Re: Anyone using perimiter fence protection

[JoeRaisin <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.  Like watching the geniuses around here paving all the
crosswalks in brick - then having to rip it up every two years so it can
be leveled.  Apparently it's too low rent to use stained & stamped
concrete that would look the same, last longer and is cheaper to repair.

Or teh money being pissed away on this stimulus plan.  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.


>>>> 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.
>

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.


>>>> 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.
>

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.

>> 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.
>

Take a breath... You were the one who suggested he was from Kenya - I
was just snarking off...

>>>> 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?
>

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.

In fact the next paragraph went into about as much detail as one would
expect from a "confidential" document.

>> ...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.
>

Well now, without revealing confidential information there is really no
way for you to know that.

>> 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.
>

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.

>> Should sacrifice on the field of battle be a rubber stamp to public
>> office?...
>
> I don't know.  Ask Senator McCain.
>

I didn't know you cared so much what Senator McCain thought.

>> 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.
>

Yep, there comes a time in a man's life when he should stop driving and
handling weapons.

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...


>>>> 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.
>

Sounds like payback from the right.  Same games the left played with
Bush's appointees.  Like I said, two sides of the same coin.

>> 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.
>

Yes you did - among others.

>>> 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?
>

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.

>>>> 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.
>

Always easier when you already know how the weapons are stored.

>> 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.
>

A few more nuclear reactors would help to prevent such disasters without
the nefarious potential.

>>>> 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
>

But we already own a house outside of Manila and the wife has all those
relative thingies whose company she seems to enjoy.

> 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.
>

It eliminates the secret ballot.  Bad... very bad...

>>>> 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.
>

Like I said - two sides of the same coin.

>>> 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.
>