|
David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
Really? You grew up near there and never heard of it? Need the exact address on Gravers Road and then you can use the mapblast, eh? Ok,,she was born in 1963 and lived at 1819 Gravers Road in Norristown. .Oh, this is just too easy..... http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp...te=PA&zipcode= There is no such address in the mapquest database, as the link shows. Once again, you're wrong, and I proved it. You proved nothing. Go to google maps and try it again. Been there, done that. Nada. Wrong,,,try it again. Your incompetence coupled with desperation has you claiming something that the rest of the world has no problem viewing. Now, take a deep breath, and try it again...."google" then "google maps". Enter "1819 Gravers Road Norristown, Pa." View. Enjoy. Come back. Get laughed at for glaring error. Deny. Claim information is incorrect. Change subject. Make more accusations. Go away angry. Besides, you can't use google maps. No, you have just demonstrated -you- can't use google maps. |
On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:46:31 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:25:39 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:41:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:13:35 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip One question begs for an answer: what is the divorce rate in this country? According to the stats from: http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls the percentage of divorced people is 9.6%. For some reason, Frank was unable (or unwilling) to read the columns and see the actual numbers, but if you believe the census bureau, that's what it is. For some reason, you were unable (or unwilling) to accept the clear statement by the Census Bureau that they do not keep track of marraige and divorce rates. Who cares about the RATE? The total amount of divorced people, according to the chart is 9.6% as of 2003. You can break the numbers down by age, race, gender, and income, but the total combined results are 9.6% And for some reason, you were unable (or unwilling) to explain how you derived the divorce rate from the table you cited. It's not the divorce rate, it is the percentage of the population that is divorced. If you would read the spreadsheet, you'd see that. Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to cough up the marriage data so that it can be compared to the divorce data. No one had asked previously. But since you have now, the percentage of married people (Which included both spouse present and absent) is about 53.5% from the same spreadsheet that you can't seem to read and gather information from. Care to help Social Security? The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes those who have already given into the SS program for their entire working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to everyone. So your solution is to simply eliminate Social Security? Hey, neat idea, but you can't "divert" what you don't have, and the Reps have tapped the SS trust fund so deep that there isn't anything to "divert". Care to substantiate that statement with some hard facts? Like the way -you- back up -your- statements with hard facts? Sure.... It's true because I say it's true. In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated "factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist. Bush's solution to SS is a "credit-card" retirement plan, which isn't any better. Maybe you two should get together and figure out what "promote the general Welfare" means. America was never meant to be a "Welfare state", despite the objections of liberals who would socialize every program and service, at the expense of the people who actually earn money. If you could quote any liberal who said that America should be a "welfare state" I might agree. They refer to it by different names. Names like "living wage", "fair share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing. Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't. I'd suggest that once a couple divorces, they can no longer give nor receive Social Security benefits from another person (sole exception being to children). I've heard the divorce rate is close to 50%, but I honestly don't know. 9.6% according to the 2003 census. http://www.census.gov/population/www.../marr-div.html So what part of "The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take place in a given year" do you not understand? What part of 9.6% of the total population is divorced do YOU not understand? What percent of people are married, Dave? See above. And before you jump the gun and say "Aha! if 53.4% of people are married, that means that 46.4% are divorced, that's almost half!", you need to consider that an additional 6.2% are widowed, 2.1% are separated, and 28.6% have never been married. It's all there in the spreadsheet. Don't tell me you too have webTV and can't read a simple spreadsheet? I usually apply Newton's law of action vs. reaction. Someone does something extreme and the opposite side responds with a equal and opposite reaction. There wouldn't be such an outpouring of opposition to gay marriage if there wasn't such a push to legalize it. "In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal. You need a reason to make something illegal." -- Donna Moss, "West Wing" And you accuse ME of watching too much TV? You do, and that's why I used the quote. Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't surprise me that you have. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:32:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:08:30 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Wrong. Ice provides carbon dioxide samples that are available for any given year. These samples are measured for C14 concentrations, fossil fuels having a much lower concentration of C14 than natural processes. The difference is quantified as the percentage of CO2 contributed by combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the contribution of atmospheric CO2 from human sources is very accurately measured. No they are not. Since CO2 can come from a variety of places including volcanos, and large forest fires any of which can skew those results. Wrong. Volcanos give off very little CO2 -- most of the gasses are Hydrogen Sulfide and oxides of Sulfer. And the Carbon Dioxide from forest fires is easily calculated. In fact, forest fires (both recent and ancient) are studied for their impact on the environment and have been found to cause very little variation in CO2 concentration simply because they occur every year, and are actually -decreasing- in both frequency and intensity. That's hard to quantify, for years before accurate data was routinely taken. Your only guessing at that point. There's only so much you can see in ice cores and soil layers. Most of what you see there is suggestive, but not conclusive. When the apparent variation in the sun's energy output is taken into consideration, it becomes very difficult to determine the exact rate of global warming and how much of it is part of the cyclic climatic change and how much of it is caused strictly as a result of human activity. Wrong. Solar variations can be determined from tree ring growth, and when compared to ice samples they can be differentiated from CO2 concentrations. Tree ring growth can be affected by a number of factors, besides solar output. Without accounting for and removing those other variables, a true tracking of solar output cannot be accurately ascertained. snip Well, sure,,,Frank taugh you better regarding radio technical competency, Frank has some issues as well. He failed to recognize common industry terms, and discredited my explanations of common electronic circuits because they didn't fit within his own narrow "education". I recognized the "terms" as being poorly defined slang used by some who are without formal education in the field. I'm sure the senior level engineers who I work with would take exception to your highly sheltered and quite ignorant claims. Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide the names of those "senior level engineers". And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know them. And your explanations don't fit within any educational (or engineering) standards, despite your bogus claim to have had some formal education in electronics. Which only shows just how sheltered your own education and (more importantly) your real world experience has been. Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to name the tech school you claim to have attended. I told you before, you aren't worthy of knowing. I have no intention of revealing any of the secondary education sources (and there have been a few) that I have attended over the years. If you want to think that I'm hiding something, then so be it. I know the truth and so does my paycheck, and that's all that matters in the grand scheme of things. you called him names and took issue with his career. I was he who first started to degrade my education and career. I only kept the same level of civility. You may have matched my level of 'civility' (subject to debate), but you didn't even come close to my level of education and experience in the field of electronics. Frank, like my mother once said: Self praise stinks, and boy do you smell...... Probably because I've been busy working on my garage. But the fact remains that, no matter how you would like to believe otherwise, your education and experience in the field doesn't measure up to mine. Says you, a guy who tends bar, and who's next big career move is a lawn care business. Yep, that's some education you have there Frankie. On the contrary, you tried to denounce me with nothing but ignorance, generalizations and subjective opinions. Which is exactly what you did. Wrong. I provided facts and logic. You choose to ignore any facts or logic that isn't consistent with your "core beliefs". You have yet to provide a single unbiased "fact". Your "facts" are simply conclusions reached by other equally opinionated, and agenda driven people, who are making up these conclusions to try to explain certain facts (according to their spin of course). But these are hardly the only explanation. Your logic is often laughable and contains many fallacies. So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave? On the opposite side of the coin from yours Frank. Where are yours? Oh that's right, they're on that website right next to the one with all the left wing anti-war propaganda....... I've provided fact after fact after fact. No you haven't. You provided assumption, after conclusion, after opinion. All the facts I have provided can be independently verified by yourself and anyone else willing to do so. Where? You have provided nothing of the sort in -any- topic. I provide what is necessary. Like the PA state laws which back up what I stated about allowing at least 5 MPH over the speed limit in most cases when clocking speeders. It was comical watching you spin and twist, not much differently that Twistedhed, trying to find the smallest exception to those rules, in a vain effort to try to disprove the majority case. Talk about desperation.... Is your ego that shallow? .... No one is perfect. If the best you can come up with is 2 mistakes that I made in 10 years worth of posting, I'd say that's a pretty good percentage. You may have -admitted- two of the many mistakes you have made in 10 years. IMO, that's a pretty -poor- percentage. I'm sure I made a few more, so what? Like I said, nobody's perfect. But I am right more than I'm wrong. And I invite you to invest even more of your leisure time researching my newsgroup participation in yet another fruitless effort to discredit me. But hey, if that makes you feel better about yourself, then who am I to stand in the way of therapy. I'll leave it to you and your obsessed minion Twisty to dig up all of my mistakes. Until then, your ****ing in the wind. Jim tried talking to you about foreign news sources, and you called him naive. If someone truly thinks that a foreign news service is any less likely to be affected by political bias, then they are naive. Yet you claim that domestic news services are heavily biased to the left. If that's true then foreign news services are -more- likely to be -less- biased, which makes -you- naive. That statement makes absolutely no logical sense. Only because you are incapable of thinking logically. That's not logic. It's convolution. What one country's news service bias is, has absolutely no bearing on what another country's bias is. There is no connection or relation whatsoever. Their bias depends on the agenda of those who are pulling the financial or political purse strings and who sits in the editor's/ publisher's office. Where is the logic that supports your claim that a foreign news service bias is in any way connected to domestic news services? That's not what I said, Dave. Learn to read instead of gazing into your crystal ball. What you said makes no sense, so maybe you should rephrase it in a more logical manner. Of course your statement, however ignorant and illogical, still did not address my claim which was that foreign news services are just as likely to be politically swayed as any in this country. They are not immune to agenda driven slant. But the exact degree of bias relative to domestic services is irrelevant. You care to deny that? Absolutely. Any news service is subject to bias simply because must decide if any given article is newsworthy. US news services are biased because of corporate ownership influences and target audience demographics. Not to mention the liberal slant of the reporters and writers who are producing the articles. If corporate ownership had as much influence as you imply, then the slant of U.S. news would be decidedly conservative. Yet, with the notable exception of (Thank God for) Fox News, that is not the case. I suggest that you pick up copies of the books "Bias" and "Arrogance" by Bernard Goldberg. Both are good reads into the liberal slant of the mainstream media. Goldberg was a 28 year veteran of CBS news, and has an insider's view on what actually goes on inside the "art" of news reporting. IOW, the Dutch are far less concerned with American news than Americans, so an independent Dutch news agency is going to have far less bias than any US news service, NPR included. That may or may not be true depending on their bias toward or against Americans. If they have a decidedly anti-American slant, they would tend to only report on those news stories that paint America in an unfavorable light. I suppose you would find Al-Jazeera to be the bastion of objectivity? I don't think Jim claimed to get his news from Al-Jazeera. No he didn't. But would you consider Al Jazeera's reporting of Americans to be objective? Why or why not? Then explain why any of those factors would be exclusive only to Al Jazeera. Care is not a "simile" for "disagree". When you figure that out, you may ask such questions. You need to learn the difference between a 'simile' and a 'metaphor'. Didn't you ever watch that Danny DeVito movie where he played Kotter to a group of Army dimwits? I wholeheartedly agree with you. Twisty should learn the difference between those terms. You did know to whom you were directing your comments right? No, I didn't. But since you didn't spot his error, my statement stands. I don't nitpick on grammatical mistakes. Only people who start losing debates on the merits of debate itself, resort to attacking grammar, structure or spelling errors. If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger as it were. Your word games and semantic shuffle will not allow you to wiggle out of that so easily. If one does not post their opinions, how do we know what they think on any topic? Several people have posted opinions that are contrary to your's. Several? Hardly. Other than you Twisty and sometimes Landshark (Who's mostly annoyed at the continuing banter), who else has disagreed with my advice on CB radio? After 10 years of posting I'm sure I could find more than a few in the archives. Doubtful. Most are either thankful for my advice, or at least debate with it on a civil level. I miss the days when Dennis O, Sean, Bill E., Toll and others offered up their own perspectives with respect to CB radio. Only the rapid malcontents have any consistent issue with me. If you want to talk about politics, there are too few facts to make any definitive choice as to who is "right" or "wrong". Regardless, there are -many- people who have posted political opinions that are contrary to your own warped and subjective whinings. That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But the fact that you hold that opinion, in and of itself, is not proof that my contrary opinions are "wrong". Nobody (except one of your sock puppets) has posted -any- opinion that supports or defends -your- opinions, even in rec.boats. I have had many supporting opinions. Heck, in rec.boats, the conservatives are pretty much even with the liberals. You must be cross-posting to an alternative universe because that's not what comes up on my newsreader. Then you need to look harder. Most of the liberals there cannot think independently. They offer up op-ed column of obviously biased reporters as some sort of "support" for their opinions. But liberalism defies logic, and that's what especially laughable about you Frank. You, who claim to embrace logic, yet adopt a political ideology that's mostly "pie in the sky" idealism. A philosophy that requires a great deal of complicated governmental intervention to implement. The free market capitalist society is one of true freedom. Those who work hard, get rewarded. Those who don't....... Well they have no one else to blame but themselves for what they end up with. The conservatives mount far better logical arguments. The liberals there tend to limit their opinions to blindly regurgitating talking points and cut and paste articles written by other people. So much for independent thought. They "regurgitate" their arguments in order to find some path of understanding through your thick skull and to your brain, assuming you actually have a brain. But BS is still BS no matter how many times they "regurgitate" it. And I have no sock puppets, your attempt to bolster your own sagging credibility by trying to discredit mine notwithstanding. You are becoming as paranoid and narcissistic as Twisty. Doesn't matter since your only supporter has left the building. Your still wrong Frank. But your nature dictates that you will continue to attack me. But like trying to find firm footing in quicksand, your arguments will be just as ineffective. That is why arguing politics is usually pointless. Dave "Sandbagger" |
David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
Really? You grew up near there and never heard of it? Need the exact address on Gravers Road and then you can use the mapblast, eh? Ok,,she was born in 1963 and lived at 1819 Gravers Road in Norristown. .Oh, this is just too easy..... http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp...te=PA&zipcode= There is no such address in the mapquest database, as the link shows. Once again, you're wrong, and I proved it. You proved nothing. Go to google maps and try it again. Been there, done that. Nada. Wrong,,,try it again. Your incompetence coupled with desperation has you claiming something that the rest of the world has no problem viewing. Now, take a deep breath, and try it again...."google" then "google maps". Enter "1819 Gravers Road Norristown, Pa." View. Enjoy. Come back. Get laughed at for glaring error. Deny. Claim information is incorrect. Change subject. Make more accusations. Go away angry. Besides, you can't use google maps. No, you have just demonstrated -you- can't use google maps. There is no Gravers road in Norristown Pa. Period. That's a far cry from your above claim that you "been there and done that" and got "nada" when entering "1819 Gravers Road Norristown, Pa." into the search engine. Look at all the map programs you want. Only needed the one to show your incompetency. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 07:54:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:32:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:08:30 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Wrong. Ice provides carbon dioxide samples that are available for any given year. These samples are measured for C14 concentrations, fossil fuels having a much lower concentration of C14 than natural processes. The difference is quantified as the percentage of CO2 contributed by combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the contribution of atmospheric CO2 from human sources is very accurately measured. No they are not. Since CO2 can come from a variety of places including volcanos, and large forest fires any of which can skew those results. Wrong. Volcanos give off very little CO2 -- most of the gasses are Hydrogen Sulfide and oxides of Sulfer. And the Carbon Dioxide from forest fires is easily calculated. In fact, forest fires (both recent and ancient) are studied for their impact on the environment and have been found to cause very little variation in CO2 concentration simply because they occur every year, and are actually -decreasing- in both frequency and intensity. That's hard to quantify, for years before accurate data was routinely taken. Your only guessing at that point. There's only so much you can see in ice cores and soil layers. Most of what you see there is suggestive, but not conclusive. No, it's not hard to quantify. Carbon dioxide is not the only product of wood combustion. The gasses contain various quantities of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons, as well as tars, acids, aldehydes, ketones, and other chemicals that make good preservatives for meat and add such a unique flavor to a BBQ. And that's just what goes into the air; the residue left on the ground is wood ash, and that ash can not only be easily identified but actually analyzed to determine what type of wood was burned. We also know how much carbon dioxide and ash is produced from the burning of a given quantity of any specific type of wood, the average number and size of naturally occuring forest fires each year, the extent those fires will burn if left unchecked, the amount of growth that typically occurs before fire takes it's toll, the areas and climates that are more likely to have fires, how much vegetation survives a fire, how much vegetation actually -depends- upon fire for regeneration, the rate of reforestation after a fire, etc, etc. In comparison, volcanos spew very few and very specific gasses, which are usually compounds of sulphur, not carbon. Volcanic ash is actually a mineral that's easily identified. And contrary to your statement of professed ignorance on this topic, the effect of a volcanic eruption has a climatic impact that is totally -opposite- to the effect of greenhouse gasses -- the global temperature actually -drops- after an eruption because the ash suspended in the atmosphere reflects sunlight away from the surface. I obviously know more about the subject than you, and there are scientists that study this stuff professionally and know gobs more than I will ever learn. You are the only one guessing, Dave. When the apparent variation in the sun's energy output is taken into consideration, it becomes very difficult to determine the exact rate of global warming and how much of it is part of the cyclic climatic change and how much of it is caused strictly as a result of human activity. Wrong. Solar variations can be determined from tree ring growth, and when compared to ice samples they can be differentiated from CO2 concentrations. Tree ring growth can be affected by a number of factors, besides solar output. Without accounting for and removing those other variables, a true tracking of solar output cannot be accurately ascertained. You're barking up the wrong tree once again, Dave; it was the study of tree ring growth that led to the discovery of the climatic effects of the 11/22 year sunspot cycles. snip Well, sure,,,Frank taugh you better regarding radio technical competency, Frank has some issues as well. He failed to recognize common industry terms, and discredited my explanations of common electronic circuits because they didn't fit within his own narrow "education". I recognized the "terms" as being poorly defined slang used by some who are without formal education in the field. I'm sure the senior level engineers who I work with would take exception to your highly sheltered and quite ignorant claims. Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide the names of those "senior level engineers". And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know them. Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references? And your explanations don't fit within any educational (or engineering) standards, despite your bogus claim to have had some formal education in electronics. Which only shows just how sheltered your own education and (more importantly) your real world experience has been. Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to name the tech school you claim to have attended. I told you before, you aren't worthy of knowing. I have no intention of revealing any of the secondary education sources (and there have been a few) that I have attended over the years. If you want to think that I'm hiding something, then so be it. I know the truth and so does my paycheck, and that's all that matters in the grand scheme of things. Yet you want me and others to believe your claims. Well then, if your proof consists of your paycheck then post a scan of your pay stub, or a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up with more excuses. So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm proud of it. I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school, and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both attended and graduated from EWU. Second, every school is prevented by law from releasing any personal information beyond the fact that a student attended and graduated. IOW, you have no reason to withhold the name of your school -- unless, of course, you lied. you called him names and took issue with his career. I was he who first started to degrade my education and career. I only kept the same level of civility. You may have matched my level of 'civility' (subject to debate), but you didn't even come close to my level of education and experience in the field of electronics. Frank, like my mother once said: Self praise stinks, and boy do you smell...... Probably because I've been busy working on my garage. But the fact remains that, no matter how you would like to believe otherwise, your education and experience in the field doesn't measure up to mine. Says you, a guy who tends bar, and who's next big career move is a lawn care business. Yep, that's some education you have there Frankie. And my education continues. Your's stalled in high-school shop class. On the contrary, you tried to denounce me with nothing but ignorance, generalizations and subjective opinions. Which is exactly what you did. Wrong. I provided facts and logic. You choose to ignore any facts or logic that isn't consistent with your "core beliefs". You have yet to provide a single unbiased "fact". Your "facts" are simply conclusions reached by other equally opinionated, and agenda driven people, who are making up these conclusions to try to explain certain facts (according to their spin of course). But these are hardly the only explanation. Facts are not biased, Dave. Opinions are biased. You still haven't learned how to tell the difference between them. Your logic is often laughable and contains many fallacies. Despite your amateurish application of your internet-education in logic, you have yet to find a single fallacy in any of my logical arguments. My offer to send you the Copi book still stands. So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave? On the opposite side of the coin from yours Frank. Where are yours? Oh that's right, they're on that website right next to the one with all the left wing anti-war propaganda....... I've provided fact after fact after fact. No you haven't. You provided assumption, after conclusion, after opinion. All the facts I have provided can be independently verified by yourself and anyone else willing to do so. Where? Since you are so poorly educated that you don't even know how or where to verify a fact, I would suggest you start learning this valuable skill by pestering the good folks at your local public library. You have provided nothing of the sort in -any- topic. I provide what is necessary. Like the PA state laws which back up what I stated about allowing at least 5 MPH over the speed limit in most cases when clocking speeders. It was comical watching you spin and twist, not much differently that Twistedhed, trying to find the smallest exception to those rules, in a vain effort to try to disprove the majority case. Talk about desperation.... Is your ego that shallow? It was more fun watching you play semantics upon the disclosure of facts that contradicted your claim. You do indeed "provide what is necessary" to support your conclusions; but you withhold any facts that don't. For example, you are withholding the names of those engineers that disagree with me; you are withholding the name of your "tech school"; you are withholding the specific nature of your "engineering" career; and you withheld the section of law that contradicted your claim about speeding laws in PA. .... No one is perfect. If the best you can come up with is 2 mistakes that I made in 10 years worth of posting, I'd say that's a pretty good percentage. You may have -admitted- two of the many mistakes you have made in 10 years. IMO, that's a pretty -poor- percentage. I'm sure I made a few more, so what? Like I said, nobody's perfect. But I am right more than I'm wrong. Again, you need to learn the difference between facts and opinions. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 06:57:43 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to cough up the marriage data so that it can be compared to the divorce data. No one had asked previously. I asked several times. But since you have now, the percentage of married people (Which included both spouse present and absent) is about 53.5% from the same spreadsheet that you can't seem to read and gather information from. Excellent. Now, from that same spreadsheet, how many of those people that are married have been previously married? And how many times? Care to help Social Security? The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes those who have already given into the SS program for their entire working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to everyone. So your solution is to simply eliminate Social Security? Hey, neat idea, but you can't "divert" what you don't have, and the Reps have tapped the SS trust fund so deep that there isn't anything to "divert". Care to substantiate that statement with some hard facts? Like the way -you- back up -your- statements with hard facts? Sure.... It's true because I say it's true. In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated "factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist. If you assume that the annual Federal Budget Reports from both Congress and the White House are written by skilled left wing propagandists then I suppose you are correct. Bush's solution to SS is a "credit-card" retirement plan, which isn't any better. Maybe you two should get together and figure out what "promote the general Welfare" means. America was never meant to be a "Welfare state", despite the objections of liberals who would socialize every program and service, at the expense of the people who actually earn money. If you could quote any liberal who said that America should be a "welfare state" I might agree. They refer to it by different names. Which is something the conservatives -never- do, I'm sure. Names like "living wage", "fair share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing. Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't. LOL..... I think I'll let that statement stand on it's own 'merits'! I'd suggest that once a couple divorces, they can no longer give nor receive Social Security benefits from another person (sole exception being to children). I've heard the divorce rate is close to 50%, but I honestly don't know. 9.6% according to the 2003 census. http://www.census.gov/population/www.../marr-div.html So what part of "The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take place in a given year" do you not understand? What part of 9.6% of the total population is divorced do YOU not understand? What percent of people are married, Dave? See above. And before you jump the gun and say "Aha! if 53.4% of people are married, that means that 46.4% are divorced, that's almost half!", you need to consider that an additional 6.2% are widowed, 2.1% are separated, and 28.6% have never been married. It's all there in the spreadsheet. Don't tell me you too have webTV and can't read a simple spreadsheet? I can read it just fine. Now it's -your- turn to read it: Notice that the total for each row is 100%. So how many people are counted in two or more categories? I usually apply Newton's law of action vs. reaction. Someone does something extreme and the opposite side responds with a equal and opposite reaction. There wouldn't be such an outpouring of opposition to gay marriage if there wasn't such a push to legalize it. "In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal. You need a reason to make something illegal." -- Donna Moss, "West Wing" And you accuse ME of watching too much TV? You do, and that's why I used the quote. Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't surprise me that you have. You bet I do! It's a lot better than most of the other crap that's pushed onto the public as 'entertainment'. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Wed, 18 May 2005 08:30:19 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip I am hardly a religious zealot. I don't even go to church. I am not even a practicing Christian. But I do believe in a "God" and I do believe in intelligent design, and I believe in keeping morality as a guide to responsible social behavior. Another excellent book you should read: "The Golden Bough" by James George Frazer. I think it should be required reading for any sociology class. I am for preserving proven tradition It's not the responsibility of the government to "preserve tradition" no matter how much you would like the government to shoulder that repsponsibility for you. and do not believe that change is automatically a good thing. Neither do I. But change, good or bad, -is- inevitable (or haven't you looked up the word yet?). I am also a political conservative (As are you IIRC), and tend to favor smaller government, personal responsibility and accountability, a free market I agree 100%. and a strong morality based system of law and order in order to punish those who cannot act properly in a civilized society. The only problem I have with that is your source of "morality". The First Amendment prohibits any law that favors any specific religion, therefore religion cannot be the source of morality. Thus, society must define the lines of morality. If the majority of society derive their moral values from religion that's fine -- but remember that the framers of this country were mostly Christians, yet felt it was a moral imperative to protect the freedom of everyone to practice their own religious faith, -and- to protect the government from imposing religion by law. Now if you had a sociological foundation for your argument against gay marriage I might even agree, but you don't. And since society is constantly changing (as it inevitably does), morality will change, and so will the laws based on morality. But what you -still- don't seem to accept is that -you- are not forced to change your religion based upon changes in society -- that's your Constitutional right. You may not like those changes, but as you have stated many times before, the government can't make everyone happy. The arguments between Frank, Twisty and I are much more complex than a simple ideological disagreement. Twisty is twisty. His actions need no further explanation. Frank has been stung ever since I admitted that I supported Bush. A revelation that seems to have affected him personally. Frank has since been trying to prove that support of Bush (and republicans in general) is wrong based solely on his subjective opinion that only an idiot would support him so, consequently, he has been since trying to prove that I'm that idiot. You have that a little mixed up, Dave. You -are- an idiot, but that's beside the point; I don't care if you support Bush or not -- but your reasons for supporting him are based on ignorance, propaganda, and flat-out lies, many of which you perpetrate yourself just because you don't like being proved wrong. And I don't care if you are Republican or Democrat since both parties are just about equally corrupt, as I have stated on more than one occasion (and you evidently -still- can't (or won't) understand). So if you are going to tell the story then tell the -correct- story, not just your biased version of it. But during the course of the ensuing "debates", Frank has revealed much about his personality, and has given me an insight into his own inner demons. I can now see why he and Twisty have found common ground. They both have a profound distrust of corporations and any form of "the establishment". And, if their level of knowledge and education is as they claim, they are both underachievers. Frank, who once claimed to teach college courses, and claims to hold a BS degree in engineering, working as a bartender. Twisty, who claims to be well versed in law, and an "accomplished" writer, takes snowbirds out to fish on a charter boat, and can't even afford a real computer. No wonder he hides behind an anonymous pseudonym. Twisty and I have common ground now only because I was forced to admit that he was right regarding Bush. Beyond that, we still have strong ideological differences. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the differences between Twisty and myself are greater than the differences between you and me. If you can just get past your presumptive nature and think for yourself instead of taking the temporally lazy route by relying on those that prey on emotional weaknesses then we probably wouldn't have any arguments at all. One of these days you may realize that the mental effort you use to defend your ignorance is far greater than if you spent your time and energy digging for subjective facts and forming your own -independent- opinions. Or maybe not. It had been fun from a purely psychological standpoint. But I am beginning to tire of this almost constant off-topic banter. I am actually longing for the days when we talked about amplifiers and mods to radios. I never guessed that a simple ideological disagreement would turn into several years worth of trash talking. You can't help yourself. You hate to be proved wrong because it shatters your self-image as a morally-motivated person (it's that "perception-window" thing I mentioned earlier -- and the offer for -that- book still stands, too). When faced with the truth that your motivations are generally selfish (and frequently prejudicial), it creates emotional conflict with what you have chosen as your "core beliefs". Therefore, you seek validation for your lame justifications on Usenet. You can't give up arguing these issues or your brain would explode into a mushroom-cloud of hypocrisy. Besides, you have claimed to be tired of this bickering many, many times. You have also threatened to give it up many, many times. Each time you come right back here defending the same bogus arguments because you can't control yourself. And this time is no different. But feel free to take a long sabbatical. Then come back and answer some of the pending questions that you have been avoiding for several months -- maybe a fresh mind will let you fabricate some new lies and excuses. I hope so because your constant repitition of the old ones are getting to be monotonous. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Did you miss this post, Dave? Just in case you did I'm reposting it
because I really think it has issues that you need to address if you want to continue to defend your arguments -- you didn't answer the questions: On Fri, 20 May 2005 07:24:56 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Thu, 19 May 2005 06:02:17 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:01:51 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:49:36 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Speaking of 'media bias', are you keeping up-to-date on the status of one of your staunchly anti-gay, conservative Republicans that happens to be the mayor of my home town? http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/ No, I'm more interested in the criminal activities surrounding the associates of the democratic mayor of Philadelphia in a "Pay to play" scandal. It is, after all, more regionally relevant for me. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10995886.htm Gee Dave, after all your sermons about morality -- you don't care about a pedophile that not only used his government office for cyber-sex but promised internships to young boys in exchange for 'dates'? What happened to your morality, Dave? Did it suddenly get lost because West is a conservative Republican? Geeze Frank, don't get your panties into a bunch here. This has nothing to do with my "morality", only that you live 3000 miles away from me and, as such, the events which occur there take a back seat in the local news to events which are also occurring here. Gee, so a couple gays getting married in San Francisco should be about as unimportant as the mayor of Spokane, huh? A totally different issue. One single gay couple in San Fran, is a minor footnote. The broader reaching implications of such behavior, is what concerns me and most Americans. So a mayor that's a homosexual and a pedophile doesn't have any "broader reaching implications"? I was simply not aware for what you were referring. Your "Jim West" is a scumbag, plain and simple. Being a republican does not excuse him from human flaws or the consequences of acting out on them. That's it? That's all you have to say about the subject? What do you want me to say? No diatribe about how it diminishes the credibility of your own mayor? Why should it? It's not the whole institution of mayor's which is at the heart of the issue. It's simply one person's sick, perverted behavior. So the behavior is seperate from the office? No sermon on how his sexual perversions are a moral abomination? I would think you'd already know that. If my assumption was wrong then, I apologize. Instead you refer to his homosexuality and pedophilia as "human flaws" when you have consistently referred to such behavior in much stronger language? How much stronger than "scumbag" do you want me to go? I'd like to keep this at a "PG" level. Hey, it's not like I'm suprised -- it's ok to call Kerry a criminal when there has been no trial; but Bush, who was tried and convicted of a DUI, is guilty of nothing more than a "civil infraction". I'm sorry if the truth bothers you. Bush's conviction was for a motor vehicle violation at that time. Not a criminal offense. Despite the fact that Kerry never saw a courtroom for his perjurious and arguably treasonous behavior, his actions are still contemptible. And all the while it was -you- that said that anyone who breaks the law is a criminal. So instead of condemning people in your own camp with your own standards, you simply use softer words. How nice. You really need to get over yourself Frank. You spend far too much time analyzing my words, and attempting to imply meanings which are not there. You can complain about how I "analyze" your words all you want, but the fact remains that you change their definitions and context when forced to defend yourself against your own words. Liberal pedophile: guilty of a moral sin. Conservative pedophile: victim of a human flaw. All pedophiles are guilty of moral sins, which happens to be a human flaw. Then why do you refer to a homosexuality as immoral, yet a homosexual that is a conservative Republican merely has "human flaws"? This has to do with the strength of your wording, Dave. You use strong words when addressing people you despise, but much softer words when describing bad behavior of people you favor. This isn't a recent observation, Dave -- it's one of the common characteristics of your postings for a very long time. And it's very hypocritical. You're a trip, Dave. No, your interpretations are. snip All I can say is that I sure wish I had the tools of the internet and computers back when I had to do term papers. The task would have been much less tedious and actually somewhat interesting, and fun. Where did you go to college, Dave? And BTW, what was the name of that tech school you claimed to have attended? Give me one good reason why I should tell you. Because if you don't then your claim has no credibility, and I will be reiterating that fact for as long as you post in this group. Then neither do any of yours for, as Twisty is so fond of pointing out, USENET is an anonymous service. Very little about anyone is verifiable. Being a ham puts me at somewhat of a disadvantage, as my name and address can be obtained from my call sign. But any personal information beyond that is revealed by personal choice at your own risk. As long as guys like Twisty can be a continual disruption and can safely hide from the consequences behind his cloak of anonymity, I feel no obligation to provide any more of my personal information, just to satiate your credibility issues. Remembering what happened to Dennis O, when his place of employment was found out, is further incentive for me to remain quiet about those aspects of my personal life. If you can't handle that, Tough. How would a simple call to the administration of this alleged academic institution to verify your attendance get you fired from your present job? Or did you get your job by lying on your resume like you lie in this newsgroup? You never attended any sort of post-graduate education, Dave. You probably took a high-school shop class and glorified it with your imagination. Who does the majority party represent if not the majority? Is this a loaded question? Not at all. Bush and the Republicans ignored the voices of the vast majority of Americans when they tried to meddle in the Shiavo case. If they were not acting on behalf of the majority of Americans then what was their motive? IOW, who does the majority party represent if not the majority? Principles, Character, Morality. Most of which the majority posses and agree with. Apparently not, since the majority didn't agree with the "principles, character, morality" that the Republicans attempted to impose. So who does the majority party represent if not the majority? And why are you having such a difficult time answering such a simple question? Where does the Constitution require, or even suggest, that religious influence should play any role in the government? Where does the Constitution require or even suggest that religious influences should NOT play any role in the government? You claimed that the Constitution included words that defined this country to be a Christian state. Where does it say anything of the sort? I never made any such claim. But I'm sure you've misinterpreted one of my past statements and think I said it. You most certainly did make that claim, and more than once: "The constitution is relative as well. It was framed by Christian people with their religious inspired morality contained within its wording." "A nation founded by Christian people based on Christian doctrine, even if the 1st amendment decries that there is no 'official' state sponsored religion." "You who claim to support the constitution and the wisdom of our forefathers (who were all religious people), yet now advocate that we go above and beyond the definitions called for in the constitution..." Need more examples? I did say that the constitution was written by religious, God respecting people, most of whom were Christian. No, you said they were -all- Christians. Need a quote there too? How does gay and lesbian marriage infringe on your rights? It is not a matter of infringing on my "rights". That's absolutely correct, Dave. Of course it is, I said it. It's matter of tarnishing an institution that is based on religious practices. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the government or the Constitution. The government has no right to do such. The government cannot prevent people from practicing their religion as they see fit, even if their religion includes a definition of marriage that's different than your's. The only thing the government can or should do is offer a civil union option, to provide gay couples the same civil rights and responsibilities as straight couples when dealing with secular issues. You can call it a "civil union" if you want. They can call it a "marriage" if -they- want. That's -their- right. It's not -your- right to prevent them from exercising -their- rights. From a secular point of view, they have the right to live in sin, but no true Christian church would recognize such a union. And the law doesn't require them to do anything of the sort. It only requires that you respect their -legal- rights. And if they choose to exercise their right to freedom of expression by calling their "civil union" a marriage, or if their religion formally recognizes homosexual marriage, then you have no right to prevent them from exercising their rights. It's a very simple concept, Dave. And why is -that- so hard for you to understand? And any institution that would, cheapens and tarnishes that institution. Then that's the choice of the institution, not the government. You, a big advocate for separation of church and state, should understand where the line is drawn here. If you advocate that church doctrine should not be infused into the workings of the government, then the converse is also true. Otherwise you are practicing hypocrisy. I agree, the government should not impose upon any religion. How does gay marriage impose government upon religion? By forcing universal recognition of gay marriages as legitimate, which they are not in the eyes of God. Where, in the Constitution, does it require that any law must be viewed as legitimate in the eyes of God? And even if it did, who exactly would make that determination? God's legal representative? I see your point, Dave. But what you refuse to accept is that marriage is not exclusive to religion. But it started there. So? Christmas and Easter originated with Christianity but eventually merged with pagan festivals. Why aren't you bitching about that? The Sabbath is on Saturday but the Christians worship it on Sundays, despite the first of the Ten Commandments. Why aren't you bitching about that? The Bible embraces slavery, but it's now illegal in the US. Why aren't you bitching about that? You aren't bitching about those things because you are only concerned with homosexuality. You are a bigot, Dave. And a hypocrite. It may have been formally defined under religion, but I wasn't there so I don't know for sure. Regardless, the concept of marriage is not only secular but universal. By necessity, not by choice. And the secular definition of marriage simply adopted the religious definition of marriage in order to define the civil rights that married couples would gain. Creating a new definition of marriage, that is not endorsed by the church, is not acceptable. Yet it already exists, like it or not. Think of it as similar to a copyrighted trademark. The church has "licensed" the term "marriage" to the government to use for civil purposes, as long as they abide by the terms of the license. Unless the church decides to condone a gay union (Not likely), then the government has no right to apply the term "marriage" to a secular gay union. The church has a "copyright" on marriage? ROTFLMMFAO!!! Dave, marriage outside the sphere of religion has been socially recognized for many, many centuries -- perhaps even longer than religion! Like I said before, I have no problem with the government creating a gay civil union, with the same civil rights and responsibilities given to married couples, just don't call it marriage. That's not your choice. Deal with it. And as I have pointed out several times before, the Christian definition of marriage is, at best, poorly defined. But it has been widely accepted in this country for hundreds of years. Marriage is only recognized in the secular arena, due to the additional legal rights and responsibilities that couples get. Before the complexities of secular society necessitated such civil recognition of marriage, the only thing a couple needed to do was have the marriage blessed before God at a church service. That was all that was necessary to legitimize a marriage. Times change, Dave. You can either change with the times or spend the rest of your life in a bitter depression. I have no problem with secular civil unions. I have a big problem with gay marriages. You don't want homosexuals to be able to walk down the same street that you do. You are a bigot. Ah, you're back to making unfounded speculative assumptions and then drawing an erroneous conclusion based on those unfounded speculations. That's yet another example of your poor logic. You never could stick to the facts Frank. But your liberal demonization tactic doesn't work on me Frank. Labeling me will not change the very real legitimacy of the issue. Why not? You slap the "liberal" label on me all the time. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:45:29 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 06:57:43 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to cough up the marriage data so that it can be compared to the divorce data. No one had asked previously. I asked several times. No, you asked about the divorce rate. But since you have now, the percentage of married people (Which included both spouse present and absent) is about 53.5% from the same spreadsheet that you can't seem to read and gather information from. Excellent. Now, from that same spreadsheet, how many of those people that are married have been previously married? And how many times? Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant. Care to help Social Security? The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes those who have already given into the SS program for their entire working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to everyone. So your solution is to simply eliminate Social Security? Hey, neat idea, but you can't "divert" what you don't have, and the Reps have tapped the SS trust fund so deep that there isn't anything to "divert". Care to substantiate that statement with some hard facts? Like the way -you- back up -your- statements with hard facts? Sure.... It's true because I say it's true. In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated "factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist. If you assume that the annual Federal Budget Reports from both Congress and the White House are written by skilled left wing propagandists then I suppose you are correct. The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social security"? Bush's solution to SS is a "credit-card" retirement plan, which isn't any better. Maybe you two should get together and figure out what "promote the general Welfare" means. America was never meant to be a "Welfare state", despite the objections of liberals who would socialize every program and service, at the expense of the people who actually earn money. If you could quote any liberal who said that America should be a "welfare state" I might agree. They refer to it by different names. Which is something the conservatives -never- do, I'm sure. Irrelevant. It doesn't change the truth of my statement. Names like "living wage", "fair share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing. Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't. LOL..... I think I'll let that statement stand on it's own 'merits'! Yea, the truth. But you wisely chose not to comment on it as the only thing you could do is defend the practices. That's sort of like defending the IRS. Not a very popular position to be in. What part of 9.6% of the total population is divorced do YOU not understand? What percent of people are married, Dave? See above. And before you jump the gun and say "Aha! if 53.4% of people are married, that means that 46.4% are divorced, that's almost half!", you need to consider that an additional 6.2% are widowed, 2.1% are separated, and 28.6% have never been married. It's all there in the spreadsheet. Don't tell me you too have webTV and can't read a simple spreadsheet? I can read it just fine. Now it's -your- turn to read it: Notice that the total for each row is 100%. So how many people are counted in two or more categories? None if you add all the numbers together to get that 100%. Although I would tend to think that there should be no difference between "married spouse absent" and "separated". Although the former category could refer to things like military deployment for long term. But then, I'm guessing at that point. "In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal. You need a reason to make something illegal." -- Donna Moss, "West Wing" And you accuse ME of watching too much TV? You do, and that's why I used the quote. Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't surprise me that you have. You bet I do! It's a lot better than most of the other crap that's pushed onto the public as 'entertainment'. That figures. West wing is very liberally slanted so I've been told. I prefer "24". The most intense show on TV. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:44:15 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 07:54:33 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:32:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:08:30 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Wrong. Ice provides carbon dioxide samples that are available for any given year. These samples are measured for C14 concentrations, fossil fuels having a much lower concentration of C14 than natural processes. The difference is quantified as the percentage of CO2 contributed by combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the contribution of atmospheric CO2 from human sources is very accurately measured. No they are not. Since CO2 can come from a variety of places including volcanos, and large forest fires any of which can skew those results. Wrong. Volcanos give off very little CO2 -- most of the gasses are Hydrogen Sulfide and oxides of Sulfer. And the Carbon Dioxide from forest fires is easily calculated. In fact, forest fires (both recent and ancient) are studied for their impact on the environment and have been found to cause very little variation in CO2 concentration simply because they occur every year, and are actually -decreasing- in both frequency and intensity. That's hard to quantify, for years before accurate data was routinely taken. Your only guessing at that point. There's only so much you can see in ice cores and soil layers. Most of what you see there is suggestive, but not conclusive. No, it's not hard to quantify. Carbon dioxide is not the only product of wood combustion. The gasses contain various quantities of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons, as well as tars, acids, aldehydes, ketones, and other chemicals that make good preservatives for meat and add such a unique flavor to a BBQ. And that's just what goes into the air; the residue left on the ground is wood ash, and that ash can not only be easily identified but actually analyzed to determine what type of wood was burned. We also know how much carbon dioxide and ash is produced from the burning of a given quantity of any specific type of wood, the average number and size of naturally occuring forest fires each year, the extent those fires will burn if left unchecked, the amount of growth that typically occurs before fire takes it's toll, the areas and climates that are more likely to have fires, how much vegetation survives a fire, how much vegetation actually -depends- upon fire for regeneration, the rate of reforestation after a fire, etc, etc. Yes, but the total effect on climate cannot be positively confirmed. You have many of the pieces of the puzzle, but not enough to complete the total picture. In comparison, volcanos spew very few and very specific gasses, which are usually compounds of sulphur, not carbon. Volcanic ash is actually a mineral that's easily identified. And contrary to your statement of professed ignorance on this topic, the effect of a volcanic eruption has a climatic impact that is totally -opposite- to the effect of greenhouse gasses -- the global temperature actually -drops- after an eruption because the ash suspended in the atmosphere reflects sunlight away from the surface. Yes, that true, but the effect of those volcanos on the total climate is significant, and can disrupt the otherwise cyclic nature of the climatic shifts. I obviously know more about the subject than you, and there are scientists that study this stuff professionally and know gobs more than I will ever learn. You are the only one guessing, Dave. I am not guessing at anything. I am reading what those scientists, who know gobs more than you do, say. There is not a consensus among the scientific community as to the degree, direction, and involvement of humans on global warming. There are many scientists who cannot come to the same conclusions that you seem to have bought into, due to glaring holes in the evidence. I could give you a dozen links if you'd like. I already gave some to Twisty previously. When the apparent variation in the sun's energy output is taken into consideration, it becomes very difficult to determine the exact rate of global warming and how much of it is part of the cyclic climatic change and how much of it is caused strictly as a result of human activity. Wrong. Solar variations can be determined from tree ring growth, and when compared to ice samples they can be differentiated from CO2 concentrations. Tree ring growth can be affected by a number of factors, besides solar output. Without accounting for and removing those other variables, a true tracking of solar output cannot be accurately ascertained. You're barking up the wrong tree once again, Dave; it was the study of tree ring growth that led to the discovery of the climatic effects of the 11/22 year sunspot cycles. Led to, but not completely dependant on. Tree ring growth does follow a certain repeatable pattern relative to solar output. But there are still other factors which can influence them. A volcanic "winter" for instance, will deviate tree rings from the predictable pattern that would otherwise occur with a higher than normal solar output. Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide the names of those "senior level engineers". And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know them. Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references? I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the futility of such a request. I told you before, you aren't worthy of knowing. I have no intention of revealing any of the secondary education sources (and there have been a few) that I have attended over the years. If you want to think that I'm hiding something, then so be it. I know the truth and so does my paycheck, and that's all that matters in the grand scheme of things. Yet you want me and others to believe your claims. Well then, if your proof consists of your paycheck then post a scan of your pay stub Yea, like I'm going to reveal where I work. , or a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up with more excuses. I already have pictures of both on my website. Next? So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm proud of it. So you say. We have only your word for that. I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school, and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both attended and graduated from EWU. No they can verify that someone by the same name (Maybe N7VCF) graduated from EWU. Second, every school is prevented by law from releasing any personal information beyond the fact that a student attended and graduated. IOW, you have no reason to withhold the name of your school -- unless, of course, you lied. If I wanted to lie, I could find a school where someone named "Dave Hall" (And there's bound to be plenty given the popularity of my name) attended, and claim that it was me. Then how would you know for sure? Frank, like my mother once said: Self praise stinks, and boy do you smell...... Probably because I've been busy working on my garage. But the fact remains that, no matter how you would like to believe otherwise, your education and experience in the field doesn't measure up to mine. Says you, a guy who tends bar, and who's next big career move is a lawn care business. Yep, that's some education you have there Frankie. And my education continues. Your's stalled in high-school shop class. I learn something every day. And I APPLY it to the bottom line. On the contrary, you tried to denounce me with nothing but ignorance, generalizations and subjective opinions. Which is exactly what you did. Wrong. I provided facts and logic. You choose to ignore any facts or logic that isn't consistent with your "core beliefs". You have yet to provide a single unbiased "fact". Your "facts" are simply conclusions reached by other equally opinionated, and agenda driven people, who are making up these conclusions to try to explain certain facts (according to their spin of course). But these are hardly the only explanation. Facts are not biased, Dave. Opinions are biased. You still haven't learned how to tell the difference between them. No, I just illustrated the difference. It is you who don't know the difference, since most of your so-called "facts" especially in the political arena, are really nuggets of fact wrapped in a layer of speculative conclusion. Your logic is often laughable and contains many fallacies. Despite your amateurish application of your internet-education in logic, you have yet to find a single fallacy in any of my logical arguments What? You last set was full of fallacies. Your favorites are false analogies, denying the antecedent, and argumentum infinitum, with a smattering of straw man arguments thrown in for good measure. . My offer to send you the Copi book still stands. I have far more reference material than that one book could ever provide. So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave? On the opposite side of the coin from yours Frank. Where are yours? Oh that's right, they're on that website right next to the one with all the left wing anti-war propaganda....... I've provided fact after fact after fact. No you haven't. You provided assumption, after conclusion, after opinion. All the facts I have provided can be independently verified by yourself and anyone else willing to do so. Where? Since you are so poorly educated that you don't even know how or where to verify a fact, I would suggest you start learning this valuable skill by pestering the good folks at your local public library. Translation: I cannot provide a specific example, so I will invoke yet another logical fallacy "Ad hominem" , to add to the growing repertoire. You have provided nothing of the sort in -any- topic. I provide what is necessary. Like the PA state laws which back up what I stated about allowing at least 5 MPH over the speed limit in most cases when clocking speeders. It was comical watching you spin and twist, not much differently that Twistedhed, trying to find the smallest exception to those rules, in a vain effort to try to disprove the majority case. Talk about desperation.... Is your ego that shallow? It was more fun watching you play semantics upon the disclosure of facts that contradicted your claim. You do indeed "provide what is necessary" to support your conclusions; but you withhold any facts that don't. For example, you are withholding the names of those engineers that disagree with me; you are withholding the name of your "tech school"; you are withholding the specific nature of your "engineering" career; and you withheld the section of law that contradicted your claim about speeding laws in PA. Because the small exceptions to not invalidate the rule. And posting names of people is meaningless unless there is a common point of reference. .... No one is perfect. If the best you can come up with is 2 mistakes that I made in 10 years worth of posting, I'd say that's a pretty good percentage. You may have -admitted- two of the many mistakes you have made in 10 years. IMO, that's a pretty -poor- percentage. I'm sure I made a few more, so what? Like I said, nobody's perfect. But I am right more than I'm wrong. Again, you need to learn the difference between facts and opinions. No, history will show that you do. Especially when it comes to political ideologies. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
So is the same dog biting your ass!
