wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

bb wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

bb wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

snippage

Fact is, an awful lot of people NEED some fiscal restraint.
Otherwise
they make stupid choices and become a drain on society. It is
how it is.
It is why people on welfare buy lottery tickets when they
should be
buying food or paying their rent. It is why people think they
can make
risky investments, and somehow retire to make more money than
when they were working.


There's also the fact that investment information isn't always on

the

up and up. Despite all the regulations, we still have messes like
Enron. Even if those responsible for the Enron debacle go to jail

for a

while, it won't bring back the money investors lost.

It sure is. But it is like saying that the average voltage of
our
household outlet is 0 volts. I'll pass on grabbing bare wires
of that 0
volt average system if ya don't mind.


Sort of. The problem is that unless you buy nothing but index

funds,

you're not investing in "the market". And even if you do buy index
funds, you're investing in a particular index.

Y'know what's funny? The same folks who say we don't need restraint
when investing life savings are the same ones who want to restrain

stem

cell research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and

alchohol),

contraception, and a bunch of other things.

Correct. Social engineering and attempts to force their philosophy on


others. Liberals.


??

The folks who want restraints on stem cell research, recreational
chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, etc., call
themselves "conservatives".

Yup, they call themselves conservatives. But in the brave new "you are
with us, or you are agin' us". party, conservatives support spending
money at unprecedented burn rates that are not supported by intake, they
support major increases in government power, and other things that we
used to be told that liberals want to inflict on us.

Lots of true conservatives feel the same. A web search can turn them up.

The plain and simple fact is that any government action is "social
engineering and attempt[ing] to force their philosophy on others". By
definition.

For example, there are tax deductions for home mortgage interest. Such
deductions make home ownership more affordable for millions of people,
and are in effect a subsidy supporting home ownership vs. renting.


work if the government devalues its currency.

The most conservative investments have an interest rate that

gets

adjusted every so often.

Is that vehicle capable of losing its principle?

No.

Principle or principal? There's a big difference.


He chose to believe that things were going to get better and to
stay the course. By the time he got wise, it was too late.



Was it really? Why?

He lost his principle. It can happen on that plan.

He lost both his principle (move to lower risk as you get older)

and

his principal (original investment)


There are many different time frames on exactly *when* the
system will
run out of steam or money. A lot of this depends on how much
money is
taken out by non-standard usage. (read robbing the till)


Yep. Of course if one administration takes it out and promises
to put it back, and a following administration run by the
other party breaks the promise, who is to blame?


I don't care WHO took the money out. Be it Democrat or
Republican. One
of the side effects of being in power is that when it is your
group, you
reap the benefits as well as the brickbats.


There's also the concept of responsibility. Which means that
the folks in power, red, blue or purple, cannot simply blame
everything on their predecessors and do nothing to fix the
problems.

Correct. That's a great way to lose power quickly. Unfortunately the
Pubs have a track record of doing just that. Too bad.


But they didn't lose power in 2004. Nor in 1984 or 1988.

The same folks who criticized others for "tax and spend" are now
deep into "borrow and spend".

Seems to me that it's more responsible to pay-as-you-go than to
borrow and let future generations pay for it.

Absolutely. All deficit spending is eventually paid for. Under
extraordinary conditions, deficit spending *may* be the only way to
survive. But under those conditions, people are usually required to ante
up their share of the money to help. Today, people don't want to help
with their share of funding.


If all the Pubs can do is continue to blame the Dems for
every problem
on the face of the planet, then it means that they are
*weak*, because
they can't do anything about the Democrats even when
they are in power.
Funny how things work! 8^)


Exactly! Well said, Mike.

Thanks, Jim.


It's also interesting to note that some people are insulted if you
call them "liberals", even though their behavior and viewpoints
are exactly that. And some people claim the title "conservative"
yet behave in a very different way.

Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when confronted
with the truth?

I still hold to the left to right spectrum as a continuum, not a bar.
It is a circle, with extreme left and right being virtually
indistinguishable from each other.

Deviation too far from the center is bad, bad, bad. The key is the center.

But learning is soooo hard. Witness the new Democratic party chairman.
What were they thinking??? Dr. Dean is an honorable person. But he is
just too far to the left for my taste.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
snippage
Fact is, an awful lot of people NEED some fiscal restraint.
Otherwise
they make stupid choices and become a drain on society. It is
how it is.
It is why people on welfare buy lottery tickets when they
should be
buying food or paying their rent. It is why people think they
can make
risky investments, and somehow retire to make more money than
when they were working.
There's also the fact that investment information isn't always on
the
up and up. Despite all the regulations, we still have messes like
Enron. Even if those responsible for the Enron debacle go to jail
for a
while, it won't bring back the money investors lost.

Y'know what's funny? The same folks who say we don't need
restraint
when investing life savings are the same ones who want to restrain
stem
cell research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and
alchohol),
contraception, and a bunch of other things.

Correct. Social engineering and attempts to force their philosophy
on
others. Liberals.


??

The folks who want restraints on stem cell research, recreational
chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, etc., call
themselves "conservatives".

Yup, they call themselves conservatives. But in the brave new "you
are
with us, or you are agin' us". party, conservatives support spending

money at unprecedented burn rates that are not supported by intake,
they
support major increases in government power, and other things that we

used to be told that liberals want to inflict on us.

Except that the "liberals" were pushing tax-and-spend, not
borrow-and-spend.

Lots of true conservatives feel the same.

But what is a "true conservative"? Or a "true liberal", for that
matter?

Most definitions I see are way too simplified.

For example, I've seen it written that a conservative wants to
control/regulate the individual and decontrol/deregulate the
organizations (govt., business, etc.), and a liberal wants to
control/regulate the organizations and decontrol/deregulate the
individual.

Under that definition, the current administration is conservative!

But another definition says the conservative wants small, hands-off,
pay-as-you-go government (usually defined by spending), and the liberal
wants big, hands-on, borrow-tax-spend activist/social engineering
government.

Under *that* definition, the current administration is liberal!

Yet another definition says conservatives want to keep things as they
are, and liberals want to run around changing things.

You decide what that one is.

A web search can turn them up.

The plain and simple fact is that any government action is "social
engineering and attempt[ing] to force their philosophy on others".
By
definition.

