Re: Anyone using perimiter fence protection

["Robert L Bass" <Sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"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.

>>> 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."
>>
>> Hmm.  Where's the lie in that?  She was speaking about the standard
>> Republican response to anyone who challenged Bush's moronic administration.
>> Now that we finally have adult supervision in Washington, you don't see
>> anyone playing the "patriot" card against those who disagree.  Rather, we
>> just ignore them while pretending to want their opini... er, never mind.
>> :^)
>
> I didn't say that the quote was a lie, just that our secretary of state IS a
> documented liar.

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.

>>> Substitute "a racist" in place of "not patriotic" and you've got a great
>>> quote for today.
>>
>> Not really.  The fact is there is a lot more racism on the right than on
>> the left.  Racism is not exclusively a right-wing phenomenon but it
>> certainly does tend to lean right.
>
> Actually it fits perfectly.  Holy crap - When McCain said "that one" during
> a debate it was construed by Obama supporters as racist.

I don't recall Obama saying the expression was racist.  I thought it was
disrespectful but there was no racial overtone that I could see.  Obama even
joked about "that one" during his comedy routine at the Al Smith dinner.
McCain also made light of himself (funnier than Obama's routine).  Frankly, I
think McCain is a decent person who wanted to do good things for America.  I
just believe that Obama has better ideas about what will work.

> Would you consider someone who, with no actual knowledge of current affairs,
> voted for B.O. solely because of the color of his skin to be a racist?

I guess you could call it that.  I'm sure there were plenty of folks who did
that but it's clear from the results that an awful lot of people who voted for
Obama were not black.  He seems to appeal to everyday Americans better than
anyone since John F Kennedy.

> Consider it a hypothetical question if you don't believe it happened.

I don't doubt it happened, but the reality is that race apparently played a
much lesser role in this election than anyone expected.

> I don't know who Governor F-word is.

That's Rachel Maddow's nickname for B-Rod due to his use of the F word in
virtually every sentence.

>> Hawaii?  Kenya?  The U.S. Senate?
>
> Kenya?  so you don't believe he's eligible to be president?

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.

>>> If you believe he came out of that as pure as the wind driven snow then
>>> I've got a bridge for sale.
>>
>> Like I said, he's a politician, so...
>
> Not just a politician - a Chicago politician.

Having lived in Chicago and Washington, D.C., I can tell you that Chicago
politicians have nothing on the federal government when it comes to
corruption.

>>> Frankly I don't think you truly do, but since you are a leftist ideologue
>>> you have convinced yourself it's so.
>>
>> Nah.  Idealogues have no room in their minds for doubt or independant
>> thought -- just rigid adherence to whatever their leaders tell them.
>> You've seen enough of my comments here over the years to know I'm no
>> idealogue.
>
> I assume you mean "independent" thought and that you aren't an "ideologue" -
> ;^)

Yes, that's it.  I often get that word wrong.  :^)

>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Whose right-wing mind do you think I'm reading?  I only noted the fact that
>> the schmuck deliberately delayed the appointment of a war hero to the VA
>> without cause.  You suggested he might have done so to "get even" (words to
>> that effect) with Democrats.  Further, by saying, "an oversight I trust," I
>> was giving you the benefit of the doubt for not replying.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> No, not if it would be impossible to look into said facts.  In the case in
>> point, however, the salient points are that he help up a vital nomination
>> of a war hero, delaying her ability to do anything to help veterans (you
>> know, those "troops" Republican politicians are always pretending to give a
>> s*** about).
>>
>>> Now, do you have any information on what this unidentified senator said
>>> was his (or her) reasons were for opposing this appointment?
>>
>> 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?

>>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.

> ...Burr said he'd asked for a delay in the Senate confirmation vote because
> of "discrepancies" and "inconsistencies" in what he said were three
> different versions of her financial disclosure statement that she had
> submitted to the Senate committee."
>
> As soon as the questions were answered he stopped holding up the
> appointment.  The actual delay was getting those answers.
>
> And the last thing Burr has said about her:
>
> "At the end of the day," Burr said, "I don't think there is a financial
> question about Tammy Duckworth. I think she is extremely sloppy, but that is
> not a disqualification."

