Re: Anyone using perimiter fence protection

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

"JoeRaisin" wrote:
>
>> 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.

Glad to help.  We gave the Republicans a chance at running things and the
results have been disastrous.  I don't know if Obama's plan will work or not,
but I sure hope it does.  Either way, we know for a fact that Bush's methods
failed miserably on every front.

>>> Or the 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.

Compared to the previous administration's methods which destroyed 5 million
jobs, I'd say the plan is a plus.

>> 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...

OK, I'll grant you that.

> 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?

There's a huge difference between microeconomics (that which affects a single
home or a single small business) and macroeconomics (that which pertains to
the overall economy.  While it may seem logical to believe that what applies
to the one should also apply to the other, that's usually not the case.  If
you have only a little savings and you lose your job, you'd be crazy to spend
using credit cards.  But if the whole economy is down, the only way to bring
it back is to create low and middle income jobs, even if that means operating
in the red for a time.  If *everyone* refuses to spend, there will be no jobs
for anyone.  When we gave huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, they
didn't trickle it down to the middle class.  They hid it away in offshore
accounts, spent some on mega-mansions, etc.  When we create jobs for lower
income families, they take the moneyt and spend it.  That gives stores and
restaurants more business.  That sells stuff like cars and houses.  And that,
in turn, creates more jobs.  The cycle goes on.

> 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.

My accountant says that my taxes will actually go down under Obama's plan.
The again, I don't net $250,000.  If you're over that, expect to pay a few
percent more than last year.

>> 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.

Having received some of the auto-calls from both the Bush and McCain
campaigns, I can tell you the methods *they* used were disgusting.

>> 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.

Burr is the one who was playing games.  Unfortunately, the ones who paid for
it were American veterans (you know, the "troops").

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

Yep.

> 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.

We couldn't find anyone interested in the State job who wasn't a documented
liar.  What we did get is someone who has good working relationships and
strong friendships with more heads of state than I could even name.  That's a
far sight better than any of the clowns Bush hired.

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

Yep.  Using the CDC's website, I found that on average, more than 12 children
are killed every day by guns.  This, and not the left nor the "One World
Government", is the reason gun control efforts keep coming to the fore.

> 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.

How sad.  The reality is that kids will always find a way to get at something
they're not supposed to touch.  The only safe gun is one they can't reach.  A
secure gun cabinet and/or good trigger locks would save a lot of lives.

> 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.

Absolutely!

> 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.

I suspect most of the rest will be forthcoming.  Once you open the flood gates
it's really hard to close them again.

>>> 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.

To create a union?  Sorry, but I disagree.  If more than half the workers want
a union, let them have one.

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

Historically, this has not been the case.

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

Again, the proposed statute does not eliminate secret ballots.  Either you
misunderstand the wording of the act or you're intentionally being obtuse
(sound familiar?)

Regards,
Robert