For example, there are tax deductions for home mortgage interest.
Such
deductions make home ownership more affordable for millions of
people,
and are in effect a subsidy supporting home ownership vs. renting.

Now - is that liberal or conservative policy? How many self-described
"conservatives" would support dumping the home mortgage interest
deduction?

Correct. That's a great way to lose power quickly. Unfortunately
the
Pubs have a track record of doing just that. Too bad.

But they didn't lose power in 2004. Nor in 1984 or 1988.

The same folks who criticized others for "tax and spend" are now
deep into "borrow and spend".

Seems to me that it's more responsible to pay-as-you-go than to
borrow and let future generations pay for it.

Absolutely. All deficit spending is eventually paid for.

Or defaulted on.

Under
extraordinary conditions, deficit spending *may* be the only way to
survive. But under those conditions, people are usually required to
ante
up their share of the money to help. Today, people don't want to help

with their share of funding.

I think they would *if* they felt they were getting something for their
money.

Look at what happened during WW2. Government deficit spending went to
unimagined levels. It was largely paid for by people buying bonds and
paying higher taxes. (Bonds are, of course, deficit spending). Of
course if that war was lost, financial policy didn't matter much.

But there was another side: Unemployment vanished! Production soared to
incredible levels, and nobody had to worry about losing money if they
could do the job. There wasn't much for civilians to spend their money
on, because a lot of things were either rationed or unavailable. Buying
bonds wasn't just a duty, it was also a form of tax-deferred saving.

And there were paybacks after the war ended. Unlike the way WW1 vets
were treated during the Great Depression, WW2 produced the GI Bill,
which revolutionized the middle class in the USA. Agencies like the FHA
and projects like the interstate highway system not only created jobs,
they completely changed the way people lived. Not just veterans,
either.

Now - were the GI Bill and all those postwar agencies "liberal" or
"conservative"?


If all the Pubs can do is continue to blame the Dems for
every problem
on the face of the planet, then it means that they are
*weak*, because
they can't do anything about the Democrats even when
they are in power.
Funny how things work! 8^)


Exactly! Well said, Mike.

Thanks, Jim.


It's also interesting to note that some people are insulted if you
call them "liberals", even though their behavior and viewpoints
are exactly that. And some people claim the title "conservative"
yet behave in a very different way.

Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when
confronted
with the truth?

You mean like Len? He's a textbook example!

I still hold to the left to right spectrum as a continuum, not a bar.

It is a circle, with extreme left and right being virtually
indistinguishable from each other.

In some ways, I agree.

Deviation too far from the center is bad, bad, bad. The key is the
center.

But how is the center defined?

But learning is soooo hard. Witness the new Democratic party
chairman.
What were they thinking??? Dr. Dean is an honorable person. But he
is
just too far to the left for my taste.

No, he's just what the Dems need. Here's why:

1) By making him chairman, they pretty much guarantee he won't run for
P or VP in 2008, yet his followers will stay around.

2) He's *not* an inside-the-beltway politician. That's important -
notice how many presidents since LBJ have come from state governor
positions. He's enough of an outsider to shake/wake the Dems up.

3) He's outspoken enough to talk straight and short, rather than "using
too many big words" like Algore and Kerry and Dukakis.

4) He *is* an honorable person, and a smart one. You may not agree with
him, but you can respect him.

Is the state that elected Dean composed mostly of "liberals" or
"conservatives"?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Gee is all the below about ARS License numbers ? (;-)

--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)


wrote in message
ups.com...
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
snippage
Fact is, an awful lot of people NEED some fiscal restraint.
Otherwise
they make stupid choices and become a drain on society. It is
how it is.
It is why people on welfare buy lottery tickets when they
should be
buying food or paying their rent. It is why people think they
can make
risky investments, and somehow retire to make more money than
when they were working.
There's also the fact that investment information isn't always on
the
up and up. Despite all the regulations, we still have messes like
Enron. Even if those responsible for the Enron debacle go to jail
for a
while, it won't bring back the money investors lost.

Y'know what's funny? The same folks who say we don't need
restraint
when investing life savings are the same ones who want to restrain
stem
cell research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and
alchohol),
contraception, and a bunch of other things.

Correct. Social engineering and attempts to force their philosophy
on
others. Liberals.


??

The folks who want restraints on stem cell research, recreational
chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, etc., call
themselves "conservatives".

Yup, they call themselves conservatives. But in the brave new "you
are
with us, or you are agin' us". party, conservatives support spending

money at unprecedented burn rates that are not supported by intake,
they
support major increases in government power, and other things that we

used to be told that liberals want to inflict on us.

Except that the "liberals" were pushing tax-and-spend, not
borrow-and-spend.

Lots of true conservatives feel the same.

But what is a "true conservative"? Or a "true liberal", for that
matter?

Most definitions I see are way too simplified.

For example, I've seen it written that a conservative wants to
control/regulate the individual and decontrol/deregulate the
organizations (govt., business, etc.), and a liberal wants to
control/regulate the organizations and decontrol/deregulate the
individual.

Under that definition, the current administration is conservative!

But another definition says the conservative wants small, hands-off,
pay-as-you-go government (usually defined by spending), and the liberal
wants big, hands-on, borrow-tax-spend activist/social engineering
government.

Under *that* definition, the current administration is liberal!

Yet another definition says conservatives want to keep things as they
are, and liberals want to run around changing things.

You decide what that one is.

A web search can turn them up.

The plain and simple fact is that any government action is "social
engineering and attempt[ing] to force their philosophy on others".
By
definition.

For example, there are tax deductions for home mortgage interest.
Such
deductions make home ownership more affordable for millions of
people,
and are in effect a subsidy supporting home ownership vs. renting.

Now - is that liberal or conservative policy? How many self-described
"conservatives" would support dumping the home mortgage interest
deduction?

Correct. That's a great way to lose power quickly. Unfortunately
the
Pubs have a track record of doing just that. Too bad.

But they didn't lose power in 2004. Nor in 1984 or 1988.

The same folks who criticized others for "tax and spend" are now
deep into "borrow and spend".

Seems to me that it's more responsible to pay-as-you-go than to
borrow and let future generations pay for it.

Absolutely. All deficit spending is eventually paid for.

Or defaulted on.

