[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

Re: Anyone using perimiter fence protection



Robert L Bass wrote:
> "JoeRaisin" wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Yep.  I get almost as much of a laugh at some of the crazies on my side
> of the aisle as those on the other.
>
>> Did you see Janeane Garofalo asserting that the T.E.A. Parties were
>> due to racism and nothing else.
>
> 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.  Anyone who believes the lucky 95%
from this round of tax increases will continue to be left alone has a
surprise in store.

>> 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.

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

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?

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


>>>> 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.
>
> Um, they're not my cronies.  I don't even know most of them personally.
> Also, conversely, when Governor F-Word was indicted, I figured the guy
> was probably dirty.  The more I read about him, the more crooked he
> appears to be.
>

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

>>> 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?
>
> Yep, and I commended you for it.
>
>> 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.
>
> Well, that's common ground between us at least.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Hawaii?  Kenya?  The U.S. Senate?
>

Kenya?  so you don't believe he's eligible to be president?

>> 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.

>> 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" - ;^)

>>>>> 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...

>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...

...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."

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

Should sacrifice on the field of battle be a rubber stamp to public
office?  I knew lots of spectacular warriors in my twenty years who I
wouldn't elect as dog catcher.

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

>>>>> 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.
>
> 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

>> 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?
>

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.

http://www.haciendapub.com/iol2.html

>>>>> 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.

>> 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.  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.

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

>> 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.  Secret ballots are not.  Whatever the process for bringing a
vote - the vote itself SHOULD be held and should be a secret ballot.


>>>>> 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.
>
> L all you want.
>
>> It would have been more believable if you had admitted you had seen
>> the term but never used it yourself...
>
> I son't pay nearly as much attention to these things as you might
> suppose.  I like watching left-leaning commentators like Rachel and
> Kieth and comics like Maher, but I don't recall any of them using this
> term.  I did a search on it just now and apparently it's been used in a
> YouTube sketch.  There are also references to Bush WaffenSS in a few
> newsgroup posts.  I read a few newsgroups routinely and a few more only
> periodically.
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> 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...

>>>>> 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...
>
> In some ways, yes, it is.  Neither war was winnable.  Both were
> micromanaged by incompetent White House administrations.  Neither had a
> clear goal nor an exit strategy.  Both resulted in thousands of injured
> (and largely abandoned) veterans.  There's much more but I get tired of
> typing.
>
>>> 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.
>>

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.

>> Uhm... read the words I wrote - it might help you understand what I'm
>> saying.
>
> Uhm, which words?  You wrote a lot.
>

I never claimed that we "picked on" privates - I said that the acts of
such were always blamed on Bush.

>>>> 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....
>
> 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.

> 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.

>> 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.

>>>> 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.


alt.security.alarms Main Index | alt.security.alarms Thread Index | alt.security.alarms Home | Archives Home