(What have I missed?)


handheld radiation detector with alarm (especially if you live near a
reactor)
NBC gas mask
water purification tablets, or bleach
solar battery charger and some batteries

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 13:24:18 -0500, "Al Reid"
wrote:

"tony1158" wrote in message . ..
Hi, I agree totally. Another thing, the young people and the parents
better prepare them selves for the return of the draft.

Tony


Cone on, that scare didn't even work BEFORE the election.

It's no longer *before* the election. Look at it this way- we have a
two term limit on the presidency. Bush is no longer accountable to
the electorate, because he cannot be re-elected; Cheney has already
stated that he will not run for President in 2008. The Republicans,
led by the religious right, control both houses of congress. At least
one and as many as four supreme court justices are likely to retire or
die within the next four years.

Just what do you think is going to stop them from doing whatever they
feel like doing? Morals? Like attacking other nations to impose a
different form of government on them?

Prometheus wrote:
[snip]
(What have I missed?)


Cookies?


A warehouse full of booze and tobacco. I'm gonna be a rich
entrepreneur. A happy one to boot.
j4

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:59:32 -0700, Doug Winterburn
calmly ranted:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 06:54:13 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

(What have I missed?)

The tinfoil hat?

Mark my words, Dougie. This ain't tinfoil season.


--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
---------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Sin-free Website Design

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:59:32 -0700, Doug Winterburn
calmly ranted:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 06:54:13 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

(What have I missed?)

The tinfoil hat?

Mark my words, Dougie. This ain't tinfoil season.

Mark my words, LJ. You're full of ****. Here's to a happy 4 more years!
By the way...a good way to keep this trend going is to nominate Hillary next
time. I'm not sure she could even win here in the People's Republic of
Chicago.

todd

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 13:24:18 -0500, "Al Reid"
wrote:

"tony1158" wrote in message
t...
Hi, I agree totally. Another thing, the young people and the parents
better prepare them selves for the return of the draft.

Tony


Cone on, that scare didn't even work BEFORE the election.

It's no longer *before* the election. Look at it this way- we have a
two term limit on the presidency. Bush is no longer accountable to
the electorate, because he cannot be re-elected; Cheney has already
stated that he will not run for President in 2008. The Republicans,
led by the religious right, control both houses of congress. At least
one and as many as four supreme court justices are likely to retire or
die within the next four years.

Just what do you think is going to stop them from doing whatever they
feel like doing? Morals? Like attacking other nations to impose a
different form of government on them?


Of all people Bush is accountable to the electorate. He defined what he ran
[unlike Kerry who had an undefined plan for everything ] and was elected on
that basis . His first news conference he restated these values and these
are what he intends to persue .

The republican party is no more run by the religious right than the
democratic party is run by the jews.

As far as the supreme court is concerned I would like to see judges
conservative or not but interpret the Constitution and not make law as so
many liberal judges do.

Morals, yes that sounds a good basis to me, but probably not to someone who
lacks them. Trust might well be another basis to govern , both would be
ideal.

Attacking another nation particularly if it poses an imminent threat to the
US would not be a bad idea .........mjh

Larry Jaques did say:

(What have I missed?)

The boat?

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

Mike Hide wrote:

The republican party is no more run by the religious right than the
democratic party is run by the jews.


You are absolutely right about that. The republican party uses the religious
right as a vote raising mechanism, and accedes to their social demands (which
have no effect on the party's agenda) to the extent needed to keep them loyal.
The republican party is run by a group of business and government interests
whose main goal is the creation of wealth (unfortunately concentrated in a very
small
sliver of the population) and the manipulation of international markets and
resources
in such a way to promote that goal.

Anybody outside the top 10% of earners in this country who thinks the goals of the
republican party benefits them in any tangible way should think again.

JK

christian9997 wrote:

Let's suppose that the US Army manages to keep the peace up to January
and that the Iraki elections are held as planned. What will happen if
the Irakis decide to vote for an Islamist Dictatorship similar to the
one in Iran?