Under
extraordinary conditions, deficit spending *may* be the only way to
survive. But under those conditions, people are usually required to
ante
up their share of the money to help. Today, people don't want to help

with their share of funding.

I think they would *if* they felt they were getting something for their
money.

Look at what happened during WW2. Government deficit spending went to
unimagined levels. It was largely paid for by people buying bonds and
paying higher taxes. (Bonds are, of course, deficit spending). Of
course if that war was lost, financial policy didn't matter much.

But there was another side: Unemployment vanished! Production soared to
incredible levels, and nobody had to worry about losing money if they
could do the job. There wasn't much for civilians to spend their money
on, because a lot of things were either rationed or unavailable. Buying
bonds wasn't just a duty, it was also a form of tax-deferred saving.

And there were paybacks after the war ended. Unlike the way WW1 vets
were treated during the Great Depression, WW2 produced the GI Bill,
which revolutionized the middle class in the USA. Agencies like the FHA
and projects like the interstate highway system not only created jobs,
they completely changed the way people lived. Not just veterans,
either.

Now - were the GI Bill and all those postwar agencies "liberal" or
"conservative"?


If all the Pubs can do is continue to blame the Dems for
every problem
on the face of the planet, then it means that they are
*weak*, because
they can't do anything about the Democrats even when
they are in power.
Funny how things work! 8^)


Exactly! Well said, Mike.

Thanks, Jim.


It's also interesting to note that some people are insulted if you
call them "liberals", even though their behavior and viewpoints
are exactly that. And some people claim the title "conservative"
yet behave in a very different way.

Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when
confronted
with the truth?

You mean like Len? He's a textbook example!

I still hold to the left to right spectrum as a continuum, not a bar.

It is a circle, with extreme left and right being virtually
indistinguishable from each other.

In some ways, I agree.

Deviation too far from the center is bad, bad, bad. The key is the
center.

But how is the center defined?

But learning is soooo hard. Witness the new Democratic party
chairman.
What were they thinking??? Dr. Dean is an honorable person. But he
is
just too far to the left for my taste.

No, he's just what the Dems need. Here's why:

1) By making him chairman, they pretty much guarantee he won't run for
P or VP in 2008, yet his followers will stay around.

2) He's *not* an inside-the-beltway politician. That's important -
notice how many presidents since LBJ have come from state governor
positions. He's enough of an outsider to shake/wake the Dems up.

3) He's outspoken enough to talk straight and short, rather than "using
too many big words" like Algore and Kerry and Dukakis.

4) He *is* an honorable person, and a smart one. You may not agree with
him, but you can respect him.

Is the state that elected Dean composed mostly of "liberals" or
"conservatives"?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Caveat Lector wrote:

Gee is all the below about ARS License numbers ? (;-)


Not hardly a little bit! Jim and I go off topic once in a while. And
you quote long messages for one line comments. It all balances out.
TTFN. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

more snippage

Correct. Social engineering and attempts to force their philosophy

on

others. Liberals.


??

The folks who want restraints on stem cell research, recreational
chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, etc., call
themselves "conservatives".

Yup, they call themselves conservatives. But in the brave new "you

are

with us, or you are agin' us". party, conservatives support spending
money at unprecedented burn rates that are not supported by intake,
they support major increases in government power, and other things that we
used to be told that liberals want to inflict on us.


Except that the "liberals" were pushing tax-and-spend, not
borrow-and-spend.

Of course there are differences. At least the olde tyme liberals were
willing to pay for their overspending.


Lots of true conservatives feel the same.


But what is a "true conservative"? Or a "true liberal", for that
matter?

Most definitions I see are way too simplified.

For example, I've seen it written that a conservative wants to
control/regulate the individual and decontrol/deregulate the
organizations (govt., business, etc.), and a liberal wants to
control/regulate the organizations and decontrol/deregulate the
individual.

Under that definition, the current administration is conservative!

But another definition says the conservative wants small, hands-off,
pay-as-you-go government (usually defined by spending), and the liberal
wants big, hands-on, borrow-tax-spend activist/social engineering
government.

Under *that* definition, the current administration is liberal!

Yup, as I noted, there are going to be differences.


Think Dixiecrat! Just where did the Dixiecrats go?


Yet another definition says conservatives want to keep things as they
are, and liberals want to run around changing things.

You decide what that one is.




A web search can turn them up.

The plain and simple fact is that any government action is "social
engineering and attempt[ing] to force their philosophy on others".
By definition.

For example, there are tax deductions for home mortgage interest.
Such deductions make home ownership more affordable for millions of
people, and are in effect a subsidy supporting home ownership vs. renting.


Now - is that liberal or conservative policy?

It is an extremely liberal policy.

How many self-described
"conservatives" would support dumping the home mortgage interest
deduction?

Not many (any)......... yet.


Correct. That's a great way to lose power quickly. Unfortunately
the Pubs have a track record of doing just that. Too bad.


But they didn't lose power in 2004. Nor in 1984 or 1988.

The same folks who criticized others for "tax and spend" are now
deep into "borrow and spend".

Seems to me that it's more responsible to pay-as-you-go than to
borrow and let future generations pay for it.

Absolutely. All deficit spending is eventually paid for.

Or defaulted on.

Pretty much the same thing. Just a matter of how it is "paid for" 8^)


Under
extraordinary conditions, deficit spending *may* be the only way to
survive. But under those conditions, people are usually required to
ante up their share of the money to help. Today, people don't want to help
with their share of funding.


I think they would *if* they felt they were getting something for their
money.

Odd that at a time of major threat to our way of life, that those who
are benefiting the most appear to need tax cuts!

Look at what happened during WW2. Government deficit spending went to
unimagined levels. It was largely paid for by people buying bonds and
paying higher taxes. (Bonds are, of course, deficit spending). Of
course if that war was lost, financial policy didn't matter much.

Surely

But there was another side: Unemployment vanished! Production soared to
incredible levels, and nobody had to worry about losing money if they
could do the job. There wasn't much for civilians to spend their money
on, because a lot of things were either rationed or unavailable. Buying
bonds wasn't just a duty, it was also a form of tax-deferred saving.

And a way of reducing demand.