That was *his* side of the story.  The reality is there was not a single shred
of evidence of wrong-doing on Tammy's part -- just a mean-spirited senator
holding up the works to spite the Democratic party and, in the process,
delaying her from doing things to help the same "troops" that Republican
politicians claim they support.

> Sounds a lot less nefarious than it seems without that information.

Except there was no information or indication of any reason to delay the
appointment.  Burr *said* that was his reason but never cited a specific
problem in her financial reports.

> Should sacrifice on the field of battle be a rubber stamp to public
> office?...

I don't know.  Ask Senator McCain.

> I knew lots of spectacular warriors in my twenty years who I wouldn't elect
> as dog catcher.

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.

>>> 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.
>>
>> I can't say if Burr is a racist or not.  I can only say that he's done
>> something awful to a wounded veteran and, in the process, to all veterans.
>> At the very least, that makes him disgusting -- certainly no patriot.
>
> So a Senator who takes the vetting of a political appointee seriously is
> disgusting?

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.

> Where was your disgust when the democrats were holding up Bush's
> appointments for far less cause?

Which ones?  Let's see.  We objected to the appointment of the cleaning lady
to Chief Justice.

>> Darn it.  I snipped so much that I no longer recall which bill this was.
>> Do you have the bill number?  I'd like to read it if you know either the
>> identifyuing number or who the sponsor(s) was(were).
>
> http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show

Thanks.  I'll look it over

[ pause ]

OK, I read the bill.  It's an attempt at "limited" gun regulation.  The intent
is to require registration and proof of lawful right to possess certain types
of guns which are predominantly designed to kill people.  While I might like
to see such weapons disappear from the planet, I don't believe that a
registration law will do any good.  Criminals will ignore the law as they do
other laws anyway.  It would create lots of paperwork and headaches for lawful
gun owners though.  So we agree, it's a bad idea (though I do think the author
had good intentions).

At any rate, did this ever make it out of committee?

>>> 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.
>>
>> Will "they" be coming in black helicopters?

Now that I've read the bill, I can say no.  It will not make it easier for
"them" to come get your guns, with or without black helicopters.

> Not sure.  What color are the DHS helicopters.  Knowing the federal
> government they will probably be coming in the large SUV's the rest of us
> aren't supposed to be driving.

I prefer large motorcycles.  :^)

>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Yep.  Jim says they're already using them in NY.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Uh, no.  I don't think it's intrusive.  Did Jim say it was optional but
>> those who elected to participate in the program got a discount?
>
> Yes it's optional - for now.

They probably won't make it mandatory until after a few more disasters caused
by wasteful usage.

>>> 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?
>>
>> How about we do both?
>
> Because I don't want anyone having the ability to control the temperature in
> my house...

I know what you mean.  My wife, being from a tropical country, likes it really
hot.  Anything under 85 F and she's freezing.  I want the A/C on if the
temperature exceeds 75F.  We compromise.  I let her set the thermostat and I
go around without a shirt on.  :^)

> Should I be fined or taxed heavily because I want the winter temp in my
> house to be 70 degrees rather than 65?  I already pay more for the gas I use
> to heat my home, why should I be penalized because i like it warm.

Is there some proposal to fine or tax you more for exceeding 65F?  Anyway, if
you were really smart you'd move to Sarasota where it's almost always hot.

> Won't be an issue in my golden years when we winter in Manila...