I suspect that any unmanipulated election almost anywhere in the islamic world
would produce this result, at this point in time. (Maybe a few exceptions.)

Two Possibilities:
-George W. accepts the result and let's it happen.
Result: The situation ends up as being far worse than it was under
Saddam Hussein. = 300 Million Dollars spent to worsen the situation.
-George W. cancels the elections under some false pretext and
instaures a Military Dictatorship (Similar situation as to what
happened in Algeria not so long ago)
Result: All those Bull**** Speeches about The Republicans wanting
Freedom and a Free Vote for the people of Irak will be shown to be
just a pack of LIES (just like most of what George W. says) = All the
values that the USA are supposed to stand for will be trampled on by
the US-Army.

So which do you think it will be? (I'd guess even money at this point).


My second question is more technical and is aimed at people (slightly
more intelligent?) who know what the rules are to present a candidate
at the election:

I am surprised that the Democrats have not helped in the emergence of
a fourth candidate who would be openly racist and fascist (an opposite
candidate to Ralph Nader). A candidate who would be similar to LePen
in France, that is so far right that he would never have any real
chance of being elected.

Remember George Wallace? Of course then he was undermining the
Southern Democrat vote.

Seeing how biggoted and racist the population of the US has become,
I'm sure that candidate would have pinched at least 10% of the vote
from George W. Bush thus greatly improving the chances of Kerry. Why
hasn't this sort of candidate emerged, isn't this a big mistake by the
Democrats?

On 6 Nov 2004 06:19:16 -0800,
(christian9997) wrote:

Bush's election has brought on two questions:

The first is directed at the right-wing biggots who seemed to have
crawled out of the woodwork (hence explaining the -at first-
surprising crosspost to rec.woodworking):

Let's suppose that the US Army manages to keep the peace up to January
and that the Iraki elections are held as planned. What will happen if
the Irakis decide to vote for an Islamist Dictatorship similar to the
one in Iran?

Two Possibilities:
-George W. accepts the result and let's it happen.
Result: The situation ends up as being far worse than it was under
Saddam Hussein. = 300 Million Dollars spent to worsen the situation.
-George W. cancels the elections under some false pretext and
instaures a Military Dictatorship (Similar situation as to what
happened in Algeria not so long ago)
Result: All those Bull**** Speeches about The Republicans wanting
Freedom and a Free Vote for the people of Irak will be shown to be
just a pack of LIES (just like most of what George W. says) = All the
values that the USA are supposed to stand for will be trampled on by
the US-Army.

My second question is more technical and is aimed at people (slightly
more intelligent?) who know what the rules are to present a candidate
at the election:

I am surprised that the Democrats have not helped in the emergence of
a fourth candidate who would be openly racist and fascist (an opposite
candidate to Ralph Nader). A candidate who would be similar to LePen
in France, that is so far right that he would never have any real
chance of being elected.

There's always a few, they just don't get taken seriously. The reason
(I would guess) that the Democrats don't encourage such a candidate is
that for a person like that to be effective in any way, they would
need to truly believe in the principles they are advocating. When the
gulf between positions becomes too wide, any kind of collusion or
communication is almost impossible.

Seeing how biggoted and racist the population of the US has become,
I'm sure that candidate would have pinched at least 10% of the vote
from George W. Bush thus greatly improving the chances of Kerry. Why
hasn't this sort of candidate emerged, isn't this a big mistake by the
Democrats?

No, it's not a mistake by the Democrats- it's not their responsibility
to dangle a hawk in front of the swine.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 13:30:47 -0500, "James T. Kirby"
wrote:


Anybody outside the top 10% of earners in this country who thinks the goals of the
republican party benefits them in any tangible way should think again.


The requirement to "think" is too much of an obstacle
to overcome.

Anybody outside the top 10% of earners in this country who thinks the
goals of the
republican party benefits them in any tangible way should think again.