And there were paybacks after the war ended. Unlike the way WW1 vets
were treated during the Great Depression, WW2 produced the GI Bill,
which revolutionized the middle class in the USA. Agencies like the FHA
and projects like the interstate highway system not only created jobs,
they completely changed the way people lived. Not just veterans,
either.

Now - were the GI Bill and all those postwar agencies "liberal" or
"conservative"?

Extremely liberal.

I think you may be leading toward the point that many of the benefits
of modern America may be directly tied to a form of government that is
being dismantled. The liberal approach came after experiments in almost
pure capitalism, with it's boom and bust economies, and with the natural
accumulation of power to just a few of the most aggressive.

If you are, you are correct. Both sides have great ideas. Of course,
I'd think that, cuz I'm just about dead-center. Of course, I think both
sides have ideas that are suicidally stupid too! 8^)


If all the Pubs can do is continue to blame the Dems for
every problem
on the face of the planet, then it means that they are
*weak*, because
they can't do anything about the Democrats even when
they are in power.
Funny how things work! 8^)


Exactly! Well said, Mike.

Thanks, Jim.


It's also interesting to note that some people are insulted if you
call them "liberals", even though their behavior and viewpoints
are exactly that. And some people claim the title "conservative"
yet behave in a very different way.

Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when
confronted with the truth?


You mean like Len? He's a textbook example!


I still hold to the left to right spectrum as a continuum, not a bar.


It is a circle, with extreme left and right being virtually
indistinguishable from each other.


In some ways, I agree.

Deviation too far from the center is bad, bad, bad. The key is the
center.

But how is the center defined?

Personally I define it as viewing of Government as a good and necessary
thing, with government control of those things that national government
does best, and delegation of the things that state and local governments
do best to their respective sections.

The government that governs best is the one that governs least. It is
important to note that this does not mean that functions once handled by
the Federal government are simply handed off to state governments. That
means nothing to the citizen. Federal taxes going down and state and
local going up is a null at best, and passing the buck.

Finally, I think a Centrist is a person who THINKS about issues, not
simply chants party dogma.


But learning is soooo hard. Witness the new Democratic party
chairman. What were they thinking??? Dr. Dean is an honorable person.
But he isjust too far to the left for my taste.


No, he's just what the Dems need. Here's why:

1) By making him chairman, they pretty much guarantee he won't run for
P or VP in 2008, yet his followers will stay around.

Yeah, I was going to mention that.....

2) He's *not* an inside-the-beltway politician. That's important -
notice how many presidents since LBJ have come from state governor
positions. He's enough of an outsider to shake/wake the Dems up.

3) He's outspoken enough to talk straight and short, rather than "using
too many big words" like Algore and Kerry and Dukakis.

4) He *is* an honorable person, and a smart one. You may not agree with
him, but you can respect him.

Yup. I wasn't quite sure what to think of him until one day I was
returning from a business trip, and heard him on NPR in a debate with
Ralph Nader. It was so refreshing to listen to a debate where issues
were discussed, not the weird dance that the presidential debates have
become.

Is the state that elected Dean composed mostly of "liberals" or
"conservatives"?

Well, they have a republican governor, representatives are 1 democrat
and 2 independents (YAY). I like the way they think!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

more snippage

Correct. Social engineering and attempts to force their
philosophy
on others. Liberals.

??

The folks who want restraints on stem cell research, recreational
chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, etc., call
themselves "conservatives".

Yup, they call themselves conservatives. But in the brave new "you
are
with us, or you are agin' us". party, conservatives support
spending
money at unprecedented burn rates that are not supported by intake,
they support major increases in government power, and other things
that we
used to be told that liberals want to inflict on us.

Except that the "liberals" were pushing tax-and-spend, not
borrow-and-spend.

Of course there are differences. At least the olde tyme liberals were

willing to pay for their overspending.

Or at least take the heat for raising taxes. That's called
"responsibility". ;-)

Lots of true conservatives feel the same.

But what is a "true conservative"? Or a "true liberal", for that
matter?

Most definitions I see are way too simplified.

For example, I've seen it written that a conservative wants to
control/regulate the individual and decontrol/deregulate the
organizations (govt., business, etc.), and a liberal wants to
control/regulate the organizations and decontrol/deregulate the
individual.

Under that definition, the current administration is conservative!

But another definition says the conservative wants small,
hands-off,
pay-as-you-go government (usually defined by spending), and the
liberal
wants big, hands-on, borrow-tax-spend activist/social engineering
government.

Under *that* definition, the current administration is liberal!

Yup, as I noted, there are going to be differences.

I'm more concerned about accurate definition.

Think Dixiecrat! Just where did the Dixiecrats go?

Times changed...

Yet another definition says conservatives want to keep things as
they
are, and liberals want to run around changing things.

You decide what that one is.

The plain and simple fact is that any government action is "social
engineering and attempt[ing] to force their philosophy on others".
By definition.

For example, there are tax deductions for home mortgage interest.
Such deductions make home ownership more affordable for millions
of
people, and are in effect a subsidy supporting home ownership vs.
renting.

Now - is that liberal or conservative policy?

It is an extremely liberal policy.

Some would agree, saying it pushes a populist agenda at the expense of
landlords and bankers. Others would disagree, saying it *helped* the
construction industry and bankers, as well as the auto manufacturers
and many other industries.

Now the tough question: Is it a good policy or a bad policy?

How many self-described
"conservatives" would support dumping the home mortgage interest
deduction?

Not many (any)......... yet.

I remember a time when *all* 'consumer' interest was fed-income-tax
deductible. Sales tax too. Guess who killed that?

Under
extraordinary conditions, deficit spending *may* be the only way to
survive. But under those conditions, people are usually required to
ante up their share of the money to help. Today, people don't want
to help
with their share of funding.

I think they would *if* they felt they were getting something for
their
money.

Odd that at a time of major threat to our way of life, that those who

are benefiting the most appear to need tax cuts!

No, they simply *claim* to need them!

Consider this: Deficit spending is essentially a wealth-redistribution
program that takes from the taxpayers (present and future) and gives to
the bondholders
(domestic and foreign).

Look at what happened during WW2. Government deficit spending went
to
unimagined levels. It was largely paid for by people buying bonds
and
paying higher taxes. (Bonds are, of course, deficit spending). Of
course if that war was lost, financial policy didn't matter much.

