Re: Anyone using perimiter fence protection

[JoeRaisin <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
> "JoeRaisin" wrote:
>>
>>> Did you see the movie, "Being There?"  Every time someone
>>> told the star something he would say, "I understand..."  :^)
>>
>> Okay - so you are admitting we have a moron in charge of the treasury.
>
> Nope.  Just having some fun.
>

As am I.  It was fun watching the right wing W. supporters contorting
logic, playing dumb and stretching reason to defend the indefensible and
now it's fun watching the left wing do the same for B.O.

Did you see Janeane Garofalo asserting that the T.E.A. Parties were due
to racism and nothing else.

I remember another quote by your hero Hillary (the documented liar):

"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree
with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand
up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree
with any administration."

Substitute "a racist" in place of "not patriotic" and you've got a great
quote for today.


>> Neither - I'm talking about the amount he dishonestly tried
>> to avoid paying and wouldn't have had he not been appointed
>> to head up the treasury department.
>
> It's just as easy to assume there was evil intent as it is to assume it
> was an error.  I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.
>

ROTFLMAO - Only because he's a democrat.  A republican appointee with
the same issues would be vilified by you and your cronies.

>>>> I don't see a problem with my choice of words.
>>>
>>> You're entitled to your opinion.  So am I.
>>
>> Yes, however in this case your opinion is based on rationalizations
>> and a desperate hope that the politician you support is not just as
>> greedy, power hungry and dishonest as the politician you don't support.
>
> So you're saying that Bush, Cheney, McCain and Palin are all "greedy,
> power hungry and dishonest?"  Excellent.  I knew we could fing common
> ground if we worked on it long enough.  I commend your honesty.
>

Yes they were.  Haven't I been saying that it's just two sides of the
same coin?  I don't think there is much common ground here - I believe
in tolerance and compromise - something no ideologue (of either side) is
capable of.

> Now as to Obama, he's a politician so I will never completely trust
> him.  But I believe he's basically honest, patriotic and a decent
> person.  He's also more intelligent and learned than pretty much the
> entire right-wing, Republican base combined, which will come in handy
> while trying to undo the terrible damage Bush has done.
>

He comes from the deepest pit of political corruption in the country.
If you believe he came out of that as pure as the wind driven snow then
I've got a bridge for sale.

Frankly I don't think you truly do, but since you are a leftist
ideologue you have convinced yourself it's so.


>>> So he decided to hurt veterans in order to get even with Democrats.
>>> Real patriotic, eh?
>
> I notice you haven't yet responded to this comment.  An oversight I trust.
>

How is it you can read the minds of right wingers, but those on the
right are not allowed to read the minds of the left.

What if I just quoted you and said "I prefer to give him the benefit of
the doubt" without having looked into the actual facts.

Sounds pretty silly doesn't it.

Now, do you have any information on what this unidentified senator said
was his (or her) reasons were for opposing this appointment?

If you want a concrete position from me you will probably have to
provide more information.

For all I know there was no spectral senator who did such a thing for no
apparent reason other than he(or she) is a racist who wants to make
veterans suffer.

>>> Let's see.  I'm a bald, white guy.  So is Cheney.  Does that make us
>>> the same "ilk?"  Naah, I never actually shot anyone and I never
>>> ordered anyone water boarded.  Then again, I never managed to get any
>>> of my ilk to capture Leuck so...  (only kidding)  :^)
>>
>> Since you are apparently not sharp enough (or are you simply being
>> purposefully obtuse) to follow the context of the conversation I will
>> spell it out - democrats.
>
> Do you think all Democrats agree on these matters?
>

I must have missed the democrats speaking out against the bill.  Oh
wait... none did - and especially not the Obamstasi.

Don't you think it interesting that part of the license application
process is a description of how you intend to store your firearms.  That
will save a lot of time when they come to confiscate them.

>>> Wow!  What an excellent idea.  Instead of losing the entire grid
>>> during extreme load conditions, the utility could send an RF signal
>>> out to lower the load from HVAC systems.  Of sourse, if one happens
>>> to be a nutcase conspiracy theorist, this could be construed (in said
>>> theorist's mind at least) as "Big Brother."
>>
>> Well now that's a far cry from "That's not even physically possible
>> using current technology" isn't it...
>
> Perhaps I should have said, "using equipment and systems which currently
> exist."
>

The item obviously exists and according to other posters is already in
place.  Now, I know you will say that it is a great and wonderful thing
since it isn't being abused yet - but don't you think it is a little
intrusive.