JK


Seems well over half the voting population did a week or so ago, so whats
changed since then ???? mjh

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:44:38 GMT, "Mike Hide"
wrote:


Impeach ! for heavens sake the man has just been elected by the largest
majority of the voting public in the history of the country


"Largest majority ?" Bush won by 3.something million. Clinton
beat Dole by 8.3 million. Rush must be wipping up those numbas
for you, eh ? Don't worry, don't get up off the couch, don't push
that little brain of yours, I'm sure that Rush has a lot more
"information" for you if you just sit back and listen

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:44:38 GMT, "Mike Hide"
wrote:


Impeach ! for heavens sake the man has just been elected by the largest
majority of the voting public in the history of the country


"Largest majority ?" Bush won by 3.something million. Clinton
beat Dole by 8.3 million. Rush must be wipping up those numbas
for you, eh ? Don't worry, don't get up off the couch, don't push
that little brain of yours, I'm sure that Rush has a lot more
"information" for you if you just sit back and listen

And Clinton didn't have a majority. He was something like 43 and 49%. Why
is it that democrats scream foul when their guy wins the popular vote, but
loses the electoral, yet still scream foul when the other guy wins both?

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:44:38 GMT, "Mike Hide"
wrote:


Impeach ! for heavens sake the man has just been elected by the largest
majority of the voting public in the history of the country


"Largest majority ?" Bush won by 3.something million. Clinton
beat Dole by 8.3 million. Rush must be wipping up those numbas
for you, eh ? Don't worry, don't get up off the couch, don't push
that little brain of yours, I'm sure that Rush has a lot more
"information" for you if you just sit back and listen

Of all the votes cast the majority were cast for Bush, 50,456,001, plus mine
makes 50,456,002.

The largest in history.....mjh

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 03:41:15 GMT, "mark" calmly
ranted:

(What have I missed?)


handheld radiation detector with alarm (especially if you live near a
reactor)

Nah, if they get -that- close, I want to die quickly,
not linger or live to smell the stench of all the
rest of the dead before I, too, died.


NBC gas mask

Aw, the respirator oughta work, wot?


water purification tablets, or bleach
solar battery charger and some batteries

Good items to have.

I have a well, so I should get a hand pump, too, eh?

---
In Christianity, neither morality nor religion comes into contact
with reality at any point. --FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE
---------------------------------------------------------------
- http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development -

--
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
"mark" wrote in message
...

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:44:38 GMT, "Mike Hide"
wrote:


Impeach ! for heavens sake the man has just been elected by the largest
majority of the voting public in the history of the country


"Largest majority ?" Bush won by 3.something million. Clinton
beat Dole by 8.3 million. Rush must be wipping up those numbas
for you, eh ? Don't worry, don't get up off the couch, don't push
that little brain of yours, I'm sure that Rush has a lot more
"information" for you if you just sit back and listen

And Clinton didn't have a majority. He was something like 43 and 49%.
Why is it that democrats scream foul when their guy wins the popular vote,
but loses the electoral, yet still scream foul when the other guy wins
both?
Talking about pushing your brain, "something like 43 and 49%" is called the
PERCENTAGE of the popular vote not the majority....mjh

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:26:44 -0600, "Todd Fatheree"
calmly ranted:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:59:32 -0700, Doug Winterburn
calmly ranted:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 06:54:13 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

(What have I missed?)

The tinfoil hat?

Mark my words, Dougie. This ain't tinfoil season.

Mark my words, LJ. You're full of ****. Here's to a happy 4 more years!
By the way...a good way to keep this trend going is to nominate Hillary next
time. I'm not sure she could even win here in the People's Republic of
Chicago.

You're a cruel, cruel, fool, Fatheree.

---
In Christianity, neither morality nor religion comes into contact
with reality at any point. --FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE
---------------------------------------------------------------
- http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development -

Mike Hide wrote:


Anybody outside the top 10% of earners in this country who thinks the
goals of the
republican party benefits them in any tangible way should think again.