Surely

But there was another side: Unemployment vanished! Production
soared to
incredible levels, and nobody had to worry about losing money if
they
could do the job. There wasn't much for civilians to spend their
money
on, because a lot of things were either rationed or unavailable.
Buying
bonds wasn't just a duty, it was also a form of tax-deferred
saving.

And a way of reducing demand.

Demand didn't matter, because supply was controlled. IIRC, new cars and
houses were simply not built, consumables like fuel were rationed and
many items were
in limited supply, so people made do with what they had.

And there were paybacks after the war ended. Unlike the way WW1
vets
were treated during the Great Depression, WW2 produced the GI Bill,
which revolutionized the middle class in the USA. Agencies like the
FHA
and projects like the interstate highway system not only created
jobs,
they completely changed the way people lived. Not just veterans,
either.

Now - were the GI Bill and all those postwar agencies "liberal" or
"conservative"?

Extremely liberal.

But were they a good thing or a bad thing?

I think you may be leading toward the point that many of the
benefits
of modern America may be directly tied to a form of government that
is
being dismantled. The liberal approach came after experiments in
almost
pure capitalism, with it's boom and bust economies, and with the
natural
accumulation of power to just a few of the most aggressive.

In part, yes. Perhaps it's better to use the labels "activist" and
"passivist" to describe the differences.

If you are, you are correct. Both sides have great ideas. Of course,

I'd think that, cuz I'm just about dead-center. Of course, I think
both
sides have ideas that are suicidally stupid too! 8^)

Agreed! But in general, I see way too much ignorance of history and
inability
to forsee consequences today. People are offended by the label
"liberal" - but
try taking away the benefits of "liberal" ideas like some of the tax
laws...

It's also interesting to note that some people are insulted if you
call them "liberals", even though their behavior and viewpoints
are exactly that. And some people claim the title "conservative"
yet behave in a very different way.

Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when
confronted with the truth?

You mean like Len? He's a textbook example!

I still hold to the left to right spectrum as a continuum, not a
bar.

It is a circle, with extreme left and right being virtually
indistinguishable from each other.

In some ways, I agree.

Deviation too far from the center is bad, bad, bad. The key is the
center.

But how is the center defined?

Personally I define it as viewing of Government as a good and
necessary
thing, with government control of those things that national
government
does best, and delegation of the things that state and local
governments
do best to their respective sections.

That's easy to say - and almost impossible to define. The devil is in
the details.

The government that governs best is the one that governs least.

With all due respect, that's a motherhood-and-apple-pie bromide.
*Every*
political view says their approach is the least necessary.

It is
important to note that this does not mean that functions once handled
by
the Federal government are simply handed off to state governments.
That
means nothing to the citizen. Federal taxes going down and state and
local going up is a null at best, and passing the buck.

Bingo!

Finally, I think a Centrist is a person who THINKS about issues, not
simply chants party dogma.

Try disagreeing with Shrub...

But learning is soooo hard. Witness the new Democratic party
chairman. What were they thinking??? Dr. Dean is an honorable
person.
But he isjust too far to the left for my taste.

No, he's just what the Dems need. Here's why:

1) By making him chairman, they pretty much guarantee he won't run
for
P or VP in 2008, yet his followers will stay around.

Yeah, I was going to mention that.....

Part of smarting up the Dems.

2) He's *not* an inside-the-beltway politician. That's important -
notice how many presidents since LBJ have come from state governor
positions. He's enough of an outsider to shake/wake the Dems up.

Friend of mine once said that the DNC was often its own worst enemy.
Exact
quote: "If you let the DNC organize a firing squad, they'd form a
circle
around the condemned criminal..."

3) He's outspoken enough to talk straight and short, rather than
"using
too many big words" like Algore and Kerry and Dukakis.

4) He *is* an honorable person, and a smart one. You may not agree
with
him, but you can respect him.

Yup. I wasn't quite sure what to think of him until one day I was
returning from a business trip, and heard him on NPR in a debate with

Ralph Nader. It was so refreshing to listen to a debate where issues
were discussed, not the weird dance that the presidential debates
have
become.

Agreed!

It would be interesting to have the candidates prepare position papers
that
simply outlined their plans for the future and their beliefs, *without*
any attacks on their opponents nor claims about their past allowed.
Then let
people read the position papers without knowing who wrote them...

Is the state that elected Dean composed mostly of "liberals" or
"conservatives"?

Well, they have a republican governor, representatives are 1
democrat
and 2 independents (YAY). I like the way they think!

Me too!

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:


more snippage


Correct. Social engineering and attempts to force their

philosophy

on others. Liberals.


??


The folks who want restraints on stem cell research, recreational
chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, etc., call
themselves "conservatives".


Yup, they call themselves conservatives. But in the brave new "you
are
with us, or you are agin' us". party, conservatives support

spending

money at unprecedented burn rates that are not supported by intake,
they support major increases in government power, and other things

that we

used to be told that liberals want to inflict on us.


Except that the "liberals" were pushing tax-and-spend, not
borrow-and-spend.

Of course there are differences. At least the olde tyme liberals were


willing to pay for their overspending.


Or at least take the heat for raising taxes. That's called
"responsibility". ;-)

An one thing is for certain. The present group is not to blame or
responsible for anything...... Not responsible at all.


Lots of true conservatives feel the same.


But what is a "true conservative"? Or a "true liberal", for that
matter?


Most definitions I see are way too simplified.

For example, I've seen it written that a conservative wants to
control/regulate the individual and decontrol/deregulate the
organizations (govt., business, etc.), and a liberal wants to
control/regulate the organizations and decontrol/deregulate the
individual.

Under that definition, the current administration is conservative!

But another definition says the conservative wants small,
hands-off, pay-as-you-go government (usually defined by spending), and the
liberal wants big, hands-on, borrow-tax-spend activist/social engineering
government.

Under *that* definition, the current administration is liberal!

Yup, as I noted, there are going to be differences.


I'm more concerned about accurate definition.

HAH! If I could give one, I'd be rich.


Think Dixiecrat! Just where did the Dixiecrats go?


Times changed...

TRue enough, but that isn't the answer I was looking for. The
Dixiecrats became Republicans.


Yet another definition says conservatives want to keep things as
they are, and liberals want to run around changing things.


You decide what that one is.