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Anyone know any of these guys? Is it just possible the hams are playing you all for fools, planting rumors to titillate you? A dog chasing its own tail is a funny sight... Regards, John |
.... sounds like you better becareful, if that same dog bit you--he'd be
sure to hit your A$$ dead on--seeing as how you are all A$$... Warmest regards, John "Real CBer" wrote in message ... So is the same dog biting your ass! "John Smith" wrote in message ... Anyone know any of these guys? Is it just possible the hams are playing you all for fools, planting rumors to titillate you? A dog chasing its own tail is a funny sight... Regards, John |
|
|
Ahhh, mopathetic got a new lover to play with between keydowns.
|
When accused of doing the nasty with large birds, mopathetic said....
"That's right! Have a gander.." |
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 08:19:59 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:44:15 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 07:54:33 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:32:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:08:30 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Wrong. Ice provides carbon dioxide samples that are available for any given year. These samples are measured for C14 concentrations, fossil fuels having a much lower concentration of C14 than natural processes. The difference is quantified as the percentage of CO2 contributed by combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the contribution of atmospheric CO2 from human sources is very accurately measured. No they are not. Since CO2 can come from a variety of places including volcanos, and large forest fires any of which can skew those results. Wrong. Volcanos give off very little CO2 -- most of the gasses are Hydrogen Sulfide and oxides of Sulfer. And the Carbon Dioxide from forest fires is easily calculated. In fact, forest fires (both recent and ancient) are studied for their impact on the environment and have been found to cause very little variation in CO2 concentration simply because they occur every year, and are actually -decreasing- in both frequency and intensity. That's hard to quantify, for years before accurate data was routinely taken. Your only guessing at that point. There's only so much you can see in ice cores and soil layers. Most of what you see there is suggestive, but not conclusive. No, it's not hard to quantify. Carbon dioxide is not the only product of wood combustion. The gasses contain various quantities of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons, as well as tars, acids, aldehydes, ketones, and other chemicals that make good preservatives for meat and add such a unique flavor to a BBQ. And that's just what goes into the air; the residue left on the ground is wood ash, and that ash can not only be easily identified but actually analyzed to determine what type of wood was burned. We also know how much carbon dioxide and ash is produced from the burning of a given quantity of any specific type of wood, the average number and size of naturally occuring forest fires each year, the extent those fires will burn if left unchecked, the amount of growth that typically occurs before fire takes it's toll, the areas and climates that are more likely to have fires, how much vegetation survives a fire, how much vegetation actually -depends- upon fire for regeneration, the rate of reforestation after a fire, etc, etc. Yes, but the total effect on climate cannot be positively confirmed. You have many of the pieces of the puzzle, but not enough to complete the total picture. So now you jump to the other side of the logical fence and claim that absolute proof is required instead of "high statisitical probability". Yet another flip-flop. In comparison, volcanos spew very few and very specific gasses, which are usually compounds of sulphur, not carbon. Volcanic ash is actually a mineral that's easily identified. And contrary to your statement of professed ignorance on this topic, the effect of a volcanic eruption has a climatic impact that is totally -opposite- to the effect of greenhouse gasses -- the global temperature actually -drops- after an eruption because the ash suspended in the atmosphere reflects sunlight away from the surface. Yes, that true, but the effect of those volcanos on the total climate is significant, and can disrupt the otherwise cyclic nature of the climatic shifts. But only for a couple years, even for a really big volcano. The current trend of global warming has been occuring for almost a century. That's about as much disruption as driving over a pothole while climbing a mountain pass. I obviously know more about the subject than you, and there are scientists that study this stuff professionally and know gobs more than I will ever learn. You are the only one guessing, Dave. I am not guessing at anything. I am reading what those scientists, who know gobs more than you do, say. There is not a consensus among the scientific community as to the degree, direction, and involvement of humans on global warming. There are many scientists who cannot come to the same conclusions that you seem to have bought into, due to glaring holes in the evidence. What holes? Humans -aren't- dumping huge amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere? If not then where are those gasses coming from? Not volcanos, that's for sure...... Dave, despite what you and most of the Republican party would like to believe, there is indeed a consensus in the scientific community that the global temperature is rising, and that we are the cause. The only disagreement is about the degree of impact this change will have on our civilization. Oh yeah, and what to call it: "global warming" or "climate change". I could give you a dozen links if you'd like. I already gave some to Twisty previously. Post them if you want. When the apparent variation in the sun's energy output is taken into consideration, it becomes very difficult to determine the exact rate of global warming and how much of it is part of the cyclic climatic change and how much of it is caused strictly as a result of human activity. Wrong. Solar variations can be determined from tree ring growth, and when compared to ice samples they can be differentiated from CO2 concentrations. Tree ring growth can be affected by a number of factors, besides solar output. Without accounting for and removing those other variables, a true tracking of solar output cannot be accurately ascertained. You're barking up the wrong tree once again, Dave; it was the study of tree ring growth that led to the discovery of the climatic effects of the 11/22 year sunspot cycles. Led to, but not completely dependant on. Tree ring growth does follow a certain repeatable pattern relative to solar output. Yes it does, Dave. It may be superimposed upon other climate changes, but can be found just like a steady sine wave in a spectrum of noise. But there are still other factors which can influence them. A volcanic "winter" for instance, will deviate tree rings from the predictable pattern that would otherwise occur with a higher than normal solar output. A volcanic winter does not change the cycle of the sun, only it's effects, and usually only for a cycle or two. Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide the names of those "senior level engineers". And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know them. Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references? I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the futility of such a request. Then you should also understand the insignificance of any claims made based upon sources you are unwilling (or unable) to provide. I told you before, you aren't worthy of knowing. I have no intention of revealing any of the secondary education sources (and there have been a few) that I have attended over the years. If you want to think that I'm hiding something, then so be it. I know the truth and so does my paycheck, and that's all that matters in the grand scheme of things. Yet you want me and others to believe your claims. Well then, if your proof consists of your paycheck then post a scan of your pay stub Yea, like I'm going to reveal where I work. Then don't. Black out the name of your employer. , or a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up with more excuses. I already have pictures of both on my website. Next? See below..... So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm proud of it. So you say. We have only your word for that. I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school, and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both attended and graduated from EWU. No they can verify that someone by the same name (Maybe N7VCF) graduated from EWU. Sure, and I can just take a picture of someone else's diploma and call it mine, just like you can take a picture of someone else's house and boat and call it your's, right? Get a clue already..... my middle initial is D, not C. And I don't recall N7VCF ever claiming to have graduated from EWU. Do you? Second, every school is prevented by law from releasing any personal information beyond the fact that a student attended and graduated. IOW, you have no reason to withhold the name of your school -- unless, of course, you lied. If I wanted to lie, I could find a school where someone named "Dave Hall" (And there's bound to be plenty given the popularity of my name) attended, and claim that it was me. Then how would you know for sure? How do I know for sure that those pictures are of your house and your boat? I don't. You are just making more excuses. Frank, like my mother once said: Self praise stinks, and boy do you smell...... Probably because I've been busy working on my garage. But the fact remains that, no matter how you would like to believe otherwise, your education and experience in the field doesn't measure up to mine. Says you, a guy who tends bar, and who's next big career move is a lawn care business. Yep, that's some education you have there Frankie. And my education continues. Your's stalled in high-school shop class. I learn something every day. And I APPLY it to the bottom line. On the contrary, you tried to denounce me with nothing but ignorance, generalizations and subjective opinions. Which is exactly what you did. Wrong. I provided facts and logic. You choose to ignore any facts or logic that isn't consistent with your "core beliefs". You have yet to provide a single unbiased "fact". Your "facts" are simply conclusions reached by other equally opinionated, and agenda driven people, who are making up these conclusions to try to explain certain facts (according to their spin of course). But these are hardly the only explanation. Facts are not biased, Dave. Opinions are biased. You still haven't learned how to tell the difference between them. No, I just illustrated the difference. It is you who don't know the difference, since most of your so-called "facts" especially in the political arena, are really nuggets of fact wrapped in a layer of speculative conclusion. I told you a long time ago that you need to throw away the wrapping and focus on those "nuggets of fact". Instead, you throw away the facts just because you don't like the wrapping. That's your fault, not mine. Your logic is often laughable and contains many fallacies. Despite your amateurish application of your internet-education in logic, you have yet to find a single fallacy in any of my logical arguments What? You last set was full of fallacies. Your favorites are false analogies, denying the antecedent, and argumentum infinitum, with a smattering of straw man arguments thrown in for good measure. Never used anything of the sort, and I invite you to post any argument where you think such a fallacy was used by me. . My offer to send you the Copi book still stands. I have far more reference material than that one book could ever provide. Ah yes, the internet -- the "global pornography network"; the "poor-man's library"; the "information superhighway"..... where any kid with a computer and some pocket change can 'source' any tidbit of mental popcorn, fact or fiction, knowing that some gullible retard will eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system. Along those lines, I'm sure you have found the homepage for the Hudson Institute, and if you really had any money I'm sure you be paying your tithes to them on a monthly basis. But be careful of what political ideologies you support, Dave -- you might end up getting drafted at the spry young age of 60 after your neocon bretheren ever manage to convince Bush that invading China is a good idea. So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave? On the opposite side of the coin from yours Frank. Where are yours? Oh that's right, they're on that website right next to the one with all the left wing anti-war propaganda....... I've provided fact after fact after fact. No you haven't. You provided assumption, after conclusion, after opinion. All the facts I have provided can be independently verified by yourself and anyone else willing to do so. Where? Since you are so poorly educated that you don't even know how or where to verify a fact, I would suggest you start learning this valuable skill by pestering the good folks at your local public library. Translation: I cannot provide a specific example, so I will invoke yet another logical fallacy "Ad hominem" , to add to the growing repertoire. I don't know if there is a fallacy that is specifically named for ignoring previously referenced sources, but if there isn't I'll call it the "Dave Hall #1". That's to go along with the "Dave Hall #2" fallacy which is best described as semantic backpedalling. And the "Dave Hall #3", aka the "flip-flop frenzy" -- you are so desperate to make your case that you forget your previous arguments and end up contradicting yourself. I should make a list. You have provided nothing of the sort in -any- topic. I provide what is necessary. Like the PA state laws which back up what I stated about allowing at least 5 MPH over the speed limit in most cases when clocking speeders. It was comical watching you spin and twist, not much differently that Twistedhed, trying to find the smallest exception to those rules, in a vain effort to try to disprove the majority case. Talk about desperation.... Is your ego that shallow? It was more fun watching you play semantics upon the disclosure of facts that contradicted your claim. You do indeed "provide what is necessary" to support your conclusions; but you withhold any facts that don't. For example, you are withholding the names of those engineers that disagree with me; you are withholding the name of your "tech school"; you are withholding the specific nature of your "engineering" career; and you withheld the section of law that contradicted your claim about speeding laws in PA. Because the small exceptions to not invalidate the rule. Not unless the exception is a -part- of the rule, dummy! And posting names of people is meaningless unless there is a common point of reference. More lame excuses. .... No one is perfect. If the best you can come up with is 2 mistakes that I made in 10 years worth of posting, I'd say that's a pretty good percentage. You may have -admitted- two of the many mistakes you have made in 10 years. IMO, that's a pretty -poor- percentage. I'm sure I made a few more, so what? Like I said, nobody's perfect. But I am right more than I'm wrong. Again, you need to learn the difference between facts and opinions. No, history will show that you do. Especially when it comes to political ideologies. Well, -your- history of posting has shown that you have made far more mistakes than you admit. And that is a fact, not an opinion. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:33:13 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:45:29 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 06:57:43 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to cough up the marriage data so that it can be compared to the divorce data. No one had asked previously. I asked several times. No, you asked about the divorce rate. Play semantics all you want -- I said that half of all marriages end up in divorce and you coughed up your statistic. Now you have to explain how your statistic relates to my statement. But since you have now, the percentage of married people (Which included both spouse present and absent) is about 53.5% from the same spreadsheet that you can't seem to read and gather information from. Excellent. Now, from that same spreadsheet, how many of those people that are married have been previously married? And how many times? Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant. No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau. The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the subject. My statement was correct. Care to help Social Security? The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes those who have already given into the SS program for their entire working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to everyone. So your solution is to simply eliminate Social Security? Hey, neat idea, but you can't "divert" what you don't have, and the Reps have tapped the SS trust fund so deep that there isn't anything to "divert". Care to substantiate that statement with some hard facts? Like the way -you- back up -your- statements with hard facts? Sure.... It's true because I say it's true. In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated "factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist. If you assume that the annual Federal Budget Reports from both Congress and the White House are written by skilled left wing propagandists then I suppose you are correct. The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social security"? Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the Republicans. Bush's solution to SS is a "credit-card" retirement plan, which isn't any better. Maybe you two should get together and figure out what "promote the general Welfare" means. America was never meant to be a "Welfare state", despite the objections of liberals who would socialize every program and service, at the expense of the people who actually earn money. If you could quote any liberal who said that America should be a "welfare state" I might agree. They refer to it by different names. Which is something the conservatives -never- do, I'm sure. Irrelevant. It doesn't change the truth of my statement. Nope, it sure doesn't. You can call it "global warming" or "climate change", the "estate tax" or the "death tax", an "enemy combatant" or a "prisoner of war"..... it's all the same difference. So what liberal has stated that America should become a "welfare state" by that or any other name? Names like "living wage", "fair share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing. Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't. LOL..... I think I'll let that statement stand on it's own 'merits'! Yea, the truth. But you wisely chose not to comment on it as the only thing you could do is defend the practices. That's sort of like defending the IRS. Not a very popular position to be in. First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to irresponsible Republican economic plans (not to forget that 40% of wage-earners don't make enough money to pay income taxes and therefore didn't get Bush's 'tax rebate' that turned out to be nothing more than a loan). Second, "fair share" is in reference to fat-cats and corporations who skip out of paying taxes through shelters, subsidies and a variety of other carefully legislated loopholes. And "universal care" is a simple concept that provides basic health care service for anyone whether they can afford it or not -- more specifically, the programs are targeted towards children whose parents work two or three of Bush's new jobs and still can't pay the rent, let alone health insurance for their children. It's also targeted towards the increasing senior population who will be SOL when the SS trust fund dries up in a few years (and after Bush shuts down drug imports from Canada). Care to make any more assinine comments about those subjects? What part of 9.6% of the total population is divorced do YOU not understand? What percent of people are married, Dave? See above. And before you jump the gun and say "Aha! if 53.4% of people are married, that means that 46.4% are divorced, that's almost half!", you need to consider that an additional 6.2% are widowed, 2.1% are separated, and 28.6% have never been married. It's all there in the spreadsheet. Don't tell me you too have webTV and can't read a simple spreadsheet? I can read it just fine. Now it's -your- turn to read it: Notice that the total for each row is 100%. So how many people are counted in two or more categories? None if you add all the numbers together to get that 100%. Although I would tend to think that there should be no difference between "married spouse absent" and "separated". Although the former category could refer to things like military deployment for long term. But then, I'm guessing at that point. Yep, you sure do a lot of guessing. I'll agree with that. "In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal. You need a reason to make something illegal." -- Donna Moss, "West Wing" And you accuse ME of watching too much TV? You do, and that's why I used the quote. Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't surprise me that you have. You bet I do! It's a lot better than most of the other crap that's pushed onto the public as 'entertainment'. That figures. West wing is very liberally slanted so I've been told. Of course you believe everything you're told as long as you're told it's liberally slanted. I prefer "24". The most intense show on TV. yawn. If I want to watch a shoot-em-up-bang-bang show with bad dialog, shallow characters and weak plots I'll watch reruns of Rawhide. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 07:35:23 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: Yes, but the total effect on climate cannot be positively confirmed. You have many of the pieces of the puzzle, but not enough to complete the total picture. So now you jump to the other side of the logical fence and claim that absolute proof is required instead of "high statisitical probability". Yet another flip-flop. All we have been able to determine is that we are in a period of global warming. Evidence has suggested that this planet has endured many such cycles in its past. It is irresponsible to think that mankind alone is responsible for the current phase of warming, and it is equally irresponsible to suggest that if we were to magically stop using fossil fuels today, that we could stop or reverse the trend. The best we may be able to do is slow it down. But at what cost? But only for a couple years, even for a really big volcano. The current trend of global warming has been occuring for almost a century. That's about as much disruption as driving over a pothole while climbing a mountain pass. It's likely that the current warming "trend" has been going on for far longer. We've only obtained in the last 50 or so years the technology to track subtle climatic and weather changes. What occurred before that is anyone's guess, and evidence obtained in soil and ice samples only fits in a part of that puzzle, and can give us a general idea, but not specifics. I obviously know more about the subject than you, and there are scientists that study this stuff professionally and know gobs more than I will ever learn. You are the only one guessing, Dave. I am not guessing at anything. I am reading what those scientists, who know gobs more than you do, say. There is not a consensus among the scientific community as to the degree, direction, and involvement of humans on global warming. There are many scientists who cannot come to the same conclusions that you seem to have bought into, due to glaring holes in the evidence. What holes? Humans -aren't- dumping huge amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere? If not then where are those gasses coming from? Not volcanos, that's for sure...... Yes, we have an effect, but to say that our burning of greenhouse gasses is the sole reason why we're in a warming trend is presumptuous. Dave, despite what you and most of the Republican party would like to believe, there is indeed a consensus in the scientific community that the global temperature is rising, No argument. and that we are the cause. That is where you are wrong. We are likely NOT the cause, we are merely a contributor or accelerator. There is still much debate on just how much effect we truly to have. The only disagreement is about the degree of impact this change will have on our civilization. Oh yeah, and what to call it: "global warming" or "climate change". You don't read much outside of those reports which support your foregone conclusion do you? I could give you a dozen links if you'd like. I already gave some to Twisty previously. Post them if you want. I'll post one. It's an overview of the whole controversy and gives both sides of the issue: http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/...rsial_Issue s Led to, but not completely dependant on. Tree ring growth does follow a certain repeatable pattern relative to solar output. Yes it does, Dave. It may be superimposed upon other climate changes, but can be found just like a steady sine wave in a spectrum of noise. But there are still other factors which can influence them. A volcanic "winter" for instance, will deviate tree rings from the predictable pattern that would otherwise occur with a higher than normal solar output. A volcanic winter does not change the cycle of the sun, only it's effects, and usually only for a cycle or two. But a colder than normal winter over a period of years WILL effect the thickness and spacing of tree rings irrespective of the sun's output. Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide the names of those "senior level engineers". And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know them. Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references? I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the futility of such a request. Then you should also understand the insignificance of any claims made based upon sources you are unwilling (or unable) to provide. Certainly. , or a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up with more excuses. I already have pictures of both on my website. Next? See below..... So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm proud of it. So you say. We have only your word for that. I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school, and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both attended and graduated from EWU. No they can verify that someone by the same name (Maybe N7VCF) graduated from EWU. Sure, and I can just take a picture of someone else's diploma and call it mine, just like you can take a picture of someone else's house and boat and call it your's, right? Keep going, you're getting warmer...... Get a clue already..... my middle initial is D, not C. And I don't recall N7VCF ever claiming to have graduated from EWU. Do you? No, but it was an example of someone with a similar name. Just to illustrate my point. But........... If I wanted to lie, I could find a school where someone named "Dave Hall" (And there's bound to be plenty given the popularity of my name) attended, and claim that it was me. Then how would you know for sure? How do I know for sure that those pictures are of your house and your boat? I don't. Exactly! Thank you for finally getting the point Frank. The fact is that you can not be sure of any information one may post to "verify" their status in life. With the skills of the internet, one can create a completely artificial identity. So therefore, it is pointless to continue to ask. I have far more reference material than that one book could ever provide. Ah yes, the internet -- the "global pornography network"; the "poor-man's library"; the "information superhighway"..... where any kid with a computer and some pocket change can 'source' any tidbit of mental popcorn, fact or fiction, knowing that some gullible retard will eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system. My, my, do I detect a bit of contempt? Maybe it bothers you that I (and many others) can access information on the internet for free instantly, (and currently) where it cost you hundreds of dollars to amass in book form? Perhaps you're unaware of the phrase: "The paper never refuses ink". It's not just the internet where a passionate pundit can publish their slanted viewpoints. Just because it's in hardback form doesn't mean than an equally gullible retard won't eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system. Along those lines, I'm sure you have found the homepage for the Hudson Institute, and if you really had any money I'm sure you be paying your tithes to them on a monthly basis. But be careful of what political ideologies you support, Dave -- you might end up getting drafted at the spry young age of 60 after your neocon bretheren ever manage to convince Bush that invading China is a good idea. Maybe it is. Neither you nor I have any idea what is really going through the minds in Bejing...... Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 07:35:27 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:33:13 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:45:29 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 06:57:43 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to cough up the marriage data so that it can be compared to the divorce data. No one had asked previously. I asked several times. No, you asked about the divorce rate. Play semantics all you want -- I said that half of all marriages end up in divorce and you coughed up your statistic. Now you have to explain how your statistic relates to my statement. But since you have now, the percentage of married people (Which included both spouse present and absent) is about 53.5% from the same spreadsheet that you can't seem to read and gather information from. Excellent. Now, from that same spreadsheet, how many of those people that are married have been previously married? And how many times? Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant. No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau. The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the subject. My statement was correct. So then how many divorcees end up remarried? Care to help Social Security? The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes those who have already given into the SS program for their entire working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to everyone. So your solution is to simply eliminate Social Security? Hey, neat idea, but you can't "divert" what you don't have, and the Reps have tapped the SS trust fund so deep that there isn't anything to "divert". Care to substantiate that statement with some hard facts? Like the way -you- back up -your- statements with hard facts? Sure.... It's true because I say it's true. In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated "factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist. If you assume that the annual Federal Budget Reports from both Congress and the White House are written by skilled left wing propagandists then I suppose you are correct. The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social security"? Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the Republicans. So I suppose that the democrats had not done the same thing when they controlled the congress (Which they did up until 1994)? If you want to say that congress plays creative accounting games with Social Security, I'll agree and let it pass. But don't try to pin this on republicans alone. Unless, of course, you truly are a blind partisan. If you could quote any liberal who said that America should be a "welfare state" I might agree. They refer to it by different names. Which is something the conservatives -never- do, I'm sure. Irrelevant. It doesn't change the truth of my statement. Nope, it sure doesn't. You can call it "global warming" or "climate change", the "estate tax" or the "death tax", an "enemy combatant" or a "prisoner of war"..... it's all the same difference. So what liberal has stated that America should become a "welfare state" by that or any other name? Any liberal who supports subsidizing any and all social programs, starting with Welfare, and ending with Medicare. This programs are part and parcel of a "Welfare State". Names like "living wage", "fair share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing. Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't. LOL..... I think I'll let that statement stand on it's own 'merits'! Yea, the truth. But you wisely chose not to comment on it as the only thing you could do is defend the practices. That's sort of like defending the IRS. Not a very popular position to be in. First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to irresponsible Republican economic plans Irresponsible Republican plans? You really area blind partisan aren't you? What "republican (Or democrat for that matter) plan" can stop the natural course to the free international market without seriously altering it? And who stops those who are making less than a living wage from obtaining the skills necessary to rise above that? You did it. I did it. There's no excuse for anyone so motivated to not rise above the poverty level. Of course you'd have to stop ****ing away your pay on drugs, booze and cheap "dates" with the professional women. It's called "Personal Responsibility". Take charge of your own life. Don't wait for the government to bale you out (And blame then when they don't). Repeat after me: "I am not a victim!" (not to forget that 40% of wage-earners don't make enough money to pay income taxes and therefore didn't get Bush's 'tax rebate' that turned out to be nothing more than a loan). I suppose you're one of those people who feel that those who didn't put anything into the tax system should v'e got something back. This wasn't "giveaway money" it was a REBATE on tax money already paid in to the system, If you didn't pay anything in, you can't very well get a rebate on it back. Last time I went to school 100% of zero is still zero. Second, "fair share" is in reference to fat-cats and corporations who skip out of paying taxes through shelters, subsidies and a variety of other carefully legislated loopholes. As opposed to the progressive tax scale which punishes those who achieve by burdening them with a higher tax rate? A flat tax rate is the fairest thing. Everyone pays the same percentage. Those who make more, pay more as a matter of percentage of gross. But a progressive tax rate is little more than a thinly veiled socialistic attempt to shift the burdens of society from those who take the most, to those who make the most. And "universal care" is a simple concept that provides basic health care service for anyone whether they can afford it or not But SOMEONE has to pay for it. -- more specifically, the programs are targeted towards children whose parents work two or three of Bush's new jobs and still can't pay the rent, let alone health insurance for their children. People who do not possess the skills or motivation to obtain gainful jobs should not be having children. It's that "personal responsibility" thing again. Raising children is an enormous responsibility both financial and emotional. Potential parents should be ready on both counts before bringing another mouth to feed into the world and then abdicating their responsibilities on to the rest of us. It's also targeted towards the increasing senior population who will be SOL when the SS trust fund dries up in a few years Yet you guys on the left are the ones now claiming that there is no problem with social security. Yet when Clinton was in office, it was a "big problem". Would you please make up your minds...... "In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal. You need a reason to make something illegal." -- Donna Moss, "West Wing" And you accuse ME of watching too much TV? You do, and that's why I used the quote. Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't surprise me that you have. You bet I do! It's a lot better than most of the other crap that's pushed onto the public as 'entertainment'. That figures. West wing is very liberally slanted so I've been told. Of course you believe everything you're told as long as you're told it's liberally slanted. I prefer "24". The most intense show on TV. yawn. If I want to watch a shoot-em-up-bang-bang show with bad dialog, shallow characters and weak plots I'll watch reruns of Rawhide. Yet "West Wing" is any less shallow and crafted? It's Hollywood's version of what THEY would like the government to be. But which show stands a better chance of happening in the real world? Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:34:16 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 07:35:23 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: Yes, but the total effect on climate cannot be positively confirmed. You have many of the pieces of the puzzle, but not enough to complete the total picture. So now you jump to the other side of the logical fence and claim that absolute proof is required instead of "high statisitical probability". Yet another flip-flop. All we have been able to determine is that we are in a period of global warming. Evidence has suggested that this planet has endured many such cycles in its past. It is irresponsible to think that mankind alone is responsible for the current phase of warming, and it is equally irresponsible to suggest that if we were to magically stop using fossil fuels today, that we could stop or reverse the trend. The best we may be able to do is slow it down. But at what cost? Well, let's take a gander at what the internet has to say: http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/future.shtml http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-in...-worldwide.htm http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm I can provide many more links to many more authoritative sources if you can't find them yourself. But only for a couple years, even for a really big volcano. The current trend of global warming has been occuring for almost a century. That's about as much disruption as driving over a pothole while climbing a mountain pass. It's likely that the current warming "trend" has been going on for far longer. We've only obtained in the last 50 or so years the technology to track subtle climatic and weather changes. What occurred before that is anyone's guess, and evidence obtained in soil and ice samples only fits in a part of that puzzle, and can give us a general idea, but not specifics. "Anyone's guess"? Gee, that's funny -- according to the links above, paleoclimatologists have been able to get temperature records from as far back as the 17th century, and determined that CO2 levels haven't been this high in 500,000 years. As I stated before, Dave, the only one guessing is you. I obviously know more about the subject than you, and there are scientists that study this stuff professionally and know gobs more than I will ever learn. You are the only one guessing, Dave. I am not guessing at anything. I am reading what those scientists, who know gobs more than you do, say. There is not a consensus among the scientific community as to the degree, direction, and involvement of humans on global warming. There are many scientists who cannot come to the same conclusions that you seem to have bought into, due to glaring holes in the evidence. What holes? Humans -aren't- dumping huge amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere? If not then where are those gasses coming from? Not volcanos, that's for sure...... Yes, we have an effect, but to say that our burning of greenhouse gasses is the sole reason why we're in a warming trend is presumptuous. Not at all. Read (if you can) the links I provided. If you browse their sites you will find links to the top climatology labs in the world, almost all of which debunk the politically-motivated myth you have been led to believe. Dave, despite what you and most of the Republican party would like to believe, there is indeed a consensus in the scientific community that the global temperature is rising, No argument. and that we are the cause. That is where you are wrong. We are likely NOT the cause, we are merely a contributor or accelerator. There is still much debate on just how much effect we truly to have. The only 'debate' is in the political arena: http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis108/c...ml#September15 The only disagreement is about the degree of impact this change will have on our civilization. Oh yeah, and what to call it: "global warming" or "climate change". You don't read much outside of those reports which support your foregone conclusion do you? Sure I do. I even read some of the crap put out by the Cato Institute. Wanna hear about the Cato Institute? http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200207/thinktank.asp I could give you a dozen links if you'd like. I already gave some to Twisty previously. Post them if you want. I'll post one. It's an overview of the whole controversy and gives both sides of the issue: http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/...rsial_Issue s Nice page! Thank you! Led to, but not completely dependant on. Tree ring growth does follow a certain repeatable pattern relative to solar output. Yes it does, Dave. It may be superimposed upon other climate changes, but can be found just like a steady sine wave in a spectrum of noise. But there are still other factors which can influence them. A volcanic "winter" for instance, will deviate tree rings from the predictable pattern that would otherwise occur with a higher than normal solar output. A volcanic winter does not change the cycle of the sun, only it's effects, and usually only for a cycle or two. But a colder than normal winter over a period of years WILL effect the thickness and spacing of tree rings irrespective of the sun's output. If you read the links above they note that the current global warming trend has been occuring since the beginning of the industrial revolution, yet the cooling effect of Mt. Pinatubo (sp?) resulted in only a brief fluctuation. Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide the names of those "senior level engineers". And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know them. Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references? I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the futility of such a request. Then you should also understand the insignificance of any claims made based upon sources you are unwilling (or unable) to provide. Certainly. Then why do you keep invoking sources that, by your own admission, have no credibility? Are you attempting to achieve truth by repitition? Or are you just plain stupid? , or a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up with more excuses. I already have pictures of both on my website. Next? See below..... So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm proud of it. So you say. We have only your word for that. I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school, and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both attended and graduated from EWU. No they can verify that someone by the same name (Maybe N7VCF) graduated from EWU. Sure, and I can just take a picture of someone else's diploma and call it mine, just like you can take a picture of someone else's house and boat and call it your's, right? Keep going, you're getting warmer...... Get a clue already..... my middle initial is D, not C. And I don't recall N7VCF ever claiming to have graduated from EWU. Do you? No, but it was an example of someone with a similar name. Just to illustrate my point. But........... If I wanted to lie, I could find a school where someone named "Dave Hall" (And there's bound to be plenty given the popularity of my name) attended, and claim that it was me. Then how would you know for sure? How do I know for sure that those pictures are of your house and your boat? I don't. Exactly! Thank you for finally getting the point Frank. The fact is that you can not be sure of any information one may post to "verify" their status in life. With the skills of the internet, one can create a completely artificial identity. So therefore, it is pointless to continue to ask. With the internet you can also -confirm- a true identity. But that's not what I'm asking -- I'm simply asking for proof that you make as much money as you claim; that you work in the engineering field as you claim; that you attended an electronic tech school as you claim; etc. Or should I just file those claims in the basket along with your imaginary engineer sources? I have far more reference material than that one book could ever provide. Ah yes, the internet -- the "global pornography network"; the "poor-man's library"; the "information superhighway"..... where any kid with a computer and some pocket change can 'source' any tidbit of mental popcorn, fact or fiction, knowing that some gullible retard will eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system. My, my, do I detect a bit of contempt? Maybe it bothers you that I (and many others) can access information on the internet for free instantly, (and currently) where it cost you hundreds of dollars to amass in book form? No contempt at all -- if you want to limit your resources because you're too lazy to read a book then that's your problem. Perhaps you're unaware of the phrase: "The paper never refuses ink". No, I've heard it plenty of times before -- you use the cliche as if it were God's Eleventh Commandment. It's not just the internet where a passionate pundit can publish their slanted viewpoints. Just because it's in hardback form doesn't mean than an equally gullible retard won't eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system. The paper may not refuse ink but publishers will usually refuse the submission of a half-baked "passionate pundit". OTOH, you could modify your favorite cliche to extend to the internet where it's much more appropriate; where you, Dave, happen to be it's most glaring example: "The internet never refuses ASCII". Along those lines, I'm sure you have found the homepage for the Hudson Institute, and if you really had any money I'm sure you be paying your tithes to them on a monthly basis. But be careful of what political ideologies you support, Dave -- you might end up getting drafted at the spry young age of 60 after your neocon bretheren ever manage to convince Bush that invading China is a good idea. Maybe it is. Neither you nor I have any idea what is really going through the minds in Bejing...... Dave, you have no idea what is going through the mind of any rational person in China or anywhere else in the world. Fortunately for you, the rest of us do. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:55:28 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant. No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau. The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the subject. My statement was correct. So then how many divorcees end up remarried? Read my statement again, but this time stretch the limits of your reading comprehension skills: "Half of all marriages end in divorce." Now think for a minute (assuming you can supress your medication that long)..... What did I say in that statement? I said, very simply, that one out of every two marriages ends in divorce. I didn't say anything about divorcees getting remarried; I didn't say anything about how many people are currently single and divorced; I didn't say anything about -anything- other than what I said. And what I said is backed up by marriage and divorce rates as provided by the CDC, which is the agency that is repsonsible for collecting those statistics. What I said is -not- undermined by census data because it doesn't have enough information to determine marriage and divorce rates. What I said was not an opinion or statistical abberation, nor was it a report written by some "skilled left wing propagandist". What I said was a fact. So are you -now- able to tell the difference between fact and opinion? Or do you need yet -another- lesson? Care to help Social Security? The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes those who have already given into the SS program for their entire working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to everyone. So your solution is to simply eliminate Social Security? Hey, neat idea, but you can't "divert" what you don't have, and the Reps have tapped the SS trust fund so deep that there isn't anything to "divert". Care to substantiate that statement with some hard facts? Like the way -you- back up -your- statements with hard facts? Sure.... It's true because I say it's true. In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated "factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist. If you assume that the annual Federal Budget Reports from both Congress and the White House are written by skilled left wing propagandists then I suppose you are correct. The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social security"? Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the Republicans. So I suppose that the democrats had not done the same thing when they controlled the congress (Which they did up until 1994)? If you want to say that congress plays creative accounting games with Social Security, I'll agree and let it pass. But don't try to pin this on republicans alone. Unless, of course, you truly are a blind partisan. The blame does indeed rest with the Republicans. The Democrats have consistently pushed to bolster Social Security since the 1960's, while the Republicans have repeatedly dipped into the fund. Are you so out of touch that you don't understand why the Democrats are so popular with people that don't have a six-digit retirement portfolio? Holy crap you are ignorant, Dave! If you could quote any liberal who said that America should be a "welfare state" I might agree. They refer to it by different names. Which is something the conservatives -never- do, I'm sure. Irrelevant. It doesn't change the truth of my statement. Nope, it sure doesn't. You can call it "global warming" or "climate change", the "estate tax" or the "death tax", an "enemy combatant" or a "prisoner of war"..... it's all the same difference. So what liberal has stated that America should become a "welfare state" by that or any other name? Any liberal who supports subsidizing any and all social programs, starting with Welfare, and ending with Medicare. This programs are part and parcel of a "Welfare State". A certain amount of socialism is going to be part of the system -regardless- of who runs the country. The reason is simple: poor people vote. So would you support a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee every citizen the right to vote? Names like "living wage", "fair share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing. Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't. LOL..... I think I'll let that statement stand on it's own 'merits'! Yea, the truth. But you wisely chose not to comment on it as the only thing you could do is defend the practices. That's sort of like defending the IRS. Not a very popular position to be in. First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to irresponsible Republican economic plans Irresponsible Republican plans? You really area blind partisan aren't you? What "republican (Or democrat for that matter) plan" can stop the natural course to the free international market without seriously altering it? Let's put it this way: For the past few decades the Republicans have been campaigning on the pretext that they are for smaller government, yet in -every- Republican-dominated administration the government has increased in both size and spending. Republicans spend like they are on a Bloomingdale's shopping spree! They claim that all the spending is good for the economy, yet when it comes time to pay the bill for all that spending they lose control of the budget with phrases like, "Read my lips...." and the people get stuck with the bill. Then they leave the books for the Democrats to balance and maybe build up a surplus, which the Republicans end up throwing away on more spending and tax refunds when they regain control of the budget. It's like none of them ever learned basic fiscal responsibility: when you get a little extra cash it's much wiser to use it to pay down the credit cards, put back what you pilfered from the SS trust fund, and save a little for a rainy day. Nope, the Reps just end up throwing the money around like they were eccentric tycoons and it was -their- money to spend. And when that money is all gone they just max out the credit cards -- again. What they say and what they do are two very different things. That is what I call 'irresponsible'. And who stops those who are making less than a living wage from obtaining the skills necessary to rise above that? You did it. I did it. There's no excuse for anyone so motivated to not rise above the poverty level. Of course you'd have to stop ****ing away your pay on drugs, booze and cheap "dates" with the professional women. It's called "Personal Responsibility". Take charge of your own life. Don't wait for the government to bale you out (And blame then when they don't). Repeat after me: "I am not a victim!" You need to pull your head out of the sand. I used to think that way too, that everyone has the ability to take charge of their own future, to better themselves with education, to work hard and make something of themselves. Then I got a look at the -real- world. It just doesn't work that way, Dave. You claim to live in the real world yet you know nothing about it. And I'm not going to explain this aspect of it to you. You have to go find out the facts for yourself -- assuming you want to continue to claim that you are in touch with reality. (not to forget that 40% of wage-earners don't make enough money to pay income taxes and therefore didn't get Bush's 'tax rebate' that turned out to be nothing more than a loan). I suppose you're one of those people who feel that those who didn't put anything into the tax system should v'e got something back. This wasn't "giveaway money" it was a REBATE on tax money already paid in to the system, If you didn't pay anything in, you can't very well get a rebate on it back. Last time I went to school 100% of zero is still zero. As usual, you missed the whole point: 40% of people who work don't make enough to pay taxes. What does that tell you, Dave? And there is no such thing as a "tax rebate" -- if government spending doesn't decrease by the same amount then it's nothing but a loan. As it turns out, government spending increased -dramatically- after the rebate and -before- 9/11; Bush's plan was that the "rebate" would stimulate the economy enough that the cost of the rebates would come back in the form of increased tax revenue. The plan never worked before, but apparently Bush slept through that class in college (you and Bush sure have a lot in common). Second, "fair share" is in reference to fat-cats and corporations who skip out of paying taxes through shelters, subsidies and a variety of other carefully legislated loopholes. As opposed to the progressive tax scale which punishes those who achieve by burdening them with a higher tax rate? A flat tax rate is the fairest thing. Everyone pays the same percentage. Those who make more, pay more as a matter of percentage of gross. But a progressive tax rate is little more than a thinly veiled socialistic attempt to shift the burdens of society from those who take the most, to those who make the most. I don't recall saying anything about a "progressive tax rate". And "universal care" is a simple concept that provides basic health care service for anyone whether they can afford it or not But SOMEONE has to pay for it. OF COURSE someone has to pay for it. Someone has to pay for every aspect of the government. Do you want it to be fair? Then boil down the cost of government per person and let -that- be the tax. If they can't pay it then send them to debter's gulag where they can work off their debt to the government. And don't forget to ship them off when they're young -- heck you don't want to defer taxes to kids while they go to college since they might end up improving their life and taking your job in the future. And if they get sick just let them die, even if the illness is curable. After all, if they can't produce anything they might as well be dead anyway, right? And if they can't even meet their tax burden then what business do they have spending money on antibiotics to get rid of an infection, or a doctor to set a broken leg? Survival of the fittest, to be sure. Darwinism + taxes. Good plan, Dave. -- more specifically, the programs are targeted towards children whose parents work two or three of Bush's new jobs and still can't pay the rent, let alone health insurance for their children. People who do not possess the skills or motivation to obtain gainful jobs should not be having children. It's that "personal responsibility" thing again. Actually, it's almost verbatim from "Mein Kampf". Sterilize the weak so they are not a burden on society. Even better, just "sterilize" society, and that way you can eliminate the 'ghetto' stage. Raising children is an enormous responsibility both financial and emotional. Potential parents should be ready on both counts before bringing another mouth to feed into the world and then abdicating their responsibilities on to the rest of us. Zieg Heil! It's also targeted towards the increasing senior population who will be SOL when the SS trust fund dries up in a few years Yet you guys on the left are the ones now claiming that there is no problem with social security. Yet when Clinton was in office, it was a "big problem". Would you please make up your minds...... Despite the countless times I have reminded you, you keep forgetting that I'm not one of those "guys on the left". I never claimed that there was no problem with Social Security. "In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal. You need a reason to make something illegal." -- Donna Moss, "West Wing" And you accuse ME of watching too much TV? You do, and that's why I used the quote. Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't surprise me that you have. You bet I do! It's a lot better than most of the other crap that's pushed onto the public as 'entertainment'. That figures. West wing is very liberally slanted so I've been told. Of course you believe everything you're told as long as you're told it's liberally slanted. I prefer "24". The most intense show on TV. yawn. If I want to watch a shoot-em-up-bang-bang show with bad dialog, shallow characters and weak plots I'll watch reruns of Rawhide. Yet "West Wing" is any less shallow and crafted? It's Hollywood's version of what THEY would like the government to be. How would you know? You've never seen it. But which show stands a better chance of happening in the real world? COPS. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
David T. (The Hypocrite) Hall Jr. wrote:
