OT: What up with 9V Alkaline Batteries?

Page 2 of 3  


Indiana time zones are confusing and it depends on who is in power at the time.
The whole story is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Indiana
Basically the counties near Chicago want to be on Chicago time the ones near Kentucky want to be on Kentucky time and a lot of the farmers in-between don't want daylight savings time at all.
--

__
Roger Shoaf

Important factors in selecting a mate:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:49:16 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
[snip]

For those that want to keep DST, CHANGE THE STUPID NAME! Stop trying to delude people into thinking the government could actually change the universe like that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sounds like a Demonicrat plan. Don't fix the problem, change the name and feechur it. You know, "Change we can believe in". ...gotta fit "hope" in there somewhere.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I -hope- the US can survive Obama's -change- .
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You honestly think the US can survive WITHOUT change? Get your head out of your ass. Who was in power when all the crap that hit the fan was released? Not Obama. Put the blame where it belongs and give Obama some respect for having the GUTS to try to do something about it. I hope he nails the Goldman Sachs' of the world and has the guts to put some teeth inlegislationthat limits the damage those egomaniacs can do to the world economy by buting some real "regulation" back on the banking business and others that have the capability of totally running the USA off the rails and taking much of the rest of t he world with it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:52:05 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

It cannot survive the tripling of the debt within a decade, a debt greater than the GDP, if that's what you mean by "change". Obama does.

He certainly hasn't helped. The deficit is triple GW's. ...and it's not a one-year deal. He's still piling it on. You're the one who needs to get his head out of his ass.

Yeah, he's doing something about the problem, he's tripling it. ...and he isn't even close to being done.

Too funny. Goldman Sachs is Obama's pet. Look at who is in the government.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I said "OBAMA'S change". We do need "change",but not in the direction Comrade Obama is taking us.

Comrade Obama's DemocRAT CONGRESS was in charge of the budget for the last 2 years of the Bush presidency. They also BLOCKED reform for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.
THAT is why "the crap hit the fan",along with the natural reaction of businesses to communists being elected,particularly when the commies keep on talking about HOW they are going to change things. Businesses naturally act to protect themselves by hiring freezes,layoffs,spending less. they raise prices when taxes rise and energy costs more or is less available. Everything Comrade Obama has done is an attack on businesses/capitalism,but it's no surprise to those who did their research -before- the election. The Comrade-in-Chief gave plenty of clues,despite his hiding of his vital records.

Obamabots are clueless.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:30:37 -0500, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

That's an expected response from a brainwashed tool like you.
But, you miss my point. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Tools like you are hopelessly brainwashed into believing the rhetoric that has been drilled into them daily by their masters. Deprogramming would require far more than a few newsgroup posts. Enjoy your life as a tool, and keep fighting that big, bad, enemy known as the Democrats. I hear they're responsible for everything that's not perfect in your life.
Someday you might wake up to see how easily and completely you've been manipulated into being a pawn of the uber-rich who pull the strings for the neo-Republican party - but I doubt it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
-snip-

While I can't say I agree with it- I think it was a Republican who touted the 'deficits are good' theory a few years ago.
But tell me how bad the economy is under Obama- In 14 months he reversed job loss numbers to what they were 14 months back in the Bush administration- Great chart here; http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/recoveryanniversary /
Stock market has regained 70% of its losses- it is now at Sept 2008 levels- better than when Obama took office-- and on a whole new trajectory. http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI
Exports are up, manufacturing is up, retail is up- and even employment, the last indicator to show signs of life is ever-so-slightly recovered. It was late summer of '83 when the unemployment rate got back below 10%-
Found this chart while looking for an unemployment chart- http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/06/reagan_obama_and_presidential_1.html
Shows Reagan's approval ratings on the same chart as unemployment- When unemployment hit 11%, his approval was at it's lowest.
So tell me how Obama has ruined the economy?
Jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Damn moonbat liberal confusing the issue with facts.
(FYI - your facts will have no impact on the tools of the neo-cons and their uber-class masters. The tools have been brainwashed (maybe it just took a light rinse) using clever, but classic techniques used by despotic regimes for thousands of years. It's actually quite an interesting experiment - at least it would be, it Democracy wasn't being sold to the highest bidder with those tools/fools enabling it).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Liar. No one said that debt, per se, was "good". Debt, at least until some point is manageable. When you're spending twice what you're bringing home it's not manageable, in any sense of the word.

There has been no "reversed job loss numbers". Are you saying that Bush was a great President? Can I have that in writing, signed?

Have you ever heard of a "jobless recovery"? We're not off this roller-coaster, yet.

Look at the U6 numbers, and come back. We haven't bottomed out yet.

Until Reagan got inflation under control, no. Once the back of inflation was broken, the economy took off like a rocket, for twenty years.

"Stimulus", "Health Care", and he isn't done yet; "Cap and Tax", "Immigration reform",...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:50:42 -0500, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Facts are such difficult things to ignore... Reagan financed his expansion through massive deficit spending. He set record levels (with GWB increasing those, and Obama likely setting a higher record). The Reagan deficits came home to roost in the GHWB administration, when poor George "read my lips, no new taxes" was forced to recognize that the wild spending and excessive tax cuts of his predecessor had left the country in a bind and he had to raise taxes. It was a very short lived expansion and died as soon as the bill came due.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually the Democrat Congress did all that. Remember the Great Glee they had when they pronounced EVERY RR budget as dead on arrival. Also there is that little Constitutional thingy that says Congress does the budget. The President has little actual power (especially since the Supremes decided sequestration wasn't legal under Nixon) short of vetoing everything and shutting down the government. Reagan was responsible for the deficits only to the extent that he caved really early when he did try to close down the government and the Press started showing little kids upset because Yellowstone or the Washington Monument was closed down.
The

The Budget Mugging. Where the Congress refused to meet with the President unless he undertook a "bipartisan" way of doing things. So, he was bipartisan, went along with THEIR requests for tax cuts, which they then went about and soundly beat him about the face and head with... and show where the cuts were. I think this very much flavored GW's outlook on the theory of bipartisanship. The main problem has always been that spending every year has increased more than the increase in revenue.
--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I think your memory is tainted highly by your own politics. However, I will agree strongly with your last statement. I will also note that you can't keep financing expansions with massive government spending (Reagan, Bush II, and Obama... with some allowance for a recovery jump start - only).
Until we get a government (that means both parties that is NOT beholden to Corporate Welfare, Individual Welfare, Redistributing the country's wealth to the uber-rich, and the principle of "anything that brings money to my district is OK", we are hosed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where? Did the Dems not say they would only appear at the Budget Summit if tax increases were also on the table? Did they not get THEIR taxcuts and then proceed to beat Bush I soundly about the face and head for agreeing with them? Was there never any programs cut.
However, I

Yep. Although, again remember all of the lies with the Congress. President proposes, Congress disposes. And that is independent of the party in control of either branch.

Good luck with that. Even the Founding Fathers wrestled with that.
--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Perhaps, but Corporations didn't get the rights of a citizen until a small side SCOTUS decision in the early 1900's. That was a brilliant legal move by the proponents, and the beginning of the downfall of democracy. Combined with the latest SCOTUS decision, elections will now be owned by the Corporations (Unions, etc included) and democracy is now officially dead. Only when there is an outrageous result (like the GWB/neo-con excesses crashing the economy) will the public's outrage carry over into the people exerting their power and making a choice.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You do of course realize that this SCOTUS decision (1) kept in place the restrictions on the amount of money that Corp (or unions) could give directly to the candidate and (2) only addressed a restriction on advertising 90 days before the election and only when it made actual reference to a candidate (either for or against).
--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes, and it's a hole big enough to drive a front end loader through... or more specifically, a front end loader full of money. That particular blockade to the flow of organizational money was a serious dam in the river that's washing away democracy.
Organizations should not be allowed to contribute, period. That includes Corporations, Unions, PACS, you name it. Limit contributions to individuals and limit the individual contributions. If that requires a Constitutional Amendment so save Democracy, so be it.
Likewise there should be a ban on ALL lobbying by anyone but individuals. If a CEO wants to lobby, he can do it. If he wants to get his 10,000 employees to send letters in favor of something that benefits his company, go for it. If a Union wants to lobby - no deal - but their members can certainly individually lobby their elected reps to do what benefits the union. Sure, the "haves" will always have more influence than the "have nots" (ability to take time to lobby, or write, or campaign for others to lobby with them) but at least we'd have a level field.
If we want to save Democracy, we need to make changes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, stopping it for a whole 90 days made a big impression. Before that came about a couple of years ago, the airwaves and newspapers were absolutely filled with ads from Companies, etc. Yeah right.

Go for it. You will note that pretty much every campaign reform passed since the 70s has had parts of it thrown out by various Courts. Actually the PAC structure was a direct result of that in the first place.

I'd actually agree with that. But it is obvious that has to be done through a Constitutional amendment and that ain't gonna happen.
--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If you don't think it was a serious hole, explain why there was such a concerted effort create a case, then force it up through the courts to the SCOTUS level. .

Understood. Sad but true.

Not when those who benefit the most from the status quo hold the keys to the door, no. Even if the Dumbocrats did not join in trying to defeat it (and they would), the massive disinformation campaign the neo-Republicans would mount would make the health care opposition look like a pebble compared to Mt. Everest.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.