The plain and simple fact is that any government action is "social
engineering and attempt[ing] to force their philosophy on others".
By definition.


For example, there are tax deductions for home mortgage interest.

Such deductions make home ownership more affordable for millions

of

people, and are in effect a subsidy supporting home ownership vs.

renting.


Now - is that liberal or conservative policy?

It is an extremely liberal policy.


Some would agree, saying it pushes a populist agenda at the expense of
landlords and bankers. Others would disagree, saying it *helped* the
construction industry and bankers, as well as the auto manufacturers
and many other industries.

Now the tough question: Is it a good policy or a bad policy?

I don't find that tough at all. Any policy that is aimed at benefiting
the most people is generally a good policy. Not always, but pretty often

Or to ask a related question, let us assume that the political
atmosphere of the late 1800's continued until this day. How many of us
would be enjoying "middle classdom" and enjoying the activities that
come with it?


How many self-described
"conservatives" would support dumping the home mortgage interest
deduction?


Not many (any)......... yet.

I remember a time when *all* 'consumer' interest was fed-income-tax
deductible. Sales tax too. Guess who killed that?

I'm assuming the Republicans. 8^)


Under
extraordinary conditions, deficit spending *may* be the only way to
survive. But under those conditions, people are usually required to
ante up their share of the money to help. Today, people don't want
to help with their share of funding.


I think they would *if* they felt they were getting something for

their

money.


Odd that at a time of major threat to our way of life, that those who
are benefiting the most appear to need tax cuts!


No, they simply *claim* to need them!

That's why I said "appear!

Consider this: Deficit spending is essentially a wealth-redistribution
program that takes from the taxpayers (present and future) and gives to
the bondholders
(domestic and foreign).


Look at what happened during WW2. Government deficit spending went
to unimagined levels. It was largely paid for by people buying bonds
and

paying higher taxes. (Bonds are, of course, deficit spending). Of
course if that war was lost, financial policy didn't matter much.

Surely


But there was another side: Unemployment vanished! Production
soared to incredible levels, and nobody had to worry about losing money if
they could do the job. There wasn't much for civilians to spend their
money on, because a lot of things were either rationed or unavailable.
Buying bonds wasn't just a duty, it was also a form of tax-deferred
saving.

And a way of reducing demand.


Demand didn't matter, because supply was controlled. IIRC, new cars and
houses were simply not built, consumables like fuel were rationed and
many items were
in limited supply, so people made do with what they had.


And there were paybacks after the war ended. Unlike the way WW1
vets were treated during the Great Depression, WW2 produced the GI Bill,
which revolutionized the middle class in the USA. Agencies like the
FHA and projects like the interstate highway system not only created
jobs, they completely changed the way people lived. Not just veterans,
either.

Now - were the GI Bill and all those postwar agencies "liberal" or
"conservative"?

Extremely liberal.


But were they a good thing or a bad thing?

I think you may be leading toward the point that many of the
benefits of modern America may be directly tied to a form of government that
is being dismantled. The liberal approach came after experiments in
almost pure capitalism, with it's boom and bust economies, and with the
natural accumulation of power to just a few of the most aggressive.


In part, yes. Perhaps it's better to use the labels "activist" and
"passivist" to describe the differences.


If you are, you are correct. Both sides have great ideas. Of course,
I'd think that, cuz I'm just about dead-center. Of course, I think
both sides have ideas that are suicidally stupid too! 8^)


Agreed! But in general, I see way too much ignorance of history and
inability to forsee consequences today. People are offended by the label
"liberal" - but try taking away the benefits of "liberal" ideas like some
of the tax laws...


It's also interesting to note that some people are insulted if you
call them "liberals", even though their behavior and viewpoints
are exactly that. And some people claim the title "conservative"
yet behave in a very different way.

Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when
confronted with the truth?


You mean like Len? He's a textbook example!


I still hold to the left to right spectrum as a continuum, not a

bar.


It is a circle, with extreme left and right being virtually
indistinguishable from each other.


In some ways, I agree.


Deviation too far from the center is bad, bad, bad. The key is the
center.

But how is the center defined?

Personally I define it as viewing of Government as a good and
necessary thing, with government control of those things that national
government does best, and delegation of the things that state and local
governments do best to their respective sections.

That's easy to say - and almost impossible to define. The devil is in
the details.


The government that governs best is the one that governs least.


With all due respect, that's a motherhood-and-apple-pie bromide.

And isn't that a mixed metaphor? ;^)

*Every* political view says their approach is the least necessary.

Well, I don't want them regulating my behavior in the bedroom, and I
don't want them regulating my behavior in the market.

Now that being said, there are certain things that I think are common
sense, such as bedroom behavior doesn't include Michael Jackonesque
(alleged) behavior, or robber Baron behavior. But a person has to start
from somewhere, and too strict of definitions forces one either into
pure Libertarian or pure dictatorial view.

It is
important to note that this does not mean that functions once handled
by the Federal government are simply handed off to state governments.
That means nothing to the citizen. Federal taxes going down and state and
local going up is a null at best, and passing the buck.


Bingo!

Finally, I think a Centrist is a person who THINKS about issues, not
simply chants party dogma.


Try disagreeing with Shrub...

Like I said.......... 8^)


But learning is soooo hard. Witness the new Democratic party
chairman. What were they thinking??? Dr. Dean is an honorable

person.

But he isjust too far to the left for my taste.

No, he's just what the Dems need. Here's why:

1) By making him chairman, they pretty much guarantee he won't run

for

P or VP in 2008, yet his followers will stay around.

Yeah, I was going to mention that.....


Part of smarting up the Dems.


2) He's *not* an inside-the-beltway politician. That's important -
notice how many presidents since LBJ have come from state governor
positions. He's enough of an outsider to shake/wake the Dems up.


Friend of mine once said that the DNC was often its own worst enemy.
Exact quote: "If you let the DNC organize a firing squad, they'd form a
circle around the condemned criminal..."

HAH! I like that..... Pretty much spot-on.


3) He's outspoken enough to talk straight and short, rather than
"using too many big words" like Algore and Kerry and Dukakis.

4) He *is* an honorable person, and a smart one. You may not agree
with him, but you can respect him.