The fact is that you can not be sure of any information one may post to "verify" their status in life. With the skills of the internet, one can create a completely artificial identity. So therefore, it is pointless to continue to ask. The Hypocrite Hall is now open... The cries and tribulations of David T. Hall Jr.: Give me your real name and address. 5/24/05 You aren't man enough to use your real name 4/21/05 Come clean with your real name 8/19/04 Mopar what's your real name-address-? 2/10/03 Try using your real name 11/8/04 Your real name should be inserted here 11/5/99 |
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:28:27 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in : David T. (The Hypocrite) Hall Jr. wrote: The fact is that you can not be sure of any information one may post to "verify" their status in life. With the skills of the internet, one can create a completely artificial identity. So therefore, it is pointless to continue to ask. The Hypocrite Hall is now open... The cries and tribulations of David T. Hall Jr.: Give me your real name and address. 5/24/05 You aren't man enough to use your real name 4/21/05 Come clean with your real name 8/19/04 Mopar what's your real name-address-? 2/10/03 Try using your real name 11/8/04 Your real name should be inserted here 11/5/99 Yeah, I'm beginning to think he isn't who he claims -- probably one of the real Dave Hall's genetic disappointments camped out in a trailer in his back yard or holed up in the basement. I wonder if he's related to Eddie, Freddie and Teddie Hall here in Spokane..... ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:58:16 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide the names of those "senior level engineers". And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know them. Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references? I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the futility of such a request. Then you should also understand the insignificance of any claims made based upon sources you are unwilling (or unable) to provide. Certainly. Then why do you keep invoking sources that, by your own admission, have no credibility? Are you attempting to achieve truth by repitition? Or are you just plain stupid? Well, gentlemen understand that certain personal experience contributes to the insight on certain subjects. But if you want to turn every claim into an "It's a lie until irrefutable proof positive is offered to substantiate it", situation then ok, your point is valid. In that case, there's no further point in debating, since that level of proof is usually not forthcoming. , or a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up with more excuses. I already have pictures of both on my website. Next? See below..... So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm proud of it. So you say. We have only your word for that. I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school, and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both attended and graduated from EWU. No they can verify that someone by the same name (Maybe N7VCF) graduated from EWU. Sure, and I can just take a picture of someone else's diploma and call it mine, just like you can take a picture of someone else's house and boat and call it your's, right? Keep going, you're getting warmer...... Get a clue already..... my middle initial is D, not C. And I don't recall N7VCF ever claiming to have graduated from EWU. Do you? No, but it was an example of someone with a similar name. Just to illustrate my point. But........... If I wanted to lie, I could find a school where someone named "Dave Hall" (And there's bound to be plenty given the popularity of my name) attended, and claim that it was me. Then how would you know for sure? How do I know for sure that those pictures are of your house and your boat? I don't. Exactly! Thank you for finally getting the point Frank. The fact is that you can not be sure of any information one may post to "verify" their status in life. With the skills of the internet, one can create a completely artificial identity. So therefore, it is pointless to continue to ask. With the internet you can also -confirm- a true identity. But that's not what I'm asking -- I'm simply asking for proof that you make as much money as you claim; that you work in the engineering field as you claim; that you attended an electronic tech school as you claim; etc. Or should I just file those claims in the basket along with your imaginary engineer sources? You just admitted above that I could forge a diploma, or present pictures of things that aren't mine and claim they are. So if I told you the name of the schools I attended, or submitted a pay stub, by your own admission, you couldn't be sure it was mine. So why should I bother? I have far more reference material than that one book could ever provide. Ah yes, the internet -- the "global pornography network"; the "poor-man's library"; the "information superhighway"..... where any kid with a computer and some pocket change can 'source' any tidbit of mental popcorn, fact or fiction, knowing that some gullible retard will eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system. My, my, do I detect a bit of contempt? Maybe it bothers you that I (and many others) can access information on the internet for free instantly, (and currently) where it cost you hundreds of dollars to amass in book form? No contempt at all -- if you want to limit your resources because you're too lazy to read a book then that's your problem. Lazy? Are you some sort of luddite purist? In the time it would take me to drive to a library (And where I live, it's a bit of a hike), find an appropriate book, sign it out, and bring it home, I could have read much more similar information on-line at no cost, using no fossil greenhouse gas fuel, and at a great saving in precious personal time. It's not about being lazy, it's about efficiency. Working smarter. Perhaps you're unaware of the phrase: "The paper never refuses ink". No, I've heard it plenty of times before -- you use the cliche as if it were God's Eleventh Commandment. Here's another one: "If the shoe fits......." It's not just the internet where a passionate pundit can publish their slanted viewpoints. Just because it's in hardback form doesn't mean than an equally gullible retard won't eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system. The paper may not refuse ink but publishers will usually refuse the submission of a half-baked "passionate pundit". Really? Then I guess by this revelation, that you'd endorse the published books by such people as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bernard Goldberg, and Micheal Medved as being totally correct, factual, insightful, and rational? I guess it never occurred to you that profit motivation in the publishing field is a far greater motivator than factual integrity. Along those lines, I'm sure you have found the homepage for the Hudson Institute, and if you really had any money I'm sure you be paying your tithes to them on a monthly basis. But be careful of what political ideologies you support, Dave -- you might end up getting drafted at the spry young age of 60 after your neocon bretheren ever manage to convince Bush that invading China is a good idea. Maybe it is. Neither you nor I have any idea what is really going through the minds in Bejing...... Dave, you have no idea what is going through the mind of any rational person in China or anywhere else in the world. Of course not. I don't have your crystal ball. Fortunately for you, the rest of us do. I doubt that you realize just how asinine that statement is. You only know what other people tell you. The problem is, you trust the wrong people. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 07:03:01 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:58:16 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide the names of those "senior level engineers". And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know them. Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references? I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the futility of such a request. Then you should also understand the insignificance of any claims made based upon sources you are unwilling (or unable) to provide. Certainly. Then why do you keep invoking sources that, by your own admission, have no credibility? Are you attempting to achieve truth by repitition? Or are you just plain stupid? Well, gentlemen understand that certain personal experience contributes to the insight on certain subjects. But if you want to turn every claim into an "It's a lie until irrefutable proof positive is offered to substantiate it", situation then ok, your point is valid. In that case, there's no further point in debating, since that level of proof is usually not forthcoming. Yet you keep begging for proof. If you ask others for proof of -their- claims but refuse to provide proof of -your- claims then you are a hypocrite, a fact which you have unwittingly proven so many times in this newsgroup. snip With the internet you can also -confirm- a true identity. But that's not what I'm asking -- I'm simply asking for proof that you make as much money as you claim; that you work in the engineering field as you claim; that you attended an electronic tech school as you claim; etc. Or should I just file those claims in the basket along with your imaginary engineer sources? You just admitted above that I could forge a diploma, or present pictures of things that aren't mine and claim they are. So if I told you the name of the schools I attended, or submitted a pay stub, by your own admission, you couldn't be sure it was mine. So why should I bother? Because even now, after you have gone to such great lengths to avoid giving that info, I might just believe it. At the very least it would lend a -little- bit credibility to your claims, which so far have no credibility at all. But if you don't want to fork over the info that's fine -- you go right on saying how you attended some anonymous tech school, cite the opinions of imaginary engineers, and brag about how you are financially well-to-do -- those are just three items in a long list of unproven claims you have made in just the past few months. So even if you -can- prove them, who cares? You're still an idiot, a liar, a hypocrite and a homophobe. And after your latest revelations, probably a closet Nazi, too. I have far more reference material than that one book could ever provide. Ah yes, the internet -- the "global pornography network"; the "poor-man's library"; the "information superhighway"..... where any kid with a computer and some pocket change can 'source' any tidbit of mental popcorn, fact or fiction, knowing that some gullible retard will eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system. My, my, do I detect a bit of contempt? Maybe it bothers you that I (and many others) can access information on the internet for free instantly, (and currently) where it cost you hundreds of dollars to amass in book form? No contempt at all -- if you want to limit your resources because you're too lazy to read a book then that's your problem. Lazy? Are you some sort of luddite purist? In the time it would take me to drive to a library (And where I live, it's a bit of a hike), find an appropriate book, sign it out, and bring it home, I could have read much more similar information on-line at no cost, using no fossil greenhouse gas fuel, and at a great saving in precious personal time. It's not about being lazy, it's about efficiency. Working smarter. There are resources in a public library that simply are not available on the internet. One of the biggest reasons is because of copyright laws, but there is also a much wider variety of reference materials available there as well. And since so many libraries now have internet terminals, you can do -both- at the same time. If you're so worried about creating greenhouse gasses then don't eat so much, since methane is 20 times as reactive as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide..... oh, but that's right, you don't think global warming is caused by humans. Well, that blows -that- excuse all to hell. But even if you have any doubt, ride a bicycle, take a bus, hitch a ride with a neighbor going in that direction. Or simply plan ahead to go there next time you're in the area. Or you can just sit at home and make excuses, which is just fine with me. Perhaps you're unaware of the phrase: "The paper never refuses ink". No, I've heard it plenty of times before -- you use the cliche as if it were God's Eleventh Commandment. Here's another one: "If the shoe fits......." It's not just the internet where a passionate pundit can publish their slanted viewpoints. Just because it's in hardback form doesn't mean than an equally gullible retard won't eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system. The paper may not refuse ink but publishers will usually refuse the submission of a half-baked "passionate pundit". Really? Then I guess by this revelation, that you'd endorse the published books by such people as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bernard Goldberg, and Micheal Medved as being totally correct, factual, insightful, and rational? Apparently you don't have enough brains to realize that such books are published because of the author's celebrity and/or controversial status. It's easy money. I guess it never occurred to you that profit motivation in the publishing field is a far greater motivator than factual integrity. On the contrary, factual content tends to be -very- important to publishers. Books (by celebrities and controversial personalities) are screened by teams of lawyers looking for possible cases of libel. But those books tend to be mostly opinion, and opinion does not constitute libel -- which is why -you- need to learn the difference between an opinion and a fact. Have you learned that lesson yet? Along those lines, I'm sure you have found the homepage for the Hudson Institute, and if you really had any money I'm sure you be paying your tithes to them on a monthly basis. But be careful of what political ideologies you support, Dave -- you might end up getting drafted at the spry young age of 60 after your neocon bretheren ever manage to convince Bush that invading China is a good idea. Maybe it is. Neither you nor I have any idea what is really going through the minds in Bejing...... Dave, you have no idea what is going through the mind of any rational person in China or anywhere else in the world. Of course not. I don't have your crystal ball. Yep, mine works pretty darn well. It was one of the first things I built when I went to tech school -- pretty simple stuff, I could write a course on it. Fortunately for you, the rest of us do. I doubt that you realize just how asinine that statement is. Not assinine at all -- it's people like me that keep people like you from turning this country into a facist Christian autocracy. You only know what other people tell you. The problem is, you trust the wrong people. Wrong. I trust nobody except myself. And sometimes I don't even trust myself, but that's only because of an incident long ago involving a fifth of Quervo and some prank calls to 911..... ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:58:21 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:55:28 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant. No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau. The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the subject. My statement was correct. So then how many divorcees end up remarried? Read my statement again, but this time stretch the limits of your reading comprehension skills: "Half of all marriages end in divorce." That statement is disingenuous. Many people marry for the wrong reasons once, divorce after 2 or 3 years, and then marry again, and this time stay married. Those facts aren't reflected in your numbers. The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social security"? Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the Republicans. So I suppose that the democrats had not done the same thing when they controlled the congress (Which they did up until 1994)? If you want to say that congress plays creative accounting games with Social Security, I'll agree and let it pass. But don't try to pin this on republicans alone. Unless, of course, you truly are a blind partisan. The blame does indeed rest with the Republicans. The Democrats have consistently pushed to bolster Social Security since the 1960's, while the Republicans have repeatedly dipped into the fund. Proof please. Democrats have traditionally been of the expand government programs, and tax people to pay for it type. While republicans have been in favor of trimming government programs and giving money back to the people. Are you so out of touch that you don't understand why the Democrats are so popular with people that don't have a six-digit retirement portfolio? Holy crap you are ignorant, Dave! The reason that democrats are popular with the poor and politically ignorant (Which appears to include you), is because they promise to "give" them something that they don't have to earn themselves. Whether it's welfare, Social Security, Food Stamps, free health care, extended unemployment, or any number of "gimme" programs. Those programs are championed by democrats, and favored by people in need, and paid for by people who earn. It's nothing more than redistribution of wealth and leveraging class warfare to advance their political goals. One of those goals is to create a class of dependant people who the democrats can continue to feed (Just enough to keep them above water, but not enough to become truly independent), in exchange for their continued support. Democrats are popular with those who take. Republicans are popular with those who MAKE. Any liberal who supports subsidizing any and all social programs, starting with Welfare, and ending with Medicare. This programs are part and parcel of a "Welfare State". A certain amount of socialism is going to be part of the system -regardless- of who runs the country. No, it doesn't have to be. I suppose you've heard the saying: "Give a person a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a person to fish and they'll eat for a lifetime"? That's one of the major differences in ideological philosophies between conservatives and liberals. Liberals just want to throw money at every problem and hope that it goes away. Conservatives want to teach people to be self sufficient and to learn to stop thinking of themselves as victims. The reason is simple: poor people vote. So would you support a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee every citizen the right to vote? Sure, why not? Most poor people would rather earn their own keep, if given that chance. First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to irresponsible Republican economic plans Irresponsible Republican plans? You really area blind partisan aren't you? What "republican (Or democrat for that matter) plan" can stop the natural course to the free international market without seriously altering it? Let's put it this way: For the past few decades the Republicans have been campaigning on the pretext that they are for smaller government, yet in -every- Republican-dominated administration the government has increased in both size and spending. Proof please. Start in 1995 with Newt Gingrich's brilliantly executed "Contract with America" and how, for the first time in many years, a republican led majority in congress, slashed pork, wasteful spending, and government programs which resulted in the balanced budget that "Slick willie" Clinton tried to take credit for, and laid the foundation for the tax cuts that Bush gave back to every taxpayer. Republicans spend like they are on a Bloomingdale's shopping spree! They claim that all the spending is good for the economy, yet when it comes time to pay the bill for all that spending they lose control of the budget with phrases like, "Read my lips...." and the people get stuck with the bill. Then they leave the books for the Democrats to balance and maybe build up a surplus, which the Republicans end up throwing away on more spending and tax refunds when they regain control of the budget. You've got the cycle right, but for the wrong reasons. Democrats, enact social programs which cost money. They therefore have to raise taxes to pay for them. High taxes **** off a lot of people, so they vote the democrats out and the republicans in. The republicans slash and burn the democrats programs, give people tax relief, and cut the budget. Then people start to bitch that they want this program and that program, and accuse the republican administration of being "insensitive" to the needs of these whiny special interest groups, and they vote in a slick talking democrat who will promise them the moon, but neglect to inform them of what it will all cost. Then the cycle repeats. This administration has been the lone exception. Spending has been ridiculous for a republican administration. But remember, we were recovering from a recession which started with the stock market crash at the end of Clinton's term. We also had 9/11, and we're fighting two wars. Those are not normal circumstances. It's like none of them ever learned basic fiscal responsibility: when you get a little extra cash it's much wiser to use it to pay down the credit cards, put back what you pilfered from the SS trust fund, and save a little for a rainy day. Nope, the Reps just end up throwing the money around like they were eccentric tycoons and it was -their- money to spend. And when that money is all gone they just max out the credit cards -- again. What they say and what they do are two very different things. That is what I call 'irresponsible'. You've just described historically typical democratic spending policies. How come it only bothers you now when it's a republican at the helm? Can you say "Partisan"? Sure you can..... And who stops those who are making less than a living wage from obtaining the skills necessary to rise above that? You did it. I did it. There's no excuse for anyone so motivated to not rise above the poverty level. Of course you'd have to stop ****ing away your pay on drugs, booze and cheap "dates" with the professional women. It's called "Personal Responsibility". Take charge of your own life. Don't wait for the government to bale you out (And blame then when they don't). Repeat after me: "I am not a victim!" You need to pull your head out of the sand. I used to think that way too, that everyone has the ability to take charge of their own future, to better themselves with education, to work hard and make something of themselves. You were right then. What happened? Then I got a look at the -real- world. No, you were indoctrinated by a whiney left coast liberal. It just doesn't work that way, Dave. Yes, yes it does. There is absolutely no reason why a person with marketable skills cannot obtain a gainfully paying job. No one said the path will be easy or the same for every person. But there is a path. You just have to be willing to take it, and stay the course. You claim to live in the real world yet you know nothing about it. And I'm not going to explain this aspect of it to you. You have to go find out the facts for yourself -- assuming you want to continue to claim that you are in touch with reality. Frank, I live in the real world, I observe real people, and am particularly sensitive to the psychological aspects of how people interact. There is no good reason you can give me, that will convince me that any person, who is duly motivated, cannot achieve some level of financial independence. There is nothing magical, genetic, or special about people like Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Sean Fanning, or any number of other people who took dirt and made it into something. Some people whine that they couldn't afford to go to college. Yet there are others who find a way to make it happen. Others whine that they're being discriminated against. Yet there are others in a similar group who achieve quite well. Then there are people who say that there are just no jobs out there for them. Then there are those who are willing to relocate to where the jobs are. There are two kinds of people in this world Frank. Those who achieve, and those who make excuses why they won't. If you have a defeatist attitude, you're doomed before you start. Part of the problem is that our culture has adopted an "Instant gratification" aspect. Whether it be in the things we buy or the path we choose to aspire to, we expect things to happen right away. There is little patience involved. If your circumstances dictate that you will not be able to earn a college degree for 10 years of night school, while working at Wal-Mart, then many people with little patience quit and then vote for a democrat who will give them food stamps. Those who stick it out, will eventually receive the rewards for their efforts. With today's technology, there are businesses that anyone with a computer can set up on line with virtually no overhead. There are people who make 6 figure incomes just by buying and selling items on E-Bay. America truly IS the land of opportunity. But it's not the land of guarantees. You have to be willing to WORK for your success. Unless you have a physical or mental handicap, which prevents you from working, you have only yourself to blame if you don't succeed. (not to forget that 40% of wage-earners don't make enough money to pay income taxes and therefore didn't get Bush's 'tax rebate' that turned out to be nothing more than a loan). I suppose you're one of those people who feel that those who didn't put anything into the tax system should v'e got something back. This wasn't "giveaway money" it was a REBATE on tax money already paid in to the system, If you didn't pay anything in, you can't very well get a rebate on it back. Last time I went to school 100% of zero is still zero. As usual, you missed the whole point: 40% of people who work don't make enough to pay taxes. What does that tell you, Dave? And there is no such thing as a "tax rebate" -- if government spending doesn't decrease by the same amount then it's nothing but a loan. As it turns out, government spending increased -dramatically- after the rebate and -before- 9/11; Bush's plan was that the "rebate" would stimulate the economy enough that the cost of the rebates would come back in the form of increased tax revenue. The plan never worked before Actually there are credible economic sources that claim that Bush's tax rebate did lessen somewhat both the severity and the duration of the recession. So it did work, to some degree. , but apparently Bush slept through that class in college (you and Bush sure have a lot in common). Interesting side note. Apparently Kerry has finally released his GPA for the years when he was at Yale. It seems that his GPA was WORSE than Bush's. Imagine that....... Second, "fair share" is in reference to fat-cats and corporations who skip out of paying taxes through shelters, subsidies and a variety of other carefully legislated loopholes. As opposed to the progressive tax scale which punishes those who achieve by burdening them with a higher tax rate? A flat tax rate is the fairest thing. Everyone pays the same percentage. Those who make more, pay more as a matter of percentage of gross. But a progressive tax rate is little more than a thinly veiled socialistic attempt to shift the burdens of society from those who take the most, to those who make the most. I don't recall saying anything about a "progressive tax rate". You don't have to. That's what we currently have. And "universal care" is a simple concept that provides basic health care service for anyone whether they can afford it or not But SOMEONE has to pay for it. OF COURSE someone has to pay for it. Someone has to pay for every aspect of the government. Do you want it to be fair? Then boil down the cost of government per person and let -that- be the tax. I tend to liken that approach to what happens when my work group decides to celebrate some award or other activity at a local eating establishment. We have 10 or 15 people, who all order different things, some order appetizers and alcoholic drinks as well. The when the bill comes, and because it's easy, they normally just take the amount and divide it by the number of people, and everyone forks up. The problem is that I usually end up paying $15 for a meal which in reality should have cost me $8.50. I end up paying for those extra appetizers and drinks that some of the other people ordered. So much for "fair" I'd much rather pay for what I use. If they can't pay it then send them to debter's gulag where they can work off their debt to the government. And don't forget to ship them off when they're young -- heck you don't want to defer taxes to kids while they go to college since they might end up improving their life and taking your job in the future. And if they get sick just let them die, even if the illness is curable. After all, if they can't produce anything they might as well be dead anyway, right? And if they can't even meet their tax burden then what business do they have spending money on antibiotics to get rid of an infection, or a doctor to set a broken leg? Survival of the fittest, to be sure. Darwinism + taxes. Good plan, Dave. Typical of liberals. Rely on a strawman argument in an effort to make your point. But then when your point is based on an exaggeration of reality, so to, is your credibility. -- more specifically, the programs are targeted towards children whose parents work two or three of Bush's new jobs and still can't pay the rent, let alone health insurance for their children. People who do not possess the skills or motivation to obtain gainful jobs should not be having children. It's that "personal responsibility" thing again. Actually, it's almost verbatim from "Mein Kampf". Sterilize the weak so they are not a burden on society. Even better, just "sterilize" society, and that way you can eliminate the 'ghetto' stage. Well, that's a far better solution then just letting people have children, willy-nilly without having any practical means to support them, and then expecting society to save them from their own mess. Ultimately the children are the ones who suffer, and statistically, children brought up in those situations rarely exceed the economic status of their irresponsible parents (Another cliche for you: "The apple never falls far from the tree"). Whether it's genetic of environmental, the result is the same. The philosophical question is: Should a person's right to procreate deserve greater consideration than their responsibility to properly care for their offspring? Raising children is an enormous responsibility both financial and emotional. Potential parents should be ready on both counts before bringing another mouth to feed into the world and then abdicating their responsibilities on to the rest of us. Zieg Heil! Attempts to demonize a rational point about personal responsibility by invoking an emotional reaction through a vain attempt to make a poorly crafted and unrelated comparison to an evil regime in another place and time are just as bogus now, as when those who employ the same technique compare Bush to Hitler. It's also targeted towards the increasing senior population who will be SOL when the SS trust fund dries up in a few years Yet you guys on the left are the ones now claiming that there is no problem with social security. Yet when Clinton was in office, it was a "big problem". Would you please make up your minds...... Despite the countless times I have reminded you, you keep forgetting that I'm not one of those "guys on the left". I never claimed that there was no problem with Social Security. Yet you oppose Bush's plan to change the way it works in order to save it.? Or would you rather just dump more and more taxpayer money into what is essentially a pyramid scheme? Yet "West Wing" is any less shallow and crafted? It's Hollywood's version of what THEY would like the government to be. How would you know? You've never seen it. I've read reviews and talked to other people who DO watch it. But which show stands a better chance of happening in the real world? COPS. True, but COPS was not one of the choices. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
