Re: Anyone using perimiter fence protection

[JoeRaisin <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
>
> "JoeRaisin" <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:gsj42u$1oh$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Robert L Bass wrote:
>>> "JoeRaisin" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, but it doesn't surprise me.  The thing is these people have a
>>>>> legitimate gripe.  They have paid the bulk of US taxes for years
>>>>> while the wealthy get loopholes and tax shelters.  Even though
>>>>> Barak Obama is finally doing something good for them they've
>>>>> learned not to trust *anyone* in government. Eight years of Bush is
>>>>> enough to do that even to Pollyana.
>>>>
>>>> Actually the primary impetus of the T.E.A. Parties was how much
>>>> money the federal government is spending.
>>>
>>> The resentment for government spending isn't a matter of principle.
>>> It's a pragmatic issue.  They don't want to pay taxes.  I don't blame
>>> them.  I don't like paying taxes either.  OTOH, I don't want bridges
>>> to collapse while I'm driving over them.
>>>
>>
>> Paying taxes isn't so much the issue for me - though I would prefer a
>> flat tax.
>>
>> What grinds my gears is seeing the money I'm paying get flushed down
>> the toilet...
>
> Me, too.  The idiot Bush spent almost everything on his stupid war, then
> gave the rest away to his corporate sponsors.  Thank God, now that we
> have adult supervision of the economy we can start to work our way out
> of the hole Bush dug.
>

I always wondered what the definition of "adult supervision" was and now
I know.  It's taking a bad situation and making it worse.  Thanks for
clearing that up.


>> Or teh money being pissed away on this stimulus plan...
>
> How dare they try to create jobs for Americans.  The very nerve!
>

Except it only creates temporary jobs.

>> Instead of "spending" a trillion dollars they didn't have, it would
>> have made a much bigger and timely impact if they had just not
>> collected it.
>
> Not really.  We tried that for the past eight years and it ruined the
> economy.
>

No, we didn't try it - read it again.  What I suggested has never been
tried.  Probably because it would work...

Using B.O.'s logic, the answer to money shortfalls in my home would not
be to tighten up the budget but to get a bunch of new credit cards and
max them out.

How does that make sense?

What is his tax policy answer?  To reduce the withholding tables but not
the tax tables.  If this scheme stands, a whole lot of folks are going
to be very surprised come next tax day when their refund is reduced or
they end up having to pay.

>>> ISTR you brought this up in response to my request for you to cite a
>>> lie. You did say that he lies.  I didn't say that he doesn't; just
>>> asked for proof.  So fat, none has been offered but I'm willing to
>>> listen if you can cite a lie Olbermann has told.
>>>
>>
>> Somebody's a bit confused.  You never asked me to cite any lie, our
>> secretary of state is a woman and I don't believe I've ever talked
>> about Olbermann.
>
> Sorry.  To many threads.  Not enough brain cells left.
>
>> Well, that's what our political system is supposed to be all about.
>> But this last election cycle we saw folks voting for candidates with
>> absolutely no idea what the person stood for.
>
> Yep, just like they did in 2000 and 2004.
>

I must have missed the polls and interviews those years.  You know, the
ones where they found bush supporters, fed them all of Gore's/Kerry's
positions and had the interviewee slavishly gushing about what great
positions their candidate held.

>>> He's more elligible than McCain.  If you want to get technical about
>>> it, McCain was born in Panama during a time when children born there
>>> were not automatically US citizens.  They were elligible for
>>> naturalization but McCain never went through that either.  So
>>> technically, he's a Panamanian citizen. Nevertheless, given his
>>> heroic military service to the United States and his many years of
>>> service in Washington, most people (including me) think he's American
>>> enough to serve.  But he lost the election, fair and square, so that
>>> case is moot.
>>>
>>> The BS from a few right-wing jackasses about Obama is just that --
>>> horse crap. Obama was born on US soil and is therefor a US citizen.
>>> Right now he's our president.  That's "our" as in yours and mine.
>>> The country is in a major crisis and he's trying to bring about
>>> change that will help us recover.  The Republican party is offering
>>> no alternate plan -- just more of the same Bush garbage that got us
>>> into the mess we're in.  If Obama fails, we all fail.
>>
>> Take a breath... You were the one who suggested he was from Kenya - I
>> was just snarking off...
>
> I was being facetious.  You didn't notice?
>
>>>>> He isn't really unidentified.  When I first mentioned it I didn't
>>>>> remember his name.  He's Richard Burr, a Republican senator from
>>>>> North Carolina.  He has been repeatedly asked why the delay but
>>>>> refused to give an answer.
>>>>
>>>> Not entirely true...
>>>
>>> Care to elaborate?
>>>
>>
>> Didn't you read the article?
>>
>>>>> BTW, the wounded veteran whose appointment he delayed is Tammy
>>>>> Duckworth. She lost both legs in a helicopter crash, fighting
>>>>> Bush's war.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want a concrete position from me you will probably have to
>>>>>> provide more information.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope the above helps.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, rather than some shady "no comment" as to why the appointment
>>>> was held up, this is what I found out in less than five minutes.
>>>>
>>>> "Burr, the ranking Republican on the Senate Veterans Affairs
>>>> Committee, held up Duckworth's nomination last week because he had
>>>> questions about a confidential financial questionnaire that she had
>>>> filled out...
>>>
>>> That's what he said, but he refused to say what those questions
>>> were.  He finally gave in but has never indicated there was anything
>>> in the questionaire that he actually objected to.
>
>> Uhm... it was a "confidential" questionnaire so to reveal the details
>> of what he had a problem with would have been a bit out of line.
>
> He refused even to discuss it with others on the same panel, others who
> also read the questionaire.
>

Right.  He said that there were three versions of a financial statement
that didn't add up.  Methinks thou art reaching...

>> Then again, if he had spelled out what he had a problem with he would
>> have been crucified for revealing Ms. Duckworth's confidential
>> information.
>
> He wouldn't speak to other committe members about his so-called
> concerns.  I think it's time to realize he just did it to spite Obama.
>
>> I didn't know you cared so much what Senator McCain thought.
>
> I like McCain very much.  He's a good man.  He's just not presidential
> material (IMO).
>
>>> I met a dog catcher several years ago who I would have gladly sent in
>>> as a replacement for Cheney.  At least he knew the difference between
>>> a feral dog and an innocent puppy.  Also, TTBOMK, he never shot a
>>> friend in the face.
>>
>> Yep, there comes a time in a man's life when he should stop driving
>> and handling weapons.
>
> Cheney should never have been licensed to speak.  The man's a thug.
>
>> Imagine how much fun he is gonna be when he's the mean old man in the
>> neighborhood yelling at kids to get off his mine field - er - lawn...
>
> Heh, heh, heh...  :^)
>
>>> You're assuming he took anything seriously.  There has been a
>>> concerted effort among Republican senators to stimy as many Obama
>>> appointments as possible. This was just one more of the same.
>>
>> Sounds like payback from the right.  Same games the left played with
>> Bush's appointees.  Like I said, two sides of the same coin.
>
> So you agree that Burr was being spiteful -- not responsible.  I knew we
> would find more common ground here.
>

On this one appointment it sounds as though there was a legitimate
reason.  I'm sure they will play those games though.

Just as the dems did over the last eight years - as you just agreed
happened.

I just wish they had used a little courage regarding the appointments of
a tax cheat to head the IRS and a documented liar as Secretary of State.

>> The  road to hell is paved with good intentions.  It just amazes me
>> that a person sworn to uphold the Constitution of the Unites States
>> would even propose such a thing.
>
> Some folks believe that "gub control" will work.  If I thought it would,
> I'd b all for it.  Sadly, it probably never will work in this country.
> I'd just like to see a requirement that guns be locked up when the owner
> isn't in direct control of them.  That might save a few hundred
> children's lives each year.  Other than that, gun control is just
> wishful thinking.
>

Locking up a weapon is just common sense.  Though too often, common
sense doesn't come until after something bad happens.

There is a couple in my grief support group who lost a 4 year old child
when he got his hands on his father's police service weapon.  It was
routinely stored on top of a bookcase that the dad had to stand on
tippy-toes to reach.  They had assumed the child couldn't get to it but,
unfortunately, he climbed like a monkey.

These days, in my house, I lock up guns and all my big knives as well.

>> A few more nuclear reactors would help to prevent such disasters
>> without the nefarious potential.
>
> We disagree about the nefarious part, but I agree we need more nuclear
> reactors.  I also disagree with Obama's ideas about disarmament.  Other
> than that, I think he's pretty great.  Today he earned more respect from
> me by acceding to demands for proper investigation and prosecution of
> Bush officials for torturing POW's.  Bravo!
>

Only if they also hold responsible all members of congress who were
aware of the "illegal" actions and at best did nothing or, in the worst
cases, gave a stamp of approval.

The only thing that bothers me about this is his partial release of the
memos.  Whenever someone claims "transparency" but then releases only
partial information it makes me wonder what they are not saying and why.


>> But we already own a house outside of Manila and the wife has all
>> those relative thingies whose company she seems to enjoy.
>
> Gotcha.  Well, I'm heading down to Brazil next month but only for a
> couple of weeks.  Maybe later this year I'll go back for more time if
> finances permit.
>
>>>> Because open acts like petition signing can be affected by bribery
>>>> or coercion.
>>>
>>> But petition signing is already the first step in unionizing.  The
>>> act only seeks to make it easier to go union.
>>>
>>>> Secret ballots are not.  Whatever the process for bringing a vote -
>>>> the vote itself SHOULD be held and should be a secret ballot.
>>>
>>> It never has been yet.  I'm not saying it shouldn't be -- only that
>>> it isn't and never was.  This act seeks to make things easier for
>>> workers.
>>
>> It eliminates the secret ballot.  Bad... very bad...
>
> No, it does not.  The secret ballot is currently a second phase --
> *after* an open petition.  The proposed act says that in certain
> circumstances the open petition (which is already required) is enough.
> This would make it eqsier to unionize.  The act specifically addresses
> workplaces where the company is likely to interfere with the process --
> IOW, places where a union is most urgently needed.
>

A simple petition should never be enough.

A secret ballot eliminates the potential for intimidation, coercion or
bribery - from either side of the issue.  The petitions do not.

Once we begin elimination of the secret ballot here, where will it end?