Yup. I wasn't quite sure what to think of him until one day I was
returning from a business trip, and heard him on NPR in a debate with


Ralph Nader. It was so refreshing to listen to a debate where issues
were discussed, not the weird dance that the presidential debates

have

become.


Agreed!

It would be interesting to have the candidates prepare position papers
that
simply outlined their plans for the future and their beliefs, *without*
any attacks on their opponents nor claims about their past allowed.
Then let people read the position papers without knowing who wrote them...


Campaigns should be no longer than 4 months.

Is the state that elected Dean composed mostly of "liberals" or
"conservatives"?

Well, they have a republican governor, representatives are 1

democrat

and 2 independents (YAY). I like the way they think!


Me too!

73 de Jim, N2EY


- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

The folks who want restraints on stem cell research,
recreational
chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, etc.,
call
themselves "conservatives".


Yup, they call themselves conservatives. But in the brave new
"you
are
with us, or you are agin' us". party, conservatives support

spending

money at unprecedented burn rates that are not supported by
intake,
they support major increases in government power, and other
things

that we

used to be told that liberals want to inflict on us.


Except that the "liberals" were pushing tax-and-spend, not
borrow-and-spend.

Of course there are differences. At least the olde tyme liberals
were


willing to pay for their overspending.


Or at least take the heat for raising taxes. That's called
"responsibility". ;-)

An one thing is for certain. The present group is not to blame or
responsible for anything...... Not responsible at all.

Unless it's a good thing, and then it's all their doing...

Lots of true conservatives feel the same.

But what is a "true conservative"? Or a "true liberal", for that
matter?

Most definitions I see are way too simplified.

For example, I've seen it written that a conservative wants to
control/regulate the individual and decontrol/deregulate the
organizations (govt., business, etc.), and a liberal wants to
control/regulate the organizations and decontrol/deregulate the
individual.

Under that definition, the current administration is conservative!

But another definition says the conservative wants small,
hands-off, pay-as-you-go government (usually defined by
spending), and the
liberal wants big, hands-on, borrow-tax-spend activist/social
engineering
government.

Under *that* definition, the current administration is liberal!

Yup, as I noted, there are going to be differences.

I'm more concerned about accurate definition.

HAH! If I could give one, I'd be rich.

How about my "activist" vs. "passivist" definition?

Think Dixiecrat! Just where did the Dixiecrats go?


Times changed...

TRue enough, but that isn't the answer I was looking for. The
Dixiecrats became Republicans.

Yup.

Yet another definition says conservatives want to keep things as
they are, and liberals want to run around changing things.

You decide what that one is.


The plain and simple fact is that any government action is
"social
engineering and attempt[ing] to force their philosophy on
others".
By definition.

For example, there are tax deductions for home mortgage
interest.

Such deductions make home ownership more affordable for millions

of

people, and are in effect a subsidy supporting home ownership
vs.

renting.


Now - is that liberal or conservative policy?

It is an extremely liberal policy.


Some would agree, saying it pushes a populist agenda at the expense
of
landlords and bankers. Others would disagree, saying it *helped*
the
construction industry and bankers, as well as the auto
manufacturers
and many other industries.

Now the tough question: Is it a good policy or a bad policy?

I don't find that tough at all. Any policy that is aimed at
benefiting
the most people is generally a good policy. Not always, but pretty
often

And that's where the trouble is: what *really* helps the most people?
Some
will undoubtedly argue that if the subsidy didn't exist, property
values and taxes
would be lower (because every deduction has to be made up somewhere
else).

Or consider this: the original FHA rules favored new construction over
existing housing. This helped the Levitt brothers and their imitators
enormously, and caused the suburban boom.

But it also helped empty the cities of those who could leave,
tremendously increased dependence on the automobile, and increased
per-capita consumption of all sorts of things. So now we have a nation
that is heavily dependent on imported energy, much of which is used
solely because of suburbanization.

OTOH, isn't a big part of the reason for government to protect the
rights of
the individual against the mob? And the weak against the strong?

Or to ask a related question, let us assume that the political
atmosphere of the late 1800's continued until this day. How many of
us
would be enjoying "middle classdom" and enjoying the activities that
come with it?

Impossible to tell! But consider this:

From reading old books and biographies, it seems to me that 100 or so
years ago there existed a class of people in the USA that have all but
disappeared.

I don't have a name for this class. The main characteristic of them was
that they didn't have to work. They were folks who had amassed enough
wealth to live comfortably on their investments.

From what I've read, in those days if a person owned a paid-up house,
and had some decent income-generating stocks and bonds, they could live
pretty well on
relatively little income because taxes were very low and only in
specific areas.
In most towns and cities you didn't need a car or a horse.

Income tax did not exist until WW1, property taxes were low in many
places, etc. Of course if you got sick, the available treatments
weren't expensive because there weren't many treatments!

How many self-described
"conservatives" would support dumping the home mortgage interest
deduction?


Not many (any)......... yet.

I remember a time when *all* 'consumer' interest was fed-income-tax
deductible. Sales tax too. Guess who killed that?

I'm assuming the Republicans. 8^)

Under the guise of "tax simplification" and "getting the govt. off your
back".

A lot of things were eased out of the tax laws so that while the rates
didn't rise, people's actual payments did.

Under
extraordinary conditions, deficit spending *may* be the only way
to
survive. But under those conditions, people are usually required
to
ante up their share of the money to help. Today, people don't
want
to help with their share of funding.


I think they would *if* they felt they were getting something for

their

money.


Odd that at a time of major threat to our way of life, that those
who
are benefiting the most appear to need tax cuts!


No, they simply *claim* to need them!

That's why I said "appear!

Consider this: Deficit spending is essentially a
wealth-redistribution
program that takes from the taxpayers (present and future) and
gives to
the bondholders
(domestic and foreign).


Look at what happened during WW2. Government deficit spending went
to unimagined levels. It was largely paid for by people buying
bonds
and

paying higher taxes. (Bonds are, of course, deficit spending). Of
course if that war was lost, financial policy didn't matter much.

Surely


But there was another side: Unemployment vanished! Production
soared to incredible levels, and nobody had to worry about losing
money if
they could do the job. There wasn't much for civilians to spend
their
money on, because a lot of things were either rationed or
unavailable.
Buying bonds wasn't just a duty, it was also a form of
tax-deferred
saving.