(Then why do you keep invoking sources that, by your own admission, have
no credibility? Are you attempting to achieve truth by repitition? Or are you just plain stupid? ) Well, gentlemen understand that certain personal experience contributes to the insight on certain subjects. Which necessitates the end result a personal opinion or interpretation, not a reality or fact. But if you want to turn every claim into an "It's a lie until irrefutable proof positive is offered to substantiate it", situation then ok, your point is valid. Not every claim, just your wild, unsolicited claims regarding self-qualification claims you felt important enough to bring forth, but for which not to provide even remote substantiation. In that case, there's no further point in debating, since that level of proof is usually not forthcoming. Not from you it sure isn't. |
David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
If your circumstances dictate that you will not be able to earn a college degree for 10 years of night school, while working at Wal-Mart, then many people with little patience quit and then vote for a democrat who will give them food stamps. Those who stick it out, will eventually receive the rewards for their efforts. Nice theory, but you can't swing that excuse in the real world. For example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a family. What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and medical insurance for themselves and their children. If you were well educated in the world beyond eastern Pa., you would know what the employment scene is like in Detroit. You claim one can simply move away, but that is based on your own lack of education and not able to realize many can't move away for a myriad of reasons, such as caring for an infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single example. More children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their own. There is an entire contingency in many demographical areas of the US in which many are trapped in a sort of financial snare. People like you usually get what is coming in the end and karma, luck, divine intervention, whatever, will dictate you end up just like those you blame for being poor, black, queer, liberal, etc. In fact, your daughter may quit school, commonly become pregnant to an African-American or three, have many children and volunteer at the ACLU before realizing she is a lesbian and needs a job to pay the attorney for the crack and prostitution charges. |
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:15:07 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:58:21 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:55:28 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant. No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau. The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the subject. My statement was correct. So then how many divorcees end up remarried? Read my statement again, but this time stretch the limits of your reading comprehension skills: "Half of all marriages end in divorce." That statement is disingenuous. Many people marry for the wrong reasons once, divorce after 2 or 3 years, and then marry again, and this time stay married. Those facts aren't reflected in your numbers. And I implied nothing of the sort. In fact, you just helped make my case for me -- admitting that marriage isn't taken nearly as seriously by the general public as you would like everyone to believe. People -do- get married for the wrong reasons. People -do- get divorced. People -do- remarry (many times resulting in excommunication). Some people -do- get married more than once, twice,.... sometimes even four or five times or more. And in almost all of those marriages each person took an oath that included "until death do us part". And some people don't even get married at all -- they live together, have kids, raise a family and retire without ever exchanging vows. The fact is that marriage simply isn't taken seriously enough by people to justify calling it a "sacred tradition" either by law or by any religious standard. The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social security"? Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the Republicans. So I suppose that the democrats had not done the same thing when they controlled the congress (Which they did up until 1994)? If you want to say that congress plays creative accounting games with Social Security, I'll agree and let it pass. But don't try to pin this on republicans alone. Unless, of course, you truly are a blind partisan. The blame does indeed rest with the Republicans. The Democrats have consistently pushed to bolster Social Security since the 1960's, while the Republicans have repeatedly dipped into the fund. Proof please. Sure, just as soon as you come up with proof that has been asked of you for numerous claims you have made over the past several months. Or you could look for the proof yourself. But that would be pointless because if you can't find it, you characteristically conclude that it doesn't exist, which is especially lame when your only resource is the internet. And even -then- your research consists of a few common words in a google search, followed by abandonment of your search because you get discouraged at the high number of results. So unless you are going to start providing some facts to support your many claims, don't beg me for any more proof. Democrats have traditionally been of the expand government programs, and tax people to pay for it type. While republicans have been in favor of trimming government programs and giving money back to the people. Are you so out of touch that you don't understand why the Democrats are so popular with people that don't have a six-digit retirement portfolio? Holy crap you are ignorant, Dave! The reason that democrats are popular with the poor and politically ignorant (Which appears to include you), is because they promise to "give" them something that they don't have to earn themselves. You mean things like the right to vote? A fiscally responsible government? A few years without war? Whether it's welfare, Social Security, Food Stamps, free health care, extended unemployment, or any number of "gimme" programs. Those programs are championed by democrats, and favored by people in need, and paid for by people who earn. It's nothing more than redistribution of wealth and leveraging class warfare to advance their political goals. One of those goals is to create a class of dependant people who the democrats can continue to feed (Just enough to keep them above water, but not enough to become truly independent), in exchange for their continued support. You have just jumped into the deep end, Dave. Get help. Democrats are popular with those who take. Republicans are popular with those who MAKE. And you are popular with those who make repetitive moaning sounds while banging their heads against a padded wall. Seriously, Dave, get some perspective. Any liberal who supports subsidizing any and all social programs, starting with Welfare, and ending with Medicare. This programs are part and parcel of a "Welfare State". A certain amount of socialism is going to be part of the system -regardless- of who runs the country. No, it doesn't have to be. I suppose you've heard the saying: "Give a person a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a person to fish and they'll eat for a lifetime"? That's one of the major differences in ideological philosophies between conservatives and liberals. Liberals just want to throw money at every problem and hope that it goes away. Conservatives want to teach people to be self sufficient and to learn to stop thinking of themselves as victims. So -that's- why we invaded Iraq! The reason is simple: poor people vote. So would you support a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee every citizen the right to vote? Sure, why not? Most poor people would rather earn their own keep, if given that chance. Really? Then why have you been saying for months that poor people just want to kick back and leech from others through welfare checks, food stamps and other social handouts? You are clearly in a state of meltdown. First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to irresponsible Republican economic plans Irresponsible Republican plans? You really area blind partisan aren't you? What "republican (Or democrat for that matter) plan" can stop the natural course to the free international market without seriously altering it? Let's put it this way: For the past few decades the Republicans have been campaigning on the pretext that they are for smaller government, yet in -every- Republican-dominated administration the government has increased in both size and spending. Proof please. Start in 1995 with Newt Gingrich's brilliantly executed "Contract with America" and how, for the first time in many years, a republican led majority in congress, slashed pork, wasteful spending, and government programs which resulted in the balanced budget that "Slick willie" Clinton tried to take credit for, and laid the foundation for the tax cuts that Bush gave back to every taxpayer. In case you didn't notice, Newt was the lone Republican proponent of a balanced budget amendment, which is why he was publically trounced and bounced from Congress. If you go back and look at the votes, most of the Republicans voted -against- the balanced budget during the Clinton years. The Democrats forced a few Reps to fold on the balanced budget in exchange for a little district money because Clinton, unlike Bush, wasn't afraid to veto a budget bill with higher deficit ceilings and packed with Republican pork-barrel spending. And if the Reps -really- wanted a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution it would have passed with almost a unanimous vote because the Dems have been pushing for it for years. But it didn't even get to the floor. So quit with the spin and stick to the facts, Dave. Start your education on the subject by learning about the Graham-Rudman-Hollings Act. Republicans spend like they are on a Bloomingdale's shopping spree! They claim that all the spending is good for the economy, yet when it comes time to pay the bill for all that spending they lose control of the budget with phrases like, "Read my lips...." and the people get stuck with the bill. Then they leave the books for the Democrats to balance and maybe build up a surplus, which the Republicans end up throwing away on more spending and tax refunds when they regain control of the budget. You've got the cycle right, but for the wrong reasons. Democrats, enact social programs which cost money. They therefore have to raise taxes to pay for them. So that's why Medicaid spending grew 13.2 percent in 2002, the steepest rate of growth since 1992? Because Democrats were at the helm? I really think you got your facts backwards, Dave. Democrats (-and- Bush Sr) had to raise taxes in order to pay for Republican spending sprees -- that's a FACT! Reagan spent jillions on the military and ran the deficit higher than it had ever been before, even during wartime. Daddy Bush lost re-election because he got stuck with the bill. Although Clinton was a crappy leader, he had some decent economic advisors that bailed out the country. And now Baby Bush has pushed the budget back into the infra-red. Yet you think Democrats raise taxes just to pay for social programs? You are TOTALLY CLUELESS, Dave! For God's sake, get an education! High taxes **** off a lot of people, so they vote the democrats out and the republicans in. The republicans slash and burn the democrats programs, give people tax relief, "Read my lips...." and cut the budget. HA! What a load of horse-hooey! So what year did the Republicans cut the budget, Dave?.... aw, the heck with it. You want proof? Here you go: Reagan/Bush: The Federal deficit jumped from $73.1B in 1980 to $237.9B in 1986. The Federal debt jumped from $711.9B to $1,740.6B in that same time frame. By the time he left office the Federal debt was $2,051.6B. By the time Daddy Bush left office it was $2,999.7B and the deficit had risen to $340.4B. Just a quick summary: 1980.....Deficit = $73.1B.....Debt = $711.9B 1992.....Deficit = $340.4B.....Debt = $2999.7B ---------------------------------------------- Change...Deficit ^ $267.3B.....Debt ^ $2287.8B Both increased more that 400%!!! Clinton: By 2000, and for the first time in over 50 years, there had been a budget SURPLUS for not just one but TWO YEARS. Clinton left office with a SURPLUS of $86.3B, and was in the process of reducing the Federal debt. He had also halted the increases in discretionary spending, one of the hallmarks of the Republican party. Bush Jr: Since Baby Bush took office (as of the end of 2004), discretionary spending has almost doubled, program spending has increased by almost half, the surplus went bye-bye and was replaced with a deficit of $567.4B (an increase of more than -twice- the deficit at the end of the Reagan/Bush years) and the debt had increased to an all-time high of..... are you ready for this?..... $4,295.5B!!! Just the INTEREST on the debt is $160.2B. Is that enough proof for you? Do you still think the Republicans are cutting the budget like they claim? Or are you going to wallow in your ignorance and try to spin the cold, hard facts? Then people start to bitch that they want this program and that program, and accuse the republican administration of being "insensitive" to the needs of these whiny special interest groups, and they vote in a slick talking democrat who will promise them the moon, but neglect to inform them of what it will all cost. Then the cycle repeats. This administration has been the lone exception. Spending has been ridiculous for a republican administration. But remember, we were recovering from a recession which started with the stock market crash at the end of Clinton's term. We also had 9/11, and we're fighting two wars. Those are not normal circumstances. The circumstances are -never- normal, Dave -- except that people like you will always come up with excuses and spins and lies to defend your profound ignorance. It's like none of them ever learned basic fiscal responsibility: when you get a little extra cash it's much wiser to use it to pay down the credit cards, put back what you pilfered from the SS trust fund, and save a little for a rainy day. Nope, the Reps just end up throwing the money around like they were eccentric tycoons and it was -their- money to spend. And when that money is all gone they just max out the credit cards -- again. What they say and what they do are two very different things. That is what I call 'irresponsible'. You've just described historically typical democratic spending policies. How come it only bothers you now when it's a republican at the helm? Can you say "Partisan"? Sure you can..... Can you read the Federal Register? Congressional voting records? Budget resolutions? Domestic economic policy statements? Federal Reserve economic analyses? The Wall Street Journal? The National Enquirer? Anything in a library? I doubt it..... And who stops those who are making less than a living wage from obtaining the skills necessary to rise above that? You did it. I did it. There's no excuse for anyone so motivated to not rise above the poverty level. Of course you'd have to stop ****ing away your pay on drugs, booze and cheap "dates" with the professional women. It's called "Personal Responsibility". Take charge of your own life. Don't wait for the government to bale you out (And blame then when they don't). Repeat after me: "I am not a victim!" You need to pull your head out of the sand. I used to think that way too, that everyone has the ability to take charge of their own future, to better themselves with education, to work hard and make something of themselves. You were right then. What happened? Then I got a look at the -real- world. No, you were indoctrinated by a whiney left coast liberal. It just doesn't work that way, Dave. Yes, yes it does. There is absolutely no reason why a person with marketable skills cannot obtain a gainfully paying job. No one said the path will be easy or the same for every person. But there is a path. You just have to be willing to take it, and stay the course. When are your parents ever going to kick you out of their trailer, garage, basement, or whatever emotionally secure little fortress of social isolation you have built around yourself? Isn't it about time you light a fire, haul your fat ass out that chair and into the -real- world so you can actually learn something about it instead of making wild speculations, adopting internet fantasies, and making up excuses why you can't experience it firsthand? You claim to live in the real world yet you know nothing about it. And I'm not going to explain this aspect of it to you. You have to go find out the facts for yourself -- assuming you want to continue to claim that you are in touch with reality. Frank, I live in the real world, No you don't. You don't have any idea what happens in the real world, just like you don't have any idea what is taught in college, or how economics works, or how the government works, or any of the other dozen or so claims you have proven are nothing but lies. You may get to the store if you take an extra dose of Paxil, and you might have a driver's license, but your mind is existing in it's own little fantasy land devoid of facts or social interaction. That's why you can't break away from your codependent relationship with your mommy -- life is just too hard for you to make it on your own, isn't it? Poor baby. It's sure a good thing that your neocon brothers are there to change your diaper and powder your bottom, ready to hand you a pacifier every time some liberal gets you all upset. Just like a Baby Bush clone. Well, take a nap, Baby Bush clone, because it's time for me -- the big, ugly ex-Marine who risked his life and gave up four years of it just so you could be coddled in adulthood by your mommy, the engineer who is educated at a level that you think you can fake with info from the internet, the liberally-slanted conservative that worked for several years at a radio station which broadcasts nothing but the news, the bartender whose job demands a diversified understanding of social, ethnic and cultural issues, the guy who has never drawn a single dollar of unemployment benefits or a welfare check (assuming such benefits were available to an able-bodied male such as myself, which they aren't, or hadn't you ever thought of that?), the newsgroup junkie who has pretty much destroyed your academic credibility for you and your posterity -- to go earn a living. Maybe some day you can earn a living, too. But probably not. Just stay home with your mommy and live your life through the TV and computer so the real world doesn't have to deal with you. But just to be fair, at least you are useful in one way -- you provide great entertainment while I waste time before I go to work. Too bad you don't get paid for it. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:57:33 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: Read my statement again, but this time stretch the limits of your reading comprehension skills: "Half of all marriages end in divorce." That statement is disingenuous. Many people marry for the wrong reasons once, divorce after 2 or 3 years, and then marry again, and this time stay married. Those facts aren't reflected in your numbers. And I implied nothing of the sort. In fact, you just helped make my case for me -- admitting that marriage isn't taken nearly as seriously by the general public as you would like everyone to believe. Based on what? A few failures caused by people who are still too immature and materialistic to fully understand the responsibility that a successful marriage entails? That fact does not negate that a great majority of final marriages last. The fact is that marriage simply isn't taken seriously enough by people to justify calling it a "sacred tradition" either by law or by any religious standard. An erroneous conclusion arrived by a flawed premise and incomplete data. Typical for you Frank. The blame does indeed rest with the Republicans. The Democrats have consistently pushed to bolster Social Security since the 1960's, while the Republicans have repeatedly dipped into the fund. Proof please. Sure, just as soon as you come up with proof that has been asked of you for numerous claims you have made over the past several months. So you are adopting the patented Twistedhed cop-out. I would have though better of you Frank. So unless you are going to start providing some facts to support your many claims, don't beg me for any more proof. In other words, you can't. Democrats have traditionally been of the expand government programs, and tax people to pay for it type. While republicans have been in favor of trimming government programs and giving money back to the people. Are you so out of touch that you don't understand why the Democrats are so popular with people that don't have a six-digit retirement portfolio? Holy crap you are ignorant, Dave! The reason that democrats are popular with the poor and politically ignorant (Which appears to include you), is because they promise to "give" them something that they don't have to earn themselves. You mean things like the right to vote? Name me a state, anywhere in this country, where the right to vote is lawfully denied to anyone. A fiscally responsible government? We have one. Once the economy fully turns around. Deficit spending kicked the economy into high gear when Reagan did it in the 1980's. The resultant economic boom erased the deficit and provided a surplus. There is no reason to believe that the same won't happen now. A few years without war? With the exception of the current war, and the Gulf War, who was president when the last several wars broke out, and which party where they a part of? Whether it's welfare, Social Security, Food Stamps, free health care, extended unemployment, or any number of "gimme" programs. Those programs are championed by democrats, and favored by people in need, and paid for by people who earn. It's nothing more than redistribution of wealth and leveraging class warfare to advance their political goals. One of those goals is to create a class of dependant people who the democrats can continue to feed (Just enough to keep them above water, but not enough to become truly independent), in exchange for their continued support. You have just jumped into the deep end, Dave. Get help. Your refusal to see the truth for what it is, beyond the blinders that your left coast education have taught you does not negate it for those of us who aren't so blind. Democrats have historically tried to play the race card, the class card, and the gender card when it suits them as a level to achieve their political goals. If it suits them to accuse republicans of being racist (Even though it was southern democrats who most opposed the civil rights bill) they do it. If it suits them (and it seemed to have worked on you) to demonize the wealthy and successful in this country as somehow not worthy of the fruits of their labors, and somehow responsible for the predicament that the poor are in (The flawed concept that someone cannot be rich, without another person having to become poor), they will do it. Conservatives who oppose abortion on the very moral reason that it is killing, are branded as opposing a woman's right to choose. Yet those same democrats who champion a woman's right to choose an abortion hypocritically oppose the death penalty for convicted killers and rapists. These same democrats who hypocritically champion choice, sit in opposition to the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms, or a family's right to choose which public funded school to send their kids to. Democrats are popular with those who take. Republicans are popular with those who MAKE. And you are popular with those who make repetitive moaning sounds while banging their heads against a padded wall. Seriously, Dave, get some perspective. Frank, as is typical with you, when you can't argue the points, you resort to insult. The one who needs perspective is you. You think that government should replace God as the savior of your soul and the great protector of the people (But at the same time oppose their efforts to better clamp down on domestic terror). You favor safety net dependency rather than pushing for financial independence and personal responsibility. You want to keep the government training wheels on every citizen's bikes, thereby never fully allowing them to truly achieve anything. For if and when they start to, you also want the government to increasingly tax them. That's why socialism is a failed ideology. Socialism promotes mediocrity, by removing incentives to better one self. If everyone is treated equally, there is little incentive to advance, as the rewards are greatly diminished. Frank, you need to get away from the left coast and see how real people live, and stay away from the "Starbucks liberals" Any liberal who supports subsidizing any and all social programs, starting with Welfare, and ending with Medicare. This programs are part and parcel of a "Welfare State". A certain amount of socialism is going to be part of the system -regardless- of who runs the country. No, it doesn't have to be. I suppose you've heard the saying: "Give a person a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a person to fish and they'll eat for a lifetime"? That's one of the major differences in ideological philosophies between conservatives and liberals. Liberals just want to throw money at every problem and hope that it goes away. Conservatives want to teach people to be self sufficient and to learn to stop thinking of themselves as victims. So -that's- why we invaded Iraq! Partly. We eventually want the Iraqi people to become totally self sufficient, and self governing, and no longer under the thumb of a despotic dictator. The reason is simple: poor people vote. So would you support a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee every citizen the right to vote? Sure, why not? Most poor people would rather earn their own keep, if given that chance. Really? Then why have you been saying for months that poor people just want to kick back and leech from others through welfare checks, food stamps and other social handouts? Some poor people do. They've known little else. They were born into welfare families, so that's what they've been indoctrinated into thinking is their "career" path. But the "working poor" truly want to be productive, and will put in a hard days work. But for whatever reason they chose not to pick a career path that would return a greater financial reward for those hours worked. The ONE social program that I favor is universal education or vocational training. Provide the tools to everyone so that they can pull themselves up from their boot straps, and get a "real" job. That way, anyone who's still flipping burgers or sweeping streets is doing so by their own actions (or more accurately inactions). Ambitious people can do it already, but universal education will remove all remaining excuses for failure. You are clearly in a state of meltdown. I could see how your rose colored glasses would show me in that light. But trust me, it's an illusion that 's strictly in your mind only. Let's put it this way: For the past few decades the Republicans have been campaigning on the pretext that they are for smaller government, yet in -every- Republican-dominated administration the government has increased in both size and spending. Proof please. Start in 1995 with Newt Gingrich's brilliantly executed "Contract with America" and how, for the first time in many years, a republican led majority in congress, slashed pork, wasteful spending, and government programs which resulted in the balanced budget that "Slick willie" Clinton tried to take credit for, and laid the foundation for the tax cuts that Bush gave back to every taxpayer. In case you didn't notice, Newt was the lone Republican proponent of a balanced budget amendment, which is why he was publically trounced and bounced from Congress. You need to get your history in order. Newt was "bounced" from congress after a democratic led smear campaign over an alleged ethics issue. In fact, it's pretty much common speculation that this event is what prompted a retaliation against Clinton, with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. If you go back and look at the votes, most of the Republicans voted -against- the balanced budget during the Clinton years. Yea, Clinton's budget. But they backed their own version, which included better cuts. The Democrats forced a few Reps to fold on the balanced budget in exchange for a little district money because Clinton, unlike Bush, wasn't afraid to veto a budget bill with higher deficit ceilings and packed with Republican pork-barrel spending. And if the Reps -really- wanted a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution it would have passed with almost a unanimous vote because the Dems have been pushing for it for years. That's a load of crap Frank! Democrats love to spend. In fact, when the budget surplus was finally realized, the first thing congressional democrats wanted to do, was create more social programs. Clinton, always the smooth and savvy strategist, suggested using the surplus to pay down the debt and bail out social security. His message resonated with the American people, and the democrats in congress were forced to back away from their initial spending ideas. Republicans favor increased spending on military and defense. In most other areas, republicans favor cuts. But it didn't even get to the floor. So quit with the spin and stick to the facts, Dave. As opposed to your relentless left wing spin? You "facts" are just plain wrong Frank. You've got the cycle right, but for the wrong reasons. Democrats, enact social programs which cost money. They therefore have to raise taxes to pay for them. So that's why Medicaid spending grew 13.2 percent in 2002, the steepest rate of growth since 1992? Because Democrats were at the helm? I really think you got your facts backwards, Dave. That's one of the things that I am very much disgusted with Bush on, and that's the expansion of the medicare prescription program. That's going to cost an arm and a leg, and illustrates why sensible people do not want the government involved in paying for healthcare. I believe that Bush did it simply to remove it as a platform item for democrats. A strictly political move. A bad one IMHO. Democrats (-and- Bush Sr) had to raise taxes in order to pay for Republican spending sprees -- that's a FACT! It's a fact that the democratically controlled congress raised taxes. Bush Sr. was coerced into signing it, under threat on not having any of his bills passed through. Reagan spent jillions on the military and ran the deficit higher than it had ever been before, even during wartime. And the economy recovered from "Stagflation" and when it rebounded the deficit recovered. There is no evil in deficit spending, when you understand how it works. But it seems like you don't. Daddy Bush lost re-election because he got stuck with the bill. Yes, plus the involvement of Ross Perot, syphoned away many would-be republican votes. Although Clinton was a crappy leader, he had some decent economic advisors that bailed out the country. Clinton was a very skilled and savvy leader. He knew how to manipulate people to get what he wanted. He was also a skilled orator, and could make his case to the American people like no other since Reagan. But Clinton know that (After 1994) that he would have a fight in congress, so he coopted many republican ideals. Things like welfare reform, and trimming government spending were all republican initiatives. Clinton successfully co-opted them and managed to take the credit for them And now Baby Bush has pushed the budget back into the infra-red. And like the Reagan years, when the economy fully recovers, the deficit will shrink (again!). Yet you think Democrats raise taxes just to pay for social programs? That's pretty much their standard modus operandi. Look into a little history. Preferably history that was written before the liberals started trying to rewrite it. Books published before the 1970's should be safe. You are TOTALLY CLUELESS, Dave! For God's sake, get an education! All you accomplish Frank is to illustrate just how obviously biased you truly are. High taxes **** off a lot of people, so they vote the democrats out and the republicans in. The republicans slash and burn the democrats programs, give people tax relief, "Read my lips...." No new taxes. Unless of course the democratically controlled congress, forces me into a no-win situation...... and cut the budget. HA! What a load of horse-hooey! So what year did the Republicans cut the budget, Dave?.... aw, the heck with it. You want proof? Here you go: Reagan/Bush: The Federal deficit jumped from $73.1B in 1980 to $237.9B in 1986. The Federal debt jumped from $711.9B to $1,740.6B in that same time frame. By the time he left office the Federal debt was $2,051.6B. By the time Daddy Bush left office it was $2,999.7B and the deficit had risen to $340.4B. Just a quick summary: 1980.....Deficit = $73.1B.....Debt = $711.9B 1992.....Deficit = $340.4B.....Debt = $2999.7B ---------------------------------------------- Change...Deficit ^ $267.3B.....Debt ^ $2287.8B Both increased more that 400%!!! The national debt is separate from the government budget. Don't tell me you are one of those people who think that the budget surplus that we had in 2000 also meant that the national debt was also erased? Clinton: By 2000, and for the first time in over 50 years, there had been a budget SURPLUS for not just one but TWO YEARS. Clinton left office with a SURPLUS of $86.3B, and was in the process of reducing the Federal debt. He had also halted the increases in discretionary spending, one of the hallmarks of the Republican party. Bush had to deal with a democratically controlled congress. Clinton had to deal with a republican controlled congress. Which ultimately has more power in passing spending budgets? Bush Jr: Since Baby Bush took office (as of the end of 2004), discretionary spending has almost doubled, program spending has increased by almost half, the surplus went bye-bye and was replaced with a deficit of $567.4B (an increase of more than -twice- the deficit at the end of the Reagan/Bush years) and the debt had increased to an all-time high of..... are you ready for this?..... $4,295.5B!!! Just the INTEREST on the debt is $160.2B. And when the value of the dollar increases, and the economy turns around, that number will shrink almost like magic. Is that enough proof for you? What proof? I saw no reference source given. Do you still think the Republicans are cutting the budget like they claim? Or are you going to wallow in your ignorance and try to spin the cold, hard facts? Right now no. There's a war to fight and that typically costs a lot of money. But they are cutting funding to other programs. Then people start to bitch that they want this program and that program, and accuse the republican administration of being "insensitive" to the needs of these whiny special interest groups, and they vote in a slick talking democrat who will promise them the moon, but neglect to inform them of what it will all cost. Then the cycle repeats. This administration has been the lone exception. Spending has been ridiculous for a republican administration. But remember, we were recovering from a recession which started with the stock market crash at the end of Clinton's term. We also had 9/11, and we're fighting two wars. Those are not normal circumstances. The circumstances are -never- normal, Dave -- except that people like you will always come up with excuses and spins and lies to defend your profound ignorance. You mean in the way you have been all this time? It's like none of them ever learned basic fiscal responsibility: when you get a little extra cash it's much wiser to use it to pay down the credit cards, put back what you pilfered from the SS trust fund, and save a little for a rainy day. Nope, the Reps just end up throwing the money around like they were eccentric tycoons and it was -their- money to spend. And when that money is all gone they just max out the credit cards -- again. What they say and what they do are two very different things. That is what I call 'irresponsible'. You've just described historically typical democratic spending policies. How come it only bothers you now when it's a republican at the helm? Can you say "Partisan"? Sure you can..... Can you read the Federal Register? Congressional voting records? Budget resolutions? Domestic economic policy statements? Federal Reserve economic analyses? The Wall Street Journal? The National Enquirer? Anything in a library? I doubt it..... Sure I can (and have), and the facts support my claims. You need to pull your head out of the sand. I used to think that way too, that everyone has the ability to take charge of their own future, to better themselves with education, to work hard and make something of themselves. You were right then. What happened? Then I got a look at the -real- world. No, you were indoctrinated by a whiney left coast liberal. It just doesn't work that way, Dave. Yes, yes it does. There is absolutely no reason why a person with marketable skills cannot obtain a gainfully paying job. No one said the path will be easy or the same for every person. But there is a path. You just have to be willing to take it, and stay the course. When are your parents ever going to kick you out of their trailer, garage, basement, or whatever emotionally secure little fortress of social isolation you have built around yourself? Ah, more ad-hominem (Another logical fallacy by the way), attacks in lieu of countering the points (Which you can't). Isn't it about time you light a fire, haul your fat ass out that chair and into the -real- world so you can actually learn something about it instead of making wild speculations, adopting internet fantasies, and making up excuses why you can't experience it firsthand? I think you spent way too much time in that back room minding that radio transmitter and getting exposed to high levels of RF radiation. I am not the one who lives in a fantasy Frank, you are. Travel somewhere east of the rockies and live with real people (Preferably not in a major city) for a while and see what is really going on. You claim to live in the real world yet you know nothing about it. According to you, a self professed "child prodigy" in college, master of electrical engineering, logic, psychology and economics, who curiously works as a bartender in one of the most liberal areas in the country. And I'm not going to explain this aspect of it to you. Because you can't. You have no life experiences save for your reluctant service in the military. You have had no serious relationships, prefer to be a loner, and consider people with a healthy family life to be some sort of psychologically defective "co-dependant" relationship. You have renounced God, accept the existentialism concept of "This is all there is", and are pretty much ready to just cash in the chips. I'd say you need some therapy Frank. You have to go find out the facts for yourself -- assuming you want to continue to claim that you are in touch with reality. I live, interact, and more importantly, work in a field that is very much in touch with the needs and wants of the consumer. THAT is reality Frank. You probably don't know it, but you likely have something in your house (or shack) that I had a part in the development of. Frank, I live in the real world, No you don't. You don't have any idea what happens in the real world, just like you don't have any idea what is taught in college, or how economics works, or how the government works, or any of the other dozen or so claims you have proven are nothing but lies. Because YOU disagree with me? YOU who thinks that the 1st amendment of the Constitution calls for the separation of church and state in all government dealings. Even though in no place do those words ever appear. You may get to the store if you take an extra dose of Paxil, and you might have a driver's license, but your mind is existing in it's own little fantasy land devoid of facts or social interaction. That's why you can't break away from your codependent relationship with your mommy -- life is just too hard for you to make it on your own, isn't it? Poor baby. It's sure a good thing that your neocon brothers are there to change your diaper and powder your bottom, ready to hand you a pacifier every time some liberal gets you all upset. Just like a Baby Bush clone. As you continue to sling insults to cover the fact that you have nothing but you own bias to counter any of my points. You've lost and you are lost Frank. Get over it and move on. Well, take a nap, Baby Bush clone, because it's time for me -- the big, ugly ex-Marine who risked his life and gave up four years of it So you could earn the money to go to a second rate engineering school. just so you could be coddled in adulthood by your mommy, the engineer who is educated at a level that you think you can fake with info from the internet, And earn a handsome paycheck from an employer who is much more demanding and harder to fool than you are.... the liberally-slanted conservative that worked for several years at a radio station which broadcasts nothing but the news, In a part of the country known to be one of the most liberal. the bartender whose job demands a diversified understanding of social, ethnic and cultural issues, Yea, I guess you have to know how to say "That'll be $3.50" in Spanish..... Or "Would you like Chips with that"? the guy who has never drawn a single dollar of unemployment benefits or a welfare check (assuming such benefits were available to an able-bodied male such as myself, which they aren't, or hadn't you ever thought of that?) Are you suggesting that Welfare is only available to "certain" people? , the newsgroup junkie who has pretty much destroyed your academic credibility In your own mind. But a true intellectual, of any prominence, or status, would have just ignored the rantings of someone who they felt inferior. But you just keep coming back. Like a moth to the flame. You have something to prove, a battle to win. And you know what? You still do. for you and your posterity -- to go earn a living. Say Hi to Cliff and Norm for me..... Maybe some day you can earn a living, too. Yea, I just love that money tree I planted in the back yard. But don't tell my neighbors..... My closing word for you to mull over: pa·thet·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-thtk) also pa·thet·i·cal (--kl) adj. 1. Arousing or capable of arousing sympathetic sadness and compassion: “The old, rather shabby room struck her as extraordinarily pathetic” (John Galsworthy). 2. Arousing or capable of arousing scornful pity. You seem to fit number 2 quite well...... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home/ptd.net/~n3cvj |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:34:06 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote: If your circumstances dictate that you will not be able to earn a college degree for 10 years of night school, while working at Wal-Mart, then many people with little patience quit and then vote for a democrat who will give them food stamps. Those who stick it out, will eventually receive the rewards for their efforts. Nice theory, but you can't swing that excuse in the real world. Sure you can. You only have to want it bad enough. For example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a family. Why are they single parents in the first place? Such has nothing to do with the layoffs, but death is one reason why many are single parents. What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and medical insurance for themselves and their children. Job retraining is usually available for people displaced by layoffs. In Detroit for GM workers? Who pays for that? You need to realize many can't move away for myriad of reasons, such as caring for an infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single example. Most people have large extended families. Most? How you figure that? I know the concept of family has become somewhat foreign with today's younger generation. No one branch of a family should be made to bear the burden of such hardships themselves. You are assuiming all families share your core beliefs. They do not. This country is a melting pot of so many value systems and beliefs that you will never have families all sharing the same. People lean on the internal support of the family for temporary hardships. We're not talking emotional or physical, we are talking financial. A strong family negates the need for the government to stick its nose into it (At other people's expense). I know many strong family units who would die for each other. That doesn't mean one has the financial means to provide a solution for another's misfortunes, especially when catastrophic health issues arise. More children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their own. Yes, and those who are ambitious will pay it all back when they adjust to their situation and find a new vocation. Many are disabled or seniors and can't work. MANY. Surely you aren't presenting the idea that all those without health care can simply "adjust". You are assuming these people can all work when a great number of them, esecially in Florida are seniors with a host of health problems. What is your solution to this very large group? There is an entire contingency in many demographical areas of the US in which many are trapped in a sort of financial snare. Well, if you live in a town where 80% of the people work at "the factory" and that factory closes up, well yea the town's in a real pickle. All towns have a major employer. That's why an intelligent person looks to live in an area where alternate employment id plentiful, and diverse commerce is well established. You are focusing on a select group of healthy individuals. The number of those without health care (seniors included) far outnumber those healthy workers who get laid off. That way, no one layoff can cripple a significant portion of the population. Depends what you consider a significant portion of the population. I can think of several examples..Reagan importing cheaper metals from the Asians decimated the steel industry in Pa and Ohio. In many of those industry towns, this led to the closing of the mills and a significant layoff of those town's populations and many of those towns became ghettos or ghost towns because of that. Same can be said with coal mining and to a certain extent, the auto industry. History repeats itself. That's one of the reasons why I still live where I do. I was once contemplating a move to both Florida and North Carolina. But the lack of .diverse skilled jobs and much lower pay scales pretty much nixed that move. =A0 Lack of diverse skilled jobs? When was the last time you checked the stats? Florida has led the country in adding new jobs and has not felt the inflation the country has felt the last so many years. The pay here was always offset by the lower cost of living. The only people that have trouble adjusting are those who live beyond their means. _ =A0People like you usually get what is coming in the end Yes, we tend to survive, because we don't look to other people to blame, or to the government for help. What about this job retraining you speak of? Who pays for it? That's what self sufficiency and personal responsibility are all about. Looking to the government for assistance is perfectly acceptable in many instances, Dave. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of people STILL homeless in Fl because of the hurricanes. Many of the major insurance companies are STILL unable to pay for their customer's claims. If it wasn't for the government assistance (what you always refer to as "handouts") with food, water, shelter, etc., these folks would be on the welfare tit. Now please 'splain how being self-sufficient and personally responsible can help these folks who paid their premiums on time faithfully all those years, had their homes destroyed or damaged to the point they are rendered unsafe for living conditions, lost all their possessions, yet still manage to survive by living in tents, can bring them up out of their hell created by the insurance companies who are regulated by the federal government.You really have no clue the magnitude of damage these storms had on many people in Florida. There are so many hardworking people that are struggling just to feed their kids, living in tents, and waiting for the federal government to crack down on the insurance companies and make them ante up. To suggest these fine families are anything less than responsible or self-sufficient shows you haven't a clue, Dave. On the contrary, I will lay odds these folks are illustrating survival skills and grit that you couldn't handle. Many of these folks have been living out of doors, literally, for almost a year and cooking on fires or grills. Try this for a year, Dave, then you -may- be qualified to speak of what these people should and shouldn't do. _ and karma, luck, divine intervention, whatever, will dictate you end up just like those you blame for being poor, black, queer, liberal, etc. In fact, your daughter may quit school, commonly become pregnant to an African-American or three, have many children and volunteer at the ACLU before realizing she is a lesbian and needs a job to pay the attorney for the crack and prostitution charges. Not likely because she will have grown up in a solid supportive family that helps each other and promotes open communications and a .strong work ethic with solid morals. What the hell does that have to do with having children to another race? You can tell you are about to tread in unfamiliar parenting territory. Just you wait. Mistakenly believing that strong morals and all that good stuff aimed at raising your child will prevent her from making her mistakes is the mistake many people make. In fact, many of us who have raised children to adults know better than to believe such tripe, as we were there long before you, Dave. If what you say were true, drug addicts and prostitutes and the like would come from only families that were broken and had no communications, strong work ethic or solid morals. Addiction has no cultural, socioeconomic boundaries. And I have taken enough steps to ensure that she will not have to bear the financial burden of taking care of me when I'm old and infirm. I'm only 45, and if I lost my job tomorrow, I'd be able to live comfortably for 4 years without another job, and before I have to worry. If I take a job at half the pay, that number doubles. If the wife also goes back to work, that number increases. If I liquidate some assets, that .number increases even more. Before you know it, I'll be at retirement age, and my .pensions will kick in, not to mention my 401K. Have you planned for financial hardship? I can provide food, water, and the basic necessities. Believe it or not, there are many in Florida, more in the rural areas, who rely on no cash at all, and it's always been that way. Self-sustainment has always been a large part of the original Floridians and their families. They have survived Indians, draughts, plagues (such as citrus canker that decimates entire industries and family enterprises) hurricanes on a regular basis..on it goes. Florida has never been the cushy place your ads in between Homer Simpson and reality shows depict. Miami and Disney have always presented an unrealistic portrait of Florida. It is still a very much undeveloped state,,,except on the coastal regions. There are state roads that traverse through the state east and west that have nothing in between the coasts except for a few small unremarkable towns with populations in the double digits. What's your excuse not to? I can always sell my home and move north (or inland) and buy incredible acreage and 4 or 5 times the home I have here and still have enough left over to live fairly well. Our home values increased over 70% in the last ten years in some areas. Taxes when I bought my original home here were less than 300 bucks a year. Now they are over 3G. Houseboats are another option for those of us who tame the sea. Of course, I can always throw a trailer or mobile home near JerryO's place after selling my home and never have to worry about money again. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
No one has figured out the "inflation game." You can never quit
