Re: Anyone using perimiter fence protection

[JoeRaisin <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
> "JoeRaisin" wrote:
>>
>>> Uh, no.  Obama never put our troops in harm's way based on a pack of
>>> lies. Obama is trying to undo the terrible damage that Bush did to
>>> our military personnel.  For example, Bush left thousands of Iraq
>>> veterans without needed medical help.  Obama won't do that.  Unlike
>>> Bush, he actually cares about the men and women in uniform.
>>
>> Is that why it was briefly proposed that they bear their own financial
>> burdens in caring for service related disabilities?...
>
> Briefly proposed?  By whom and when?
>

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92111

>> Let me guess, you never heard that one, right?
>
> Good guess.
>
>> They floated it out there for a few days until they figured out it was
>> political suicide.
>
> Who are "they" please?  I'm not trying to be snide.  I didn't read this
> one.
>
>>>> They gave guidance and let the onsite commander make the calls.
>>>
>>> Bush never gave guidance.  He just sent them in without a plan.
>>>
>>>> Are you trying to say that Obama has not broken any promises?
>>>
>>> He's a politician, so no.
>>>
>>>> Are you happy with his cabinet appointments?
>>>
>>> So far, so good.
>>>
>>>> Did you hear that the IRS (under the dubious leadership of a tax
>>>> cheat)...
>>>
>>> That's a pretty strong choice of words.  As I understand it, there
>>> was an error in his reporting which he admitted when his accountants
>>> discovered it. He paid the IRS in full, including interest and
>>> penalties.
>>>
>>
>> Okay, he said he used Turbo Tax and that it never prompted him on the
>> omitted data.  The makers of Turbo Tax released a statement that it
>> most definitely would have done so.  So he either lied or he is a
>> moron who couldn't follow a simple program.
>
> I use Turbo Tax, too.  However, I don't do the data entry nor do I read
> the reports.  An employee does the data entry and my accountant prepares
> the forms.  I sign the returns but I don't actually sign the checks.  An
> employee does that, too.  I can easily see how someone much busier and,
> presumably, much wealthier than me might have missed a screw-up.  As to
> the makers of the program, would you expect them to admit their software
> might have missed something that significant if it did?  I'm not saying
> they lied, but it wouldn't be the first time a software developer
> "misspoke" about an error, especially if they had since fixed the problem.
>
>> The IMF said they gave him the money to pay the taxes.  Now, he must
>> have noticed the extra coin in his bank account (unless of course the
>> moron label applies)...
>
> Or unless, like me, he doesn't check his bank balance routinely.  I get
> a warning from a staff member if I need to transfer funds to cover
> something. Then I tell her to deal wih it.  Other than that, I pay
> little attention to the "till."  This guy certainly has more staff
> taking care of things for him than some small fry running an online store.
>
>> Well, that and the document he signed saying he understood the tax
>> issues. So, again, he is either stupid, dishonest or both.
>
> Did you see the movie, "Being There?"  Every time someone told the star
> something he would say, "I understand..."  :^)
>

Okay - so you are admitting we have a moron in charge of the treasury.


>> He didn't pay penalties.  Furthermore he didn't pay 2001 and 2002
>> until AFTER he was appointed and it became an issue.
>
> Are you saying he didn't pay anything during those years or just the
> amount owed due to an error?
>
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.

>> I don't see a problem with my choice of words.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion.  So am I.
>

Yes, however in this case your opinion is based on rationalizations and
a desperate hope that the politician you support is not just as greedy,
power hungry and dishonest as the politician you don't support.

They are simply two sides of the same coin.

>>> I noticed that one (SC I think) senator tried to hold up the
>>> appointment of a bona fide war hero who lost both her legs when her
>>> helicopter was shot down over Iraq from appointment to the VA.  This
>>> is a woman who is revered by veterans of all parties but a Republican
>>> senator held up her appointment for weeks without cause.
>>
>> Could it be he didn't agree with her point of view?  Could it be he
>> didn't agree with the appointment?
>
> Could it be he only wanted to give Obama a hard time without ever giving
> a reason for holding up an essential appointment so that she could not
> get to work assisting veterans?  Could it be that politics was far more
> important to him than veterans?  Could it be that he's just an a....
> (well, you know).
>
>> Perhaps he, like most politicians, is a partisan, petulant child and
>> was remembering all the appointments the democrats held up for purely
>> partisan reasons.
>

No more or less than Democrats

> So he decided to hurt veterans in order to get even with Democrats.
> Real patriotic, eh?
>
>>>> How about some of the things he has talked about or others of his
>>>> ilk have proposed in legislation?
>>>> Firearms licenses (with intrusive applications)...
>>>
>>> Obama never proposed that.
>>
>> Thus the phrase, "others of his ilk"...
>
> 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.