JK



Seems well over half the voting population did a week or so ago, so
whats changed since then ???? mjh

Let's say your interests in the election are economic as opposed to social agenda.
The tax system that Bush is pushing is aimed at helping that top 10%. If the
government
is actually going to get paid for, guess who pays for it. The lower 90%.
That's pretty simple arithmetic.
Fair? How much of the wealth is concentrated in that top 10%? I don't know
the number accurately, but it is
way way over 50%. Do 10% of the people need over 50% of the wealth? I'm too
much of a socialist to believe that.
I don't advocate an immediate uprising aimed at taking that back directly, but
I don't like to see the political
system set up to accentuate that disparity in a runaway fashion, which is where
Bush's priorities are.

If there are tax breaks accruing to anyone below a rarified upper economic
class, I haven't seen them in any paperwork
I'm doing.

JK

GregP wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:44:38 GMT, "Mike Hide"
wrote:


Impeach ! for heavens sake the man has just been elected by the largest
majority of the voting public in the history of the country



"Largest majority ?" Bush won by 3.something million. Clinton
beat Dole by 8.3 million. Rush must be wipping up those numbas
for you, eh ? Don't worry, don't get up off the couch, don't push
that little brain of yours, I'm sure that Rush has a lot more
"information" for you if you just sit back and listen

Bush was re-elected by the smallest margin of voters returning a second term
president to office since
Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

JK

"James T. Kirby" wrote in message
...
Bush was re-elected by the smallest margin of voters returning a second
term
president to office since
Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

JK

You guys are so predictable. In 2000, it didn't count because Bush didn't
win the popular vote. This time, not only did he win the popular vote, but
won a plurality (something Clinton never did). Now we have to compare it to
an election 90 years ago to try to invalidate it. The left had better drop
**** like this and get its head out of its collective ass, or it's going to
continue to get that ass handed to them in national elections. For God's
sake, Pelosi was talking about getting the House back before this election.
Instead, the Republicans gained 4 seats. Daschle was going to take back the
Senate. Not only did the Republicans take 4 more seats, but Daschle the
obstructionist will be watching from the sidelines. Those Democrats that
live in red states that are up for reelection in 2006 are going to be
thinking twice about being such staunch opponents of the President's
judicial nominees.

todd

Let's say your interests in the election are economic as opposed to social
agenda.
The tax system that Bush is pushing is aimed at helping that top 10%. If
the government
is actually going to get paid for, guess who pays for it. The lower 90%.
That's pretty simple arithmetic.
Fair? How much of the wealth is concentrated in that top 10%? I don't
know the number accurately, but it is
way way over 50%. Do 10% of the people need over 50% of the wealth? I'm
too much of a socialist to believe that.
I don't advocate an immediate uprising aimed at taking that back directly,
but I don't like to see the political
system set up to accentuate that disparity in a runaway fashion, which is
where Bush's priorities are.

If there are tax breaks accruing to anyone below a rarified upper economic
class, I haven't seen them in any paperwork
I'm doing.

I'm not sure if I'm buying this logic. Don't the top 5% pay something like
58 plus % of the taxes? Socialism seems to penalize the thinkers, the
doers, the people who take the chances. So you're a working stiff, you
invent something, you make a ton of money, become rich and suddenly you're
the bad guy? I always got ****ed about all the fuss Microsoft's competitors
make. You know, Bill didn't start out worth 42 billion. He started out with
a set of balls, and an operating system he sold to IBM before he had it
written.

Did you ever read Atlas Shrugged? If not, I suggest it highly. I think it
should be required reading in high school, and then again in college, and
then once more when you actually have to go out and work for a living. The
dems always seem to see the evil corporation as a single entity -- they
never see the thousands of workers (guys like you and me) who make that
corporation up. I'm sure there are lots of people at Haliburton besides the
CEO and Dick Cheney who are glad they have a contract. It lets them feed
their family. Granted, the CEOs probably make too much. But so do
professional athletes. It's all in what people see as your worth.