working... soon as you do, you start losing... The game is to promise security, then when those you have promised security to can no longer work (retire), you take the money from them and give it to the new ones... .... used to be called, "The carrot in front of the horse." Amazing how few catch on till it is too late... Warmest regards, John "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:34:06 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote: If your circumstances dictate that you will not be able to earn a college degree for 10 years of night school, while working at Wal-Mart, then many people with little patience quit and then vote for a democrat who will give them food stamps. Those who stick it out, will eventually receive the rewards for their efforts. Nice theory, but you can't swing that excuse in the real world. Sure you can. You only have to want it bad enough. For example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a family. Why are they single parents in the first place? What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and medical insurance for themselves and their children. Job retraining is usually available for people displaced by layoffs. If you were well educated in the world beyond eastern Pa., you would know what the employment scene is like in Detroit. You claim one can simply move away, but that is based on your own lack of education and not able to realize many can't move away for a myriad of reasons, such as caring for an infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single example. Most people have large extended families. I know the concept of family has become somewhat foreign with today's younger generation. No one branch of a family should be made to bear the burden of such hardships themselves. People lean on the internal support of the family for temporary hardships. A strong family negates the need for the government to stick its nose into it (At other people's expense). More children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their own. Yes, and those who are ambitious will pay it all back when they adjust to their situation and find a new vocation. There is an entire contingency in many demographical areas of the US in which many are trapped in a sort of financial snare. Well, if you live in a town where 80% of the people work at "the factory" and that factory closes up, well yea the town's in a real pickle. That's why an intelligent person looks to live in an area where alternate employment id plentiful, and diverse commerce is well established. That way, no one layoff can cripple a significant portion of the population. That's one of the reasons why I still live where I do. I was once contemplating a move to both Florida and North Carolina. But the lack of diverse skilled jobs and much lower pay scales pretty much nixed that move. People like you usually get what is coming in the end Yes, we tend to survive, because we don't look to other people to blame, or to the government for help. That's what self sufficiency and personal responsibility are all about. and karma, luck, divine intervention, whatever, will dictate you end up just like those you blame for being poor, black, queer, liberal, etc. In fact, your daughter may quit school, commonly become pregnant to an African-American or three, have many children and volunteer at the ACLU before realizing she is a lesbian and needs a job to pay the attorney for the crack and prostitution charges. Not likely because she will have grown up in a solid supportive family that helps each other and promotes open communications and a strong work ethic with solid morals. And I have taken enough steps to ensure that she will not have to bear the financial burden of taking care of me when I'm old and infirm. I'm only 45, and if I lost my job tomorrow, I'd be able to live comfortably for 4 years without another job, and before I have to worry. If I take a job at half the pay, that number doubles. If the wife also goes back to work, that number increases. If I liquidate some assets, that number increases even more. Before you know it, I'll be at retirement age, and my pensions will kick in, not to mention my 401K. Have you planned for financial hardship? What's your excuse not to? Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:10:05 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip That fact does not negate that a great majority of final marriages last. Who said anything about "final" marriages? I didn't. Bad spin, Dave. snip You mean things like the right to vote? Name me a state, anywhere in this country, where the right to vote is lawfully denied to anyone. There -is- no right to vote that can be denied, Dave. That's the point. snip A few years without war? With the exception of the current war, and the Gulf War, who was president when the last several wars broke out, and which party where they a part of? No exceptions allowed, Dave. And maybe you forgot about Panama and Grenada. If you count military expeditions then you have a whole different ball of ear wax. snip In case you didn't notice, Newt was the lone Republican proponent of a balanced budget amendment, which is why he was publically trounced and bounced from Congress. You need to get your history in order. Newt was "bounced" from congress after a democratic led smear campaign over an alleged ethics issue. In fact, it's pretty much common speculation that this event is what prompted a retaliation against Clinton, with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The Lewinsky scandal and resulting impeachment was the culmination of several years (and millions of dollars) of 'investigation' into the Whitewater mess by the Republican attack-dog Ken Starr. If you go back and look at the votes, most of the Republicans voted -against- the balanced budget during the Clinton years. Yea, Clinton's budget. But they backed their own version, which included better cuts. Gee, I never saw a copy of that bill. Is it online somewhere? snip It's a fact that the democratically controlled congress raised taxes. Bush Sr. was coerced into signing it, under threat on not having any of his bills passed through. Coerced? LOL! Contrary to your warped spin, the president pretty much controls the budget -regardless- of who has a majority in Congress unless that majority can override a presidential veto, which hasn't happened in decades. The historical trends of the budget follow the leadership in the White House, not the Congress. Your insinuation that Congress has more control over the budget than the president is nothing but a slick way for Republicans to take credit for Democrat achievements and blame the Democrats for Republican failures. snip Daddy Bush lost re-election because he got stuck with the bill. Yes, plus the involvement of Ross Perot, syphoned away many would-be republican votes. It's always someone else's fault, isn't it Dave? snip Is that enough proof for you? What proof? I saw no reference source given. What? You mean that after all the time you spend on the internet looking for the "facts" you don't know where or how to find Federal budget information? Do I have to do -everything- for you? Well, I won't. You look it up for yourself since you are so adept at finding out the "truth". And when you do, post the link -- the info there is more damaging to your position than what little I pulled from it. But I -will- give you a hint: the URL for the homepage ends with ".gov". Do you still think the Republicans are cutting the budget like they claim? Or are you going to wallow in your ignorance and try to spin the cold, hard facts? Right now no. There's a war to fight and that typically costs a lot of money. But they are cutting funding to other programs. During the Vietnam years the Federal debt increased by only $42.2B and the deficit never exceeded $27.7B. In fact, at the height of the war in 1969 it hit a low of $0.5B that wasn't bettered until Clinton pulled a surplus out of his cigar box. That's data from the same source as before. Find it. In fact, I -dare- you to find it! ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:01:02 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:10:05 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip That fact does not negate that a great majority of final marriages last. Who said anything about "final" marriages? I didn't. Bad spin, Dave. The end result is all that matters. snip You mean things like the right to vote? Name me a state, anywhere in this country, where the right to vote is lawfully denied to anyone. There -is- no right to vote that can be denied, Dave. That's the point. No, the point is that there is no institution anywhere in this country that denies anyone the "ability" to vote. Despite your insinuation that this happens and championing this as your main excuse for why your side lost the last election. snip A few years without war? With the exception of the current war, and the Gulf War, who was president when the last several wars broke out, and which party where they a part of? No exceptions allowed, Dave. There were still more wars headed by democratic presidents than republican ones. And maybe you forgot about Panama and Grenada. Or the flubbed rescues attempt in Iran? The Balkans? Kosovo? None of which were "wars" in the truest sense. If you count military expeditions then you have a whole different ball of ear wax. But we're not. snip In case you didn't notice, Newt was the lone Republican proponent of a balanced budget amendment, which is why he was publically trounced and bounced from Congress. You need to get your history in order. Newt was "bounced" from congress after a democratic led smear campaign over an alleged ethics issue. In fact, it's pretty much common speculation that this event is what prompted a retaliation against Clinton, with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The Lewinsky scandal and resulting impeachment was the culmination of several years (and millions of dollars) of 'investigation' into the Whitewater mess by the Republican attack-dog Ken Starr. But many of your loonie left conspiracy buddies believe that the Lewinsky scandal was a republican "payback" for what happened to Newt. If you go back and look at the votes, most of the Republicans voted -against- the balanced budget during the Clinton years. Yea, Clinton's budget. But they backed their own version, which included better cuts. Gee, I never saw a copy of that bill. Is it online somewhere? Sure, if you look for it. snip It's a fact that the democratically controlled congress raised taxes. Bush Sr. was coerced into signing it, under threat on not having any of his bills passed through. Coerced? LOL! Contrary to your warped spin, the president pretty much controls the budget -regardless- of who has a majority in Congress unless that majority can override a presidential veto, which hasn't happened in decades. No, it's not that easy or clear cut. The president can propose all sorts of bills, but if the congress shoots them down, they never see the light of day. Similarly, the congress can approve a bill and the president can veto it, and it normally dies there. The point is that in order to move past this partisan deadlock, it requires some compromise. And that is exactly what George H.W. Bush was forced to do, when he allowed democratically sponsored tax increases to pass through along with measures that he wanted. It was all part of the deal. The historical trends of the budget follow the leadership in the White House, not the Congress. Your insinuation that Congress has more control over the budget than the president is nothing but a slick way for Republicans to take credit for Democrat achievements and blame the Democrats for Republican failures. Which is exactly what happened. Democrats are known (By everyone except you apparently) as the ones who tax and spend. Republicans normally slash and cut. The president can "propose" anything he wants, but if he doesn't have congressional buy-in, it goes nowhere. That's the wonderful thing about our government's checks and balances. Clinton was a master spokesman, and a skilled negotiator. Once republicans gained control of congress, he knew he was in for a fight. Consequently, his policies moved from the left (Gays in the military, universal healthcare) in the beginning of his term, to much more centrist (Balanced budget, tax cuts, welfare reform) and closer aligned with those points which republicans also champion. Clinton took something like a balanced budget and welfare reform away from the republicans when he claimed them as his own. Republicans were not about to shoot down bills which were ideologically appealing to them, so they passed. Clinton won a psychological and tactical victory by being able to claim victory, even though the groundwork had lamented for years with republicans in congress. He took an idea that republicans could never get passed (Since they didn't have control of congress until Clinton was in office), called it his own, and managed to take credit for it. That bought him some political capital, and allowed him to leverage that capital to successfully oppose congress when it shut down over a budget impasse, and successfully managed to blame republicans in the eyes of the people for his refusal to budge. When you have such a stalemate, perception is everything. If the people perceive that the president is at fault (Especially when he's looking at re-election), then his support dies. The same is true if the congress is perceived to be at fault. Clinton, with his smooth talking demeanor managed to do just that. But it was the hard work of republicans that brought these issues to light. snip Daddy Bush lost re-election because he got stuck with the bill. Yes, plus the involvement of Ross Perot, syphoned away many would-be republican votes. It's always someone else's fault, isn't it Dave? No, it's not. But in this case it's true. snip Is that enough proof for you? What proof? I saw no reference source given. What? You mean that after all the time you spend on the internet looking for the "facts" you don't know where or how to find Federal budget information? Sure. But many sites spin the numbers to suit their agenda. Do you still think the Republicans are cutting the budget like they claim? Or are you going to wallow in your ignorance and try to spin the cold, hard facts? Right now no. There's a war to fight and that typically costs a lot of money. But they are cutting funding to other programs. During the Vietnam years the Federal debt increased by only $42.2B and the deficit never exceeded $27.7B. And I paid $.27 a gallon for gasoline in 1970 too. The house I sold for $110,000 in 1999 was only worth about $28,000 in 1970. The numbers don't tell the whole story, unless all the conditions are also known. Dave "Sandbagger" |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:08:32 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: For example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a family. Why are they single parents in the first place? Such has nothing to do with the layoffs, but death is one reason why many are single parents. Yes, but it's a small minority. Divorce is another reason and thsoe folks are "no small minority". There are tons of reasons that single parents exist. In fact, if you check the stats, I believe half the children in the country are from homes where both nuclear parents are not present. What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and medical insurance for themselves and their children. Job retraining is usually available for people displaced by layoffs. You're way off. Job training is NOT usually avaliable for those laid off. In fact, job retraining availability is available to only an extremely small percentage of laid off workers. You need to realize many can't move away for myriad of reasons, such as caring for an infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single example. Most people have large extended families. Most? How you figure that? Uh, probably because of genetics and reproduction. =A0 So genetics and reproduction is your reasoning for claiming most people have large families. Odd, the US census says otherwise. =A0I know the concept of family has become somewhat foreign with today's younger generation. Why eliminate your chosen term "large" now, when applying to families? It changes not only the subject, but the entire point you were attempting. No one branch of a family should be made to bear the burden of such hardships themselves. Where should these folks turn, then Dave? AS I said, the US census does not support your claim. Perhaps you can point to a single example to support your claim that most have "large extended families". You are assuiming all families share your core beliefs. They do not. No, you are right. Many don't. But that's part of the problem. Only for you. That others do not share your core beliefs is not part of the problem, Dave. Families used to take care of each other. There was no need for the government. There was always a need for government. This country is a melting pot of so many value systems and beliefs that you will never have families all sharing the same. Especially when you start emphasizing diversity instead of encouraging assimilation into the melting pot of American culture. =A0 Diversity is what America is and has always strived for. =A0People lean on the internal support of the family for temporary hardships. We're not talking emotional or physical, we are talking financial. So am I. Most families can assume some hardship (such as elderly member care). Again, you miss the boat. Most families are middle class and can NOT bear the burden of additional extended family health care costs. In fact, the opposie is true, the MAJORITY of Americans struggle with affordable health care costs for themselves and immediate family members, and you are claiming they have the means to take on additional cost. That simply isn't so. The care of an elderly family member should not have to fall squarely on the shoulders of one (or two) people. The cost of a family member's care should not have to fall on ANY family members, especially when the US is giving away free medical care to the Iraqis. A strong family negates the need for the government to stick its nose into it (At other people's expense). I know many strong family units who would die for each other. Yes! And that's how it should be. That doesn't mean one has the financial means to provide a solution for another's misfortunes, especially when catastrophic health issues arise. .But a strong large family has more resources than a single person. Yes, but you are again basing sucha claim on your false and unsupported notion that most families are large. This is not the case. More children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their own. Yes, and those who are ambitious will pay it all back when they adjust to their situation and find a new vocation. Many are disabled or seniors and can't work. MANY. There is a big difference between those who can't work, and those who chose not to, or who are underemployed due to lack of motivation. The senior market, especially with boomers retiring, makes up the majority, not the minority. Surely you aren't presenting the idea that all those without health care can simply "adjust". You are assuming these people can all work when a great number of them, esecially in Florida are seniors with a host of health problems. What did these people do 50 years ago, when health insurance was still in its infancy and few people had it? =A0 Argung past history is irrelevant to the current health care situation and crisis. =A0What is your solution to this very large group? There is an entire contingency in many demographical areas of the US in which many are trapped in a sort of financial snare. Subsidizing health care costs is what put us in this mess to begin with. Private insurance subsidies have enabled the healthcare field to sharply increase costs. If the government got involved, it would only get worse. The government DID get involved, Dave, and is VERY involved. They regulate and permit the actions of the crooked insurance companies and industry. The government is very much part of the problem. Unless, there were mandatory caps put on the costs Well, if you live in a town where 80% of the people work at "the factory" and that factory closes up, well yea the town's in a real pickle. All towns have a major employer. .That's wrong. Had you said "many" or a "good deal", I would have to reluctantly agree with you. But the area where I live has no "one" major employer. Again, you changed your claim. All towns have a major employer. If a town has 10,000 people and all work at a different locale, but twenty five work at the same place in town, that IS the major employed for that town. There is a collection of many smaller professional and technology businesses. The .same is true in many areas of California, and Texas. Exactly..and all towns have a major employer, even if it's the federal government or local PD. Years ago, when the textile mills ran, the steel mills flourished, and other large factories dotted the landscape, there might have been a bigger impact. But most of those factories have been closed now for over 20 years, and have been replaced by smaller, denser high tech industries. Which, in turn, would be a town's major employer. |
David T. Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
The number of those without health care (seniors included) far outnumber those healthy workers who get laid off. Most companies who employ skilled workers, have some form of healthcare coverage as part of their benefits package. I've never had a job without it. Your personal situation is irrelevant to the majority. A growing trend has been major employers hiring at 32 hours or less to avoid offering health care benefits. Resumption of healthcare coverage is tied to .the laid-off worker's need to find another job. So what happens in between when on eneeds prescription medication? When one is laid off from their job and offered the mandated COBRA, the cost is always greater than the original. Now, you have people who can not only pay their bills, but can't afford their medical covereage. What is your solution? That way, no one layoff can cripple a significant portion of the population. Depends what you consider a significant portion of the population. I can think of several examples..Reagan importing cheaper metals from the Asians decimated the steel industry in Pa and Ohio. I live within an easy drive of 4 different steel plants. The towns that surrounded them were dependant on those mills for the majority of their income. But 20 years later and things have pretty much recovered. People can get pretty creative when they need to be. Recovered from what? You said it couldn't happen, but by invoking the fact they recovered, you unwittingly admit the towns were indeed crippled from such layoffs.. In many of those industry towns, this led to the closing of the mills and a significant layoff of those town's populations and many of those towns became ghettos or ghost towns because of that. Not in my area. The towns (Allentown, Phoenixville, Fairless Hills, and Conshohocken) are still going strong, although the people who live there are forced to commute to work now. The towns are going through a revitalization, where the old factories have been leveled and in their place have sprung up huge business campuses. Those towns were never considered large steel towns or large steel industy towns. Think Pittsburgh and similar cities in Ohio. Same can be said with coal mining and to a certain extent, the auto industry. History repeats itself. Yes, as we continue to become more efficient at manufacture, Whaaaa? Manufacturing is DOWN, not becoming more efficient. the nature of jobs have evolved along with it. The automobile pretty much ended the demand for blacksmiths. But we shouldn't blame the automobile for causing the demise of the blacksmith industry. The smart blacksmith went back to school and learned to repair cars. Blacksmiths were never a large industry and the position was never one of those that most in a city were employed, rendering the example fruitless and non-related. That's one of the reasons why I still live where I do. I was once contemplating a move to both Florida and North Carolina. But the lack of .diverse skilled jobs and much lower pay scales pretty much nixed that move. Lack of diverse skilled jobs? Excuse me, I should have said diverse high .paying skilled jobs. When was the last time you checked the stats? Florida has led the country in adding new jobs and has not felt the inflation the country has felt the last so many years. The pay here was always offset by the lower cost of living. That's a myth. Ok,,in the same manner you claimed one who lived in another state could not tell you about Pa, what makes you feel you can tell a lifelong resident of another state about their state? It;s not a myth, Dave. There is no state income tax and prices have always been lower in Fl,,until recently (last 10 years). Yes, there are certain costs which are lower in Florida. The homestead exemption saves a bundle on property tax. Homes are (were) cheaper. There is no state tax, and utilities are somewhat lower. Utilites are higher, especially electric, as the majority of homes do not have gas. Gas was only recently introduced as a choice for heating and cooking, and even in most cities, it has to be trucked in (propane). Yes, many costs ARE lower to an extent. But if you try to buy something like a car, gasoline, or a major appliance or consumer good, the cost is pretty mush the same as it is in any other state. Again,,nope. Auto costs are not only in better condition (speaking of used, of course) but new cars are somehwta cheaper here, so are most manufactured goods. The exceptions are the tourist areas and coastal regions that are developed. I can get a gallon of milk for 3 bucks here. I can get a gallon of milk in Chiefland for 2.29. this is the norm, not the exception. And at 30-40% less of a salary, for the same job, that limits one's buying power. Yep,,salaries for workers who work for another have always been low compared to the northern states. The only people that have trouble adjusting are those who live beyond their means. Living beyond one's means is somewhat subjective. It depends on where you are living and what your earning power is. Your salary has nothing to do with one living beyond their means. One can make 200 bucks a week and live beyond their means, just as one who makes 2000 bucks a week can live beyond their means. It is also not linked to geography or earning power. _ =A0People like you usually get what is coming in the end Yes, we tend to survive, because we don't look to other people to blame, or to the government for help. What about this job retraining you speak of? Who pays for it? We do. That's one area of assistance that I'm very much in favor of. Training enables people to become self-sufficient. Yet, govvernment medical care enables people to live and be healthy, yet, you are against that. That's what self sufficiency and personal responsibility are all about. One can not be self sufficient is one is sick and ailing. Looking to the government for assistance is perfectly acceptable in many instances, Dave. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of people STILL homeless in Fl because of the hurricanes. Yes, Yes, and YES. I'm totally cool with hardship TEMPORARY assistance. Many of the major insurance companies are STILL unable to pay for their customer's claims. And my insurance premiums have increased as a result. Yet the company swears that it has nothing to do with the large payouts they .had to make to cover those claims. Somehow I don't believe them..... If it wasn't for the government assistance (what you always refer to as "handouts") with food, water, shelter, etc., these folks would be on the welfare tit. What's the difference? A handout is a handout, unless you are expected to pay it back. Government assistance or welfare? Comes from the same place. But again, I have no problem if it's temporary only. Many folks would benefit and live healthier and longer if they were permitted even temporary medical assistance from the government,,,so are you for it or against it? =A0=A0Now please 'splain how being self-sufficient and personally responsible can help these folks who paid their premiums on time faithfully all those years, had their homes destroyed or damaged to the point they are rendered unsafe for living conditions, lost all their possessions, yet still manage to survive by living in tents, can bring them up out of their hell created by the insurance companies who are regulated by the federal government. The insurance companies are obligated to make good on their claims. But they AREN'T making good on their claims, Dave, and this is the problem. And they should be made to repay the .government for any "handouts" it had to pay to house people until the insurance companies settled. The government disagrees, this why FEMA was created. Call it an "incentive" clause. You really have no clue the magnitude of damage these storms had on many people in Florida. I saw some of it when I was there last fall. There are so many hardworking people that are struggling just to feed their kids, living in tents, and waiting for the federal government to crack down on the insurance companies and make them ante up. .Which they should. But they AREN'T doing it, and the government is STILL permitting these companies do write more policies. To suggest these fine families are anything less than responsible or self-sufficient shows you haven't a clue, Dave. I never said anything of the sort. I'm not talking about temporarily displaced people. I'm talking about perpetual slackers. Does being displaced for a year eqaute your idea of temporary? On the contrary, I will lay odds these folks are illustrating survival skills and grit that you couldn't handle. Based on what? Based on your invoked claims of your material possessions. Many of these folks have been living out of doors, literally, for almost a year and cooking on fires or grills. I do that for fun. Try this for a year, when all of your equipment enabling you to partake in this "fun" has been destroyed, then you -may- be qualified to speak of what these people should and shouldn't do. _ and karma, luck, divine intervention, whatever, will dictate you end up just like those you blame for being poor, black, queer, liberal, etc. In fact, your daughter may quit school, commonly become pregnant to an African-American or three, have many children and volunteer at the ACLU before realizing she is a lesbian and needs a job to pay the attorney for the crack and prostitution charges. Not likely because she will have grown up in a solid supportive family that helps each other and promotes open communications and a strong work ethic with solid morals. What the hell does that have to do with having children to another race? .Nothing. If she wants to marry a black guy, I'm cool with it. As long as they love each other. You can tell you are about to tread in unfamiliar parenting territory. Just you wait. Mistakenly believing that strong morals and all that good stuff aimed at raising your child will prevent her from making her mistakes is the mistake many people make. In fact, many of us who have raised children to adults know better than to believe such tripe, as we were there long before you, Dave. If what you say were true, drug addicts and prostitutes and the like would come from only families that were broken and had no communications, strong work ethic or solid morals. Addiction has no cultural, socioeconomic boundaries. Yes it does to a certain degree. No, it doesn't, at all. Crack is found in the whitest suburbs as well as the darkest ghettos. In fact, the children in this country in addiction programs are overwhelmingly white and from middle class to well -to-do families. Kids rebel and turn to things like drugs because they need an outlet for their energy, or they are craving attention. Among a boatload of reasons you ignore...abuse, peer pressure, self-esteem, curiosity, lies told to them by those who buy into the government's bull**** war on drugs...etc. It's hypocritical of us to tell the kids to just say no when we ply them with ritalin from a young age and mom smokes cigarettes, drinks cup after cup of coffee, and dad drinks alcohol, even if it's the cocktail with dinner. Provide them with many sorts of creative avenues to release, and there will be no need to turn to destructive behavior. Again,,,bull****. A kid who plays sports, acts in drama clubs, plays in the band, participates in the arts, or has a worthwhile hobby, will be way too busy to hang out with the slackers. Your mistake is believing drug use by children is inherent to these you call "slackers". Giving a kid an activity that they can be proud to excel at and bolster their self esteem (While learning what it means to truly EARN it) builds character. Yup,,character that is torn down when these suburban kids from loving families begin using harmful drugs. Lastly, never lose communication with them. Set your ground rules while they are young, and they become adjusted to them. Let a child run amuck when they are young, and then try to reign them in when they hit the teenaged years, and you've already lost. Talk to them always. Know all their friends (and their parents). Make sure they know that you're always there for them. Support them in whatever they do. Show up at their plays, cheer them on at their games. Listen to their teachers when you have conferences. Trust them enough and allow them to make small mistakes, but keep on the lookout for major ones. In short, STAY INVOLVED! Al that is great advice, but is irrelevant in the real world. I know how my parents raised me. I know from a child's perspective which disciplines worked, and which ones didn't. I use what I learned to my advantage as a parent. You ignore the fact that peer pressure is greater today than you can comprehend....your advice has been followed time and time again, yet there are great kids who succumb to drugs every day. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com