And a way of reducing demand.


Demand didn't matter, because supply was controlled. IIRC, new cars
and
houses were simply not built, consumables like fuel were rationed
and
many items were
in limited supply, so people made do with what they had.


And there were paybacks after the war ended. Unlike the way WW1
vets were treated during the Great Depression, WW2 produced the GI
Bill,
which revolutionized the middle class in the USA. Agencies like
the
FHA and projects like the interstate highway system not only
created
jobs, they completely changed the way people lived. Not just
veterans,
either.

Now - were the GI Bill and all those postwar agencies "liberal" or
"conservative"?

Extremely liberal.


But were they a good thing or a bad thing?

I think you may be leading toward the point that many of the
benefits of modern America may be directly tied to a form of
government that
is being dismantled. The liberal approach came after experiments
in
almost pure capitalism, with it's boom and bust economies, and
with the
natural accumulation of power to just a few of the most
aggressive.


In part, yes. Perhaps it's better to use the labels "activist" and
"passivist" to describe the differences.


If you are, you are correct. Both sides have great ideas. Of
course,
I'd think that, cuz I'm just about dead-center. Of course, I think
both sides have ideas that are suicidally stupid too! 8^)


Agreed! But in general, I see way too much ignorance of history and
inability to forsee consequences today. People are offended by the
label
"liberal" - but try taking away the benefits of "liberal" ideas
like some
of the tax laws...


It's also interesting to note that some people are insulted if
you
call them "liberals", even though their behavior and viewpoints
are exactly that. And some people claim the title "conservative"
yet behave in a very different way.

Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when
confronted with the truth?


You mean like Len? He's a textbook example!


I still hold to the left to right spectrum as a continuum, not a

bar.


It is a circle, with extreme left and right being virtually
indistinguishable from each other.


In some ways, I agree.


Deviation too far from the center is bad, bad, bad. The key is
the
center.

But how is the center defined?

Personally I define it as viewing of Government as a good and
necessary thing, with government control of those things that
national
government does best, and delegation of the things that state and
local
governments do best to their respective sections.

That's easy to say - and almost impossible to define. The devil is
in
the details.


The government that governs best is the one that governs least.


With all due respect, that's a motherhood-and-apple-pie bromide.

And isn't that a mixed metaphor? ;^)

Nope. !

*Every* political view says their approach is the least necessary.

Well, I don't want them regulating my behavior in the bedroom, and I
don't want them regulating my behavior in the market.

One side would regulate the first and deregulate the second, and
vice-versa.

Now that being said, there are certain things that I think are common

sense, such as bedroom behavior doesn't include Michael Jackonesque
(alleged) behavior, or robber Baron behavior.

Agreed - but who defines where the line is?

But a person has to start
from somewhere, and too strict of definitions forces one either into
pure Libertarian or pure dictatorial view.

Extremes are rarely what is needed.

It is
important to note that this does not mean that functions once
handled
by the Federal government are simply handed off to state
governments.
That means nothing to the citizen. Federal taxes going down and
state and
local going up is a null at best, and passing the buck.


Bingo!

Finally, I think a Centrist is a person who THINKS about issues,
not
simply chants party dogma.


Try disagreeing with Shrub...

Like I said.......... 8^)


But learning is soooo hard. Witness the new Democratic party
chairman. What were they thinking??? Dr. Dean is an honorable

person.

But he isjust too far to the left for my taste.

No, he's just what the Dems need. Here's why:

1) By making him chairman, they pretty much guarantee he won't run

for

P or VP in 2008, yet his followers will stay around.

Yeah, I was going to mention that.....


Part of smarting up the Dems.


2) He's *not* an inside-the-beltway politician. That's important -
notice how many presidents since LBJ have come from state governor
positions. He's enough of an outsider to shake/wake the Dems up.


Friend of mine once said that the DNC was often its own worst
enemy.
Exact quote: "If you let the DNC organize a firing squad, they'd
form a
circle around the condemned criminal..."

HAH! I like that..... Pretty much spot-on.

It may be cynical, but the fact is that a lot of modern politics
consists of playing the game better than the other guy. For example, in
a number of key swing states, the Pubs managed to get gay 'marriage'
referenda on the ballot. More important, they managed to form a
connection in voter's minds between gay 'marriage' and the presidential
election, even though marriage laws are determined at the state level,
not national level. Rather than debate and decide as a society whether
gay 'marriage' should be legal or not, the issue was used as a tool of
the presidential election.

3) He's outspoken enough to talk straight and short, rather than
"using too many big words" like Algore and Kerry and Dukakis.

4) He *is* an honorable person, and a smart one. You may not agree
with him, but you can respect him.

Yup. I wasn't quite sure what to think of him until one day I was
returning from a business trip, and heard him on NPR in a debate
with


Ralph Nader. It was so refreshing to listen to a debate where
issues
were discussed, not the weird dance that the presidential debates

have

become.


Agreed!

It would be interesting to have the candidates prepare position
papers
that
simply outlined their plans for the future and their beliefs,
*without*
any attacks on their opponents nor claims about their past allowed.
Then let people read the position papers without knowing who wrote
them...

Campaigns should be no longer than 4 months.

And the nonsense about the early primaries has to go.

Is the state that elected Dean composed mostly of "liberals" or
"conservatives"?

Well, they have a republican governor, representatives are 1

democrat

and 2 independents (YAY). I like the way they think!


Me too!

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

No, he's just what the Dems need. Here's why:

4) He *is* an honorable person, and a smart one. You may not agree
with
him, but you can respect him.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Interesting that we "have to" respect Screamin' Dean, but must
disrespect "Shrub."

Mike Coslo wrote:

Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when
confronted
with the truth?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Or how quiet they become?
--------------------------------
Feb 10, 3:22 am

Y'know what's funny? The same folks who say we don't need restraint
when investing life savings are the same ones who want to restrain stem

cell research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol),
contraception, and a bunch of other things.
--------------------------------

I asked Jim who these "same folks" were.

Who said we don't need restraint when investing life savings?

Of those who said that, which ones want restraints on stem cell
research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol),
contraception, and a bunch of other things?

I think that there are no such people. He's picked up some
broad-spectrum fungicide on Jeanine Giraffalo's show and repeated it.