"James T. Kirby" wrote in message
...
Mike Hide wrote:


Anybody outside the top 10% of earners in this country who thinks the
goals of the
republican party benefits them in any tangible way should think again.

JK



Seems well over half the voting population did a week or so ago, so whats
changed since then ???? mjh

Let's say your interests in the election are economic as opposed to social
agenda.
The tax system that Bush is pushing is aimed at helping that top 10%. If
the government
is actually going to get paid for, guess who pays for it. The lower 90%.
That's pretty simple arithmetic.
Fair? How much of the wealth is concentrated in that top 10%? I don't
know the number accurately, but it is
way way over 50%. Do 10% of the people need over 50% of the wealth? I'm
too much of a socialist to believe that.
I don't advocate an immediate uprising aimed at taking that back directly,
but I don't like to see the political
system set up to accentuate that disparity in a runaway fashion, which is
where Bush's priorities are.

If there are tax breaks accruing to anyone below a rarified upper economic
class, I haven't seen them in any paperwork
I'm doing.

JK


Tax cuts by the Bush admin are across the board . The top ten percent pay a
disproportionate amount of the total tax burden . The top ten percent not
only pay more in taxes because of the fact that they make more money, but
the percentage of their income they pay is very high .

So when across the board tax relief is done they it is obvious that they
will get more tax relief than the average Joe.

I remember when I as in the UK the top rate was nineteen and six in the
pound ,i.e. 39/40 of their earnings . In other words to earn 1 dollar they
had to make $40, the other 39 going to the government. that was the time
when the country went belly up.

So either tax the rich at the same RATE as everyone else, or continue the
current situation and give them an equally disproportionate number of
election votes .

Better still quit bitching about it as they are carrying most of the yours
and my tax load as of now .

I am afraid there will always be ingrates like you regardless.....mjh

"James T. Kirby" wrote in message
...
GregP wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:44:38 GMT, "Mike Hide"
wrote:


Impeach ! for heavens sake the man has just been elected by the largest
majority of the voting public in the history of the country



"Largest majority ?" Bush won by 3.something million. Clinton
beat Dole by 8.3 million. Rush must be wipping up those numbas
for you, eh ? Don't worry, don't get up off the couch, don't push
that little brain of yours, I'm sure that Rush has a lot more
"information" for you if you just sit back and listen

Bush was re-elected by the smallest margin of voters returning a second
term president to office since
Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

JK

Can you read ? do you ever have a logical thought ? I think not .

So why bother responding.......mjh

Prometheus wrote in message . ..

... The president, as commander-in-chief
of the military has the power to declare war on any nation he chooses,
and deploy the troops to that nation. Congress controls the funding
of the troops and the draft- if they vote for these things under the
guise of protecting our troops, they can certainly weasel out of
personal responsibility for them.


You need to read the Constitution of the United States of America:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/help/constRedir.html

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt did say:

Prometheus wrote in message . ..

... The president, as commander-in-chief
of the military has the power to declare war on any nation he chooses,
and deploy the troops to that nation. Congress controls the funding
of the troops and the draft- if they vote for these things under the
guise of protecting our troops, they can certainly weasel out of
personal responsibility for them.


You need to read the Constitution of the United States of America:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/help/constRedir.html

Don't read the US Constitution!!! That might inspire you to compare
various Patriotic Acts, Executive Powers, Laws and Court Decisions and
realize just how many of them are in violation of that Constitution.

If we held the government accountable to the Constitution, then where
would we be??!!??!!

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:08:10 GMT, "mark" wrote:


And Clinton didn't have a majority. He was something like 43 and 49%. Why
is it that democrats scream foul when their guy wins the popular vote, but
loses the electoral, yet still scream foul when the other guy wins both?


I'm not "screaming foul," I'm pointing out that this huge margin of
victory you're touting is considerably less than half of Bill
Clinton's and as a percentage of total vote, is even smaller,
something like a third of Clinton's.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 16:45:05 GMT, "Mike Hide"
wrote:

Can you read ? do you ever have a logical thought ? I think not .