Manilla?  Try Ilha Boipeba instead.  It's paradise.  Here's a picture I took
last time I was there.
http://photos.bassburglaralarms.com/Salvador_2/DSC_7371.jpg

BTW, here's a picture of Leuck's mode of transport.
http://photos.bassburglaralarms.com/Salvador_2/DSC_7081.JPG

>>> 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?
>>
>> Hmm.  I read the wiki article and it looks like the proposed law (assuming
>> whoever submitted the wiki article was accurate) simply makes it easier for
>> workers to obtain collective bargaining rights.  It doesn't *preclude* a
>> secret ballot.  The current law says that (now this is my take on it, not a
>> direct quote) after enough employees sign an open (i.e., not secret) card,
>> they can then have a secret ballot to establish a union.  The proposed
>> change would say that once enough employees signed such a card they could
>> gain collective bargaining rights *even without* that second step.  IOW,
>> the forst step has always been an open petition.  Only the second phase was
>> secret.  The law would allow, under two specific circumstances, for the
>> first step to be sufficient to get the employees what they want.  However,
>> it does *not* do away with secret ballots on the whole.  Unless I misread
>> the article or unless the author misread the proposed bill, this is
>> actually a plus for workers.
>
> 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.

>>> A lot of ideological republicans support Joe Leiberman.  Proves nothing.
>>
>> Joe Lieberman?  He's not really a Democrat or a Republican.  He's just very
>> pro-Bush war.
>
> Bet the right could make the same claim about the republicans you support.
> That was kind of my point...

Charley Crist?  He's *very* Republican.

>>>> 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.
>
> What about jackass mayors who refused to use available means to evacuate his
> population because he was sitting high and dry and waiting for the feds to
> come in.  Now there is a useless P.O.S.

They should have tossed him into the water ... along with Bush and Brown.

>>> Uhm... read the words I wrote - it might help you understand what I'm
>>> saying.
>>
>> Uhm, which words?  You wrote a lot.
>
>>> Just as every republican is a right wing extremist....
>>
>> Ah, but they're not.  Let me give you an example of a truly patriotic
>> Republican I know.  There are plenty of others, but this guy is a good
>> friend. We were talking about Obama right after the election.  "Gary" is a
>> self-professed redneck, a card carrying Republican, a lifelong member of
>> the NRA and a fan of Kenny Chesney.  I asked him what he thought about
>> Obama.  Up until the election he invariably stated how opposed to BO he
>> was.  But that day something changed.  He said, "Well, now he's my
>> president.  I didn't vote for him, but I'd take a bullet for him."  I guess
>> that's the difference between a patriot and a [fill in the party of your
>> choice] member.
>
> A patriotic stance - One sorely lacking on the left's part during the last
> eight years - except for patriot like Tammy Duckworth.

It seems to be lacking on the right as well.

>> His comment was sort of humbling to me.  I must confess that I don't think
>> I'd have been able to say the same about Bush.
>
> Of course not.  No ideologue could.

Cruel.  Very cruel.  :^)

>>> 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).
>>
>> As you know, I'm very fond of that particular clause.  :^)
>
> I know you're being tongue-in-cheek here due to your business, but abuse of
> the interstate commerce clause to circumvent the tenth amendment is no
> laughing matter.

The proposed law, regardless of its usefulness (or not), doesn't seek to
circumvent the 10th Amendment.  The wording explains why the matter should (in
the author's opinion) be reserved to the federal government in accordance with
the 10th.  Any soundly written bill that affects states' rights is going to
include an explanation of the 10th Amendment implications.  Note, however,
that I said soundly written.  I did not say sound, because I think this sort
of thing is largely useless.  I would like to see rules requiring safe
storage, but regulation and licensing won't work IMO.

>>>>> 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.?
>>
>> Oh, yes.  I believe that people *should* cling to their faith.  IMO, that's
>> not a sign of bitterness but of hope for a better tomorrow.  It certainly
>> applies to my life.  Even when I was told that my cancer was incurable and
>> that I had a short time left to live, I tried to hold on to faith in God.
>> I can't say I never doubted I'd be healed.  In fact, I got to the point of
>> accepting my own imminent death.  It came as a fabulous surprise that I'm
>> in remission -- that the tumors that invaded my lungs, pleura and lymph
>> nodes have suddenly disappeared.
>
> And I was happy to hear of the remission.  I hope all the follow-ups remain
> clear.

Thanks.  I'm going back for another scan shortly before my next trip to
Brazil.

--

Regards,
Robert