is the CSPC. They are also considering making the SS mechanism
mandatory.

Fact is, you're just too stupid to let it go. Your continuing wasted
outrage is old and stale. Get a life for Christ's sake.

This is a WW group and the SS is closer to the topic, however the issue is
universal across society, today.

On 18 Aug 2012 15:49:37 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and skyrocketing
in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will take the people,
all of us, to bring about REAL change in our country.


How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful status
quo vehicle.

But Han, you're one who doesn't care a fig about the Constitution,
particularly as a "status quo vehicle".

Jack wrote in :

On 8/17/2012 5:16 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/17/2012 1:56 PM, Jack wrote:

I do know bottled water costs more than gas . . .


I can buy bottled water for under $2/gallon. Tell me where I can buy
gasoline at under $2/gallon.

Quick look on the net found PERRIER for just $19/gal. I suggest you buy
all you can for under $2 a gallon and get yourself good and filthy rich.

Aquafina @ Amazon 32 bottles of 16.9 fl oz for $5.92. That is $3.70/gal,
like gasoline. Better look for specails ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Jack wrote in :

Whatsamatter, you don't like someone else arbitrarily deciding pay
rates and what's a "fair" wage? There is a reason the free market
works better than government control. It's the same reason the USA at
one time was the greatest country on earth and people fought to get in,
instead of out as in government controlled (socialist) environments.

In this communist-controlled country there is no free market.
In this capitalist-monopolized country they make believe there is a free
market.
Take your pick.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 8/17/2012 12:49 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:
On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the
SCOTUS decision that corporations are people (which I disagree
with, as previously noted, but it is now the law of the land).
But it isn't right that people can freely associate in claok and
dagger groups that don't reveal their identity.
So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I hate
to tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic dictatorship
is remove said privacy and thereby force people to either lie or
openly state their opposition to the regime so they can either be
"reeducated"
or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think so,
imagine being forced to vote where everyone could see your choices
... say like the pigs in the various unions want...
Absolutely agreed. Too bad that the Bush administration put into
place so many illegal surveillance programs on americans. Not that
the current administration has eliminated them - which is one of the
few things they've done wrong.
Here, here! As republican as I can be at times, that whoe Patriot
Act thing was a legal abomination. Sadly, too many feel good people
in this country fell prey to the impact of 911 and forgot to get up
in arms about that thing.

Probably because it had no noticeable impact on most people.

Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 8/17/2012 2:08 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/17/2012 12:49 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:
On 08/17/2012 11:42 AM, Han wrote:
I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the
SCOTUS decision that corporations are people (which I disagree
with, as previously noted, but it is now the law of the land).
But it isn't right that people can freely associate in claok and
dagger groups that don't reveal their identity.
So now you don't think we have a natural right to privacy? I
hate to tell you this, but the cornerstone of any despotic
dictatorship is remove said privacy and thereby force people to
either lie or openly state their opposition to the regime so they
can either be "reeducated"
or "removed". Privacy is pretty important. If you don't think
so, imagine being forced to vote where everyone could see your
choices ... say like the pigs in the various unions want...
Absolutely agreed. Too bad that the Bush administration put into
place so many illegal surveillance programs on americans. Not
that the current administration has eliminated them - which is one
of the few things they've done wrong.
Here, here! As republican as I can be at times, that whoe Patriot
Act thing was a legal abomination. Sadly, too many feel good
people in this country fell prey to the impact of 911 and forgot to
get up in arms about that thing.

Probably because it had no noticeable impact on most people.
Yet...

The worst part about a law is not always what it has done, but what
it can do.

Which is partly why we need the Second Amendment.

Either that and lots of shovels, or education and discussion. I'm not
against the second amendment, just against wanton violence. (AS you guys
know).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 05:40:58 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:28:59 -0400, "
OK, so you believe that one group of people should be able to make political
contributions but another should not. How positively discriminating of you.

It's not des crimination you twit, it's called conflict of interest
and there should be laws against it in certain cases. Only someone
like you would want to make it easier for those with money to buy
influence.

What conflict? What "conflict" is there, over say, private unions? ...or
the PTA? Perhaps a leftist twit like you can't see the conflict of interest in
public unions?

Sure, it happens, but people like you would open the floodgates to
that kind of manipulation. Sad fact is, little people like you and me
would get eaten alive.

You're a moron. You can't even see that you want to limit speech to those who
you agree with. HEaven forbid someone else disagrees!

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:41:12 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 8/17/2012 9:10 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Make sure that all contributions go into a kitty. Each kitty is for a
certain office. Each kitty is divided up equally between all
qualifying office seekers. It all must be spent for the particular
election or returned to the kitty for the next election. NOBODY gets
specific contributions, NOBODY gets more than any other 'contestant',
and NOBODY takes home millions just for trying. It removes the money
from the political game. Now _try_ to get that one through CONgress.

It wouldn't work even if it was a good idea, which I don't think it is.
The same First Amendment that gives you a constitutional right to post
to newsgroups gives others the right to political speech. People have
the constitutional right to support their favored candidates. To
abridge that right would require a constitutional amendment (which ain't
gonna happen), not a mere statute.

Here, here!