So why bother responding.......mjh


Someone has drilled you on how to present the election in the
best possible light. You've proved to us that you've memorized
well: congratulations, you get milk and cookies after the class
is over.

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:08:10 GMT, "mark" wrote:


And Clinton didn't have a majority. He was something like 43 and 49%.
Why
is it that democrats scream foul when their guy wins the popular vote, but
loses the electoral, yet still scream foul when the other guy wins both?


I'm not "screaming foul," I'm pointing out that this huge margin of
victory you're touting is considerably less than half of Bill
Clinton's and as a percentage of total vote, is even smaller,
something like a third of Clinton's.

Are you still talking about Clinton, if he had done the right thing 9/11
would never had happened, the only president in recent history who was
impeached ,the one who commited perjury,all I can say is go for it ....mjh

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 13:32:56 -0500, WoodMangler
calmly ranted:


You tell 'em!!!

He would've made a point if only he'd spelled "bigot" correctly.


Fly-by-Night CC did say:
HEY! Don't be picking on the right-wing biggots of rec.woodworking. They
may be right-wing biggots, but they're OUR right-wing biggots.

--
The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that
accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity
towards one that accrues to its own advantage; nor does it ever move
towards social purposes on its own initiative, but only under heavy
pressure, while its motion towards anti-social purposes is self-sprung.
- Albert Jay Nock
- http://diversify.com Web Programming for curmudgeons and others. -

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:44:31 GMT, "Mike Hide"
wrote:


Are you still talking about Clinton, if he had done the right thing 9/11
would never had happened, the only president in recent history who was
impeached ,the one who commited perjury,all I can say is go for it ....mjh

Of course, the person who ran away from terrorists wa Reagan.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:42:27 -0500, GregP wrote:

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:44:31 GMT, "Mike Hide"
wrote:


Are you still talking about Clinton, if he had done the right thing 9/11
would never had happened, the only president in recent history who was
impeached ,the one who commited perjury,all I can say is go for it ....mjh

Of course, the person who ran away from terrorists wa Reagan.


Of course. Mohammar Khadafi will attest to that.

mark wrote:

I always got ****ed about all the fuss Microsoft's competitors
make. You know, Bill didn't start out worth 42 billion. He
started out with a set of balls, and an operating system he
sold to IBM before he had it written.

I'm not sure that you really want to use an example like this
one. When I used a debugger to partially disassemble MS-DOS, the
code I saw bore more than just a passing resemblance to CP/M's
BDOS and included CP/M code that MS-DOS never even used.

I also recall discussing a similarly strong resemblance between
an early version of MS-BASIC and DEC BASIC - apparently several
programmers had noticed that the MS version was little more than
a transliteration.

I shelled out $800 for MS' COBOL-80 because of some of the
features MS advertized - only to discover that not only had MS
not implemented the features, they (by their own admission) had
*never intended* to implement those I most needed.

I don't call that starting out with a set of balls - I call that
starting out with the desire and intent to lie and steal from as
many people as possible.

Did you ever read Atlas Shrugged? If not, I suggest it
highly. I think it should be required reading in high school,
and then again in college, and then once more when you
actually have to go out and work for a living. The dems
always seem to see the evil corporation as a single entity --
they never see the thousands of workers (guys like you and me)
who make that corporation up. I'm sure there are lots of
people at Haliburton besides the CEO and Dick Cheney who are
glad they have a contract. It lets them feed their family.
Granted, the CEOs probably make too much. But so do
professional athletes. It's all in what people see as your
worth.

It might be worth re-reading to verify for yourself that one of
Ayn Rand's ideals was absolute integrity. I see little
correspondence between Rand's values and the values held by the
examples you've cited - unless you somehow believe that Rand
actually admired the whiners and the rotters who expected to be
rewarded their whining.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:

He would've made a point if only he'd spelled "bigot" correctly.

Haaaahaaaheeee!
Awww well. Thanks for pointing that out to one and all Sea-less.
damn gotta get a spelchecker one o' thse days

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

Mike Hide wrote:

Better still quit bitching about it as they are carrying most of the
yours and my tax load as of now .