>> though how could it be that such an intelligent and on the ball
>> president wouldn't know what nefarious agenda the other members of his
>> party are up to.
>
> The above assumes there actually is a nefarious agenda.  So far you've
> offered only allegations that someone named "they" has done or is trying
> to do some nefarious stuff.
>
>>>> centrally monitored/controlled thermostats...
>>>
>>> That's not even physically possible using current technology.
>>>
>>
>> [link site containing to the following]
>> ["The Programmable Communication Thermostat (PCT) would feature a
>> "non-removable" FM receiver which could be controlled by Big Brother
>> in "times of emergency" to drop load in order for "utilities to meet
>> their supplies [when] the integrity of the grid is being jeopardized."
>> Of course, we are hearing that adjustments would only be made ±4
>> degrees, but we aren't so keen on one thing leading to another, if you
>> catch our drift."]
>
> 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...

> BTW, the site mentions thermostats that would be controlled by an RF
> signal from the utility.  It doesn't claim they actually exist as of
> yet.  While communicating thermostats are popular among home automaters,
> TTBOMK, there are none that can be controlled by an RF signal from the
> power company.  Certainly they could be designed and made if there were
> a market for them but at this point there's no such market.
>
>>>> centralized database of health records
>>>
>>> Great idea.
>>
>> So much for HIPA
>
> 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

>>>> Yeah... that's what we need.
>>>
>>> Just what the doctor ordered.
>>>
>>>> We have merely traded in the Bushwaffen for the Obamastasi.
>>>
>>> I'm unsure what either of those terms means.
>>
>> Well... Bushwaffen was a term your folks (anti-Bush) coined in order
>> to in some way associate him with Hitler and/or the Nazi regime.
>
> I'm not sure who these folks of mine are.  I personally never considered
> Bush to be a Nazi.  He's an idiot with an ego way bigger than his poor,
> little brain.  He was a tyrant though, so I can understand how some
> might have equated him with the Fuehrer.
>
>> Of course you knew that...
>
> 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...

>> 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.

>>> It appears that Obama, unlike Bush, actually cares about America and
>>> Americans.  Is he perfect?  No chance. Will he make mistakes?  Sure.
>>> The difference is he's basically an honest person (to the degree that
>>> one can expect from a politician).  Bush is a liar who slew thousands
>>> of American troops on the altar of his own ego.  Obama is brilliant,
>>> yet humble whereas Bush was stupid, yet arrogant.
>>>
>>>> They are both (along with their parties) dedicated to the
>>>> centralization of power in DC which flies in the face of the tenth
>>>> amendment.
>>>
>>> I'm in favor of centralizing power in Sarasota.
>>>
>>>> Now we have the situation were, while it is a terrible thing to
>>>> profile mullahs who purposely act provocative in an airport, We have
>>>> to keep a close eye on the conservative guy who made it back from
>>>> Iraq and now wants nothing more than to provide for his family by
>>>> the sweat of his brow and would like to keep just a little bit of
>>>> the fruits of his labor...
>>>
>>> Those guys, American heros, were abandoned by Bush and just about
>>> every previous administration.  Obama is finally trying to do
>>> something to help them out.
>>
>> Oh, you mean by warning local law enforcement that folks like that are
>> likely to become domestic terrorists.
>
> 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.

I have watched the left blame Bush for the stupid or nefarious actions
of every cabinet appointee, civil servant and Army private for the last
eight years.  Again, shoes on the other foot and left wing extremists
are now trying to pretend such things didn't happen.


>>>> Oh yeah, and, horror of horrors - he goes to church...
>>>
>>> So do I.  That doesn't get me anything special in this life -- only
>>> in the next.
>

I guess that makes you one of those (according to B.O.) who are
"clinging" to their religion...