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

Re: Anyone using perimiter fence protection



"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.

> 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.  :^)

> 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.

>>> 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.

>> 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?

> 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...

> 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.

>>>> 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.  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.

> 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.

>>>> 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).

> 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?

>>>> 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?

> 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?

> 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.

>>>> 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.

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

Uhm, which words?  You wrote a lot.

>>> 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.

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.

> 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 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.

--

Regards,
Robert



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