I am afraid there will always be ingrates like you regardless.....mjh

Michael - I'm probably close enough to being in that group carrying most of the
load
(which is why I'm somewhat surprised to not see the tax cut reflected in any
bookkeeping
I'm doing. I have real doubts about how far it tricles down.) By any measure
of "vote on
economic grounds for the person who benefits
you the most as an individual", I should be a fiscal conservative republican.

But I'm not.

JK




--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email:
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 16:38:14 GMT, "mark" wrote:

Let's say your interests in the election are economic as opposed to social
agenda.
The tax system that Bush is pushing is aimed at helping that top 10%. If
the government
is actually going to get paid for, guess who pays for it. The lower 90%.
That's pretty simple arithmetic.
Fair? How much of the wealth is concentrated in that top 10%? I don't
know the number accurately, but it is
way way over 50%. Do 10% of the people need over 50% of the wealth? I'm
too much of a socialist to believe that.
I don't advocate an immediate uprising aimed at taking that back directly,
but I don't like to see the political
system set up to accentuate that disparity in a runaway fashion, which is
where Bush's priorities are.

If there are tax breaks accruing to anyone below a rarified upper economic
class, I haven't seen them in any paperwork
I'm doing.

I'm not sure if I'm buying this logic. Don't the top 5% pay something like
58 plus % of the taxes? Socialism seems to penalize the thinkers, the
doers, the people who take the chances. So you're a working stiff, you
invent something, you make a ton of money, become rich and suddenly you're
the bad guy? I always got ****ed about all the fuss Microsoft's competitors
make. You know, Bill didn't start out worth 42 billion. He started out with
a set of balls, and an operating system he sold to IBM before he had it
written.

Agreed. That's what America is supposed to be about. My problem with
the Bush regime is on social issues- though I do not respect the
fiscal policies of the Republican party either. Both sides are
bleeding the upper, lower, and middle classes dry for the sheer joy of
it.

Did you ever read Atlas Shrugged? If not, I suggest it highly. I think it
should be required reading in high school, and then again in college, and
then once more when you actually have to go out and work for a living. The
dems always seem to see the evil corporation as a single entity -- they
never see the thousands of workers (guys like you and me) who make that
corporation up. I'm sure there are lots of people at Haliburton besides the
CEO and Dick Cheney who are glad they have a contract. It lets them feed
their family. Granted, the CEOs probably make too much. But so do
professional athletes. It's all in what people see as your worth.

Re-read Atlas Shrugged. Rand protagonizes the Individual business
owner, not multinational corporation. Reference the various
descriptions of Boyle's Associated Steel verses Readen Steel. Or the
descriptions of the Phoenix-Durango verses Taggart Transcontental
(excluding Dagny) The overwhelming theme is that the individual
businesses controlled by a strong leader who retains control of his
stock and makes direct decisions and takes direct responsibility for
the actions of his company and the products it produces is to be
admired. The board-of-directors approach to business, supported by
government welfare and redistribution of weath was decried as the
worst evil imaginable by Rand. The text should speak for itself, with
the clarity and vehemance that Rand used in her various writings, but
if you'd like to debate it, I can site passages and sources.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On 7 Nov 2004 08:58:45 -0800, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Prometheus wrote in message . ..

... The president, as commander-in-chief
of the military has the power to declare war on any nation he chooses,
and deploy the troops to that nation. Congress controls the funding
of the troops and the draft- if they vote for these things under the
guise of protecting our troops, they can certainly weasel out of
personal responsibility for them.


You need to read the Constitution of the United States of America:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/help/constRedir.html

I've read it, my recollection was faulty in this case. My apologies.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:15:12 -0500, GregP
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:08:10 GMT, "mark" wrote:


And Clinton didn't have a majority. He was something like 43 and 49%. Why
is it that democrats scream foul when their guy wins the popular vote, but
loses the electoral, yet still scream foul when the other guy wins both?