Rather than using intrusive systems with a real possibility of abuse to
deal with the energy issues, don't you think a better way would be to
follow France's example and build a bunch of safe nuclear plants to
cleanly provide the energy we need?

Never mind - that's an actual solution and most ideologues don't like
real solutions since that takes away from the list of things you can
criticize the other side for.

>>> You mean HIPAA?  The act doesn't prevent a centralized database.  It
>>> seeks to reduce unauthorized disclosure.  From what little I know
>>> about HIPAA it doesn't seem to be effective.  It does an excellent
>>> job of creating lots of extra paperwork, though.
>>>
>>>>>> elimination of the secret ballot.
>>>>>
>>>>> No such law is proposed.
>>>>>
>>>> Card Check...
>>>
>>> Explain, please.
>>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check
>
> I looked at this and it apparently has nothing to do with HIPAA.  Please
> explain.
>

You are right - it doesn't have anything to do with HIPAA.  I never
connected it to HIPAA (except perhaps with a comma).

I know that this proposal is an amazingly dastardly plot and you have to
try and discount any concerns on it - but is that really the best you
could come up with?

>>> Nope.  You'r the first to use the expression that I ever noticed.
>>> Maybe one of my "ilk" posted it here some time but I don't recall
>>> some stuff from the pre-chemo days.
>>
>> Given your political statements over the years, you claim that you
>> NEVER heard the term Bushwaffen requires, as Hillary said, the willing
>> suspension of disbelief...
>
> I never heard the expression before.  Believe what you will.
>

LOL - whatever you say - but I remain incredulous.  It would have been
more believable if you had admitted you had seen the term but never used
it yourself...

>>>> but now that the shoe is on the other foot you are going to try and
>>>> make it appear that such games are silly - which of course they are.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>> But I'm still gonna do it since annoying political ideologues of
>> either ilk has become my new hobby.
>
> You assume more zealoutry than there is.  I make no bones about the fact
> I'm a liberal Democrat.  However, unlike ideological Republicans, I
> actually support some members of the other party.
>

A lot of ideological republicans support Joe Leiberman.  Proves nothing.


>>> That's not what the CIA (not Obama) said.  They warned local law
>>> enforcement that right-wing groups might try to *recruit* returning
>>> veterans.
>>
>> It was a blunder made by an Obama appointee - if it weren't a blunder
>> why would Janet Napolitano apologize and wish she could re-write that
>> portion.
>
> It was an unfortunate choice of words, but the point was (and everyone
> knows it) that the CIA was concerned that right-wing crazies would try
> to recruit returning veterans.  I don't know how old you are, but I
> recall what happened when thousands of veterans returned from Vietnam to
> a country that did almost nothing to help physically and emotionally
> wounded victims of another senseless war.  There were a number of those
> folks who got sucked into serious hate groups.  Does that mean that
> Vietnam vets are terrorists?  No, but some were made easy targets for
> extremist propaganda, at least partly due to governmental failure to
> give them the support they both needed and deserved.
>


Yeah yeah, I know, Iraq is Vietnam...

> BTW, it has always been a source of disgust and embarrassment to me that
> a small group anti-war activists spat on US soldiers as they returned
> from that war.  They should have saved their saliva for the politicians
> (of both parties) who sent them there in the first place.  Veterans
> should be treated as heros, regardless what role they play in any war.
>
>> I have watched the left blame Bush for the stupid or nefarious actions
>> of every cabinet appointee...
>
> Well, you have to admit that people like "Heckovajob" Brown made it easy
> to do.
>
>> civil servant and Army private for the last
>
> Uh, no.  We don't pick on civil servants or army privates -- just
> jackass appointees who allowed a city to drown while they looked for a
> good place to eat and that sort of stuff.
>

Uhm... read the words I wrote - it might help you understand what I'm
saying.


>> eight years.  Again, shoes on the other foot and left wing extremists
>> are now trying to pretend such things didn't happen.
>
> You figure every Democrat is a "left wing extremist?"
>

Just as every republican is a right wing extremist.  The exclusions go
to those who buck the party line and try to advance things that are
actually GOOD for the country and follow the guidelines of the
constitution (you know - not ignoring the tenth amendment by abusing the
interstate commerce clause).

>> I guess that makes you one of those (according to B.O.) who are
>> "clinging" to their religion...
>
> It beats clinging to most other stuff.
>

He said as though it were a bad thing.  Do we finally have something
upon which you disagree with B.O.?