I'm not "screaming foul," I'm pointing out that this huge margin of
victory you're touting is considerably less than half of Bill
Clinton's and as a percentage of total vote, is even smaller,
something like a third of Clinton's.

Agreed here as well. Bush won the race, but that does not mean we
must all smile and kiss his ass. I'm not disputing that a lot of
people cast votes for the man, just the wisdom of their choice in this
matter. Every poll I've heard mentioned has shown that many (if not
most) of the voters who cast a ballot for Bush were ignorant of his
stand on most issues. The same would probably hold true for most of
those who voted for Kerry. How does this situation get changed? The
only way I can see is talking about it in a public forum.

For those of you who would prefer to see this taken off the Wreck, I
did check out alt.politics, and the reason I am following the threads
here is that the level of discourse is signifigantly higher. It
speaks well of woodworkers, I must say.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On 7 Nov 2004 15:10:23 -0800, (Mark V.) wrote:

(christian9997) wrote in message . com...

Seeing how biggoted and racist the population of the US has become,

Racism wasn't an issue in this election. The U.S. is

I'm sure that candidate would have pinched at least 10% of the vote
from George W. Bush thus greatly improving the chances of Kerry. Why
hasn't this sort of candidate emerged, isn't this a big mistake by the
Democrats?

The Republicans have done a good job of circling their wagons and
making it clear that a divided right can't get elected. Lesson learned
from the Perot candidacies of 1992 and 1996.

The Democrats can't exactly "create" an additional party. Fortunately,
the scenario you suggest may just happen on its own in 2008. As I see
it, the Republicans are going to have a difficult time keeping the
right and the moderate wings reconciled. The religious right wants it
all but isn't going to be able to get it, even though Bush/Rove/Cheney
may throw them a few bones. These bones will scare the moderate wing.

I'd love to see a third choice made up of fiscally conservative,
socially liberal politicians. In theory, the Libertarians should have
the corner on this, but they are lacking that special something.
Perhaps the moderate Republicans can get something together for the
next election.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:27:23 -0600, Morris Dovey
wrote:

Did you ever read Atlas Shrugged? If not, I suggest it
highly. I think it should be required reading in high school,
and then again in college, and then once more when you
actually have to go out and work for a living. The dems
always seem to see the evil corporation as a single entity --
they never see the thousands of workers (guys like you and me)
who make that corporation up. I'm sure there are lots of
people at Haliburton besides the CEO and Dick Cheney who are
glad they have a contract. It lets them feed their family.
Granted, the CEOs probably make too much. But so do
professional athletes. It's all in what people see as your
worth.

Thanks Morris. This one is still burning me a bit, so here's a quote
from the text that would seem particularly appropriate to this entire
thread, for everyone involved. (from "This is John Galt")

"Learn to distinguish the difference between errors of knowledge and
breaches of morality. An error of knowledge is not a moral flaw,
provided you are willing to correct it; only a mystic would judge
human beings by the standard of an impossible, automatic omniscience.
But a breach of morality is the conscious choice of an action you know
to be evil, or a willful evasion of knowledge, a suspension of sight
and of thought. That which you do not know, is not a moral charge
against you; but that which you refuse to know, is an account of
infamy growing in your soul. Make every allowance for errors of
"knowledge; do not forgive or accept any breach of morality. Give the
benefit of the doubt to those who seek to know; but treat as potential
killers those specimens of insolent depravity who make demands upon
you, announcing that they have and seek no reasons, proclaiming, as a
license, that they 'just feel if -or those who reject an irrefutable
argument by saying: 'It's only logic' which means: 'It's only
reality.' The only realm opposed to reality is the realm and premise
of death."

It might be worth re-reading to verify for yourself that one of
Ayn Rand's ideals was absolute integrity. I see little
correspondence between Rand's values and the values held by the
examples you've cited - unless you somehow believe that Rand
actually admired the whiners and the rotters who expected to be
rewarded their whining.

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam