O/T: BLOG POST OF THE DAY

Page 6 of 10  
Han wrote:

I think we can simplify your list:
* With sufficient gold, you can obtain wheat. * With sufficient firepower, you can obtain gold.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/22/2012 06:45 PM, Larry Jaques wrote: <SNIP>

Clearly you've not seen the new administration employment model:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/08/21/justice-department-recruits-dwarfs /
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's discrimination!!!!
Thanks for a breeze of levity ..
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/23/2012 01:39 PM, Han wrote:

Except it's not funny ... This appears to actually be legit as far as I am able to determine...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It says it is from the PJ Tatler. Their motto on the banner says: "To pull off the disguises of cunning, vanity, and affectation"
The whispering face already says it is a spoof. To me that means it is meant to be funny, but I don't find it so.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/23/2012 02:52 PM, Han wrote:

I sure looks legit and I think the "pull of" refers to the pretenses of those in power.
In any case, here is a comment from someone who spent their career in government service for a private conversation we had:

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LIRR personnel had something like that going too. google "lirr retirement scam". They got caught. As they should be. And all like that. See, if people just look out for themselves, sometimes it is NOT for the best of everyone.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/23/2012 03:45 PM, Han wrote:

You're conflating apples and railroad ties. There is nothing wrong - not morally, ethically, and not legally - of looking out for our own interests. That is EXACTLY the idea the US was built on. It is EXACTLY what makes the US different, more successful, and better than the social(ist) democracies and other collectivist states around the planet.
What is not OK is "looking out for yourself" when the action requires you to harm others - say by using fraud, force, or threat.
The idea that I exist to serve someone else at the point of your gun - the central idea of all leftism - is a moral outrage.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry. Just drawing attention to the possibility that looking out for oneself sometimes goes to enriching (or something like that) oneself to the detriment of others. If you say that isn't possible, or at least not done, I applaud the self improvement of the people you are talking about. I am leftist, to an extent, but I wouldn't force anyone to do something they feel they shouldn't. That excludes people who don't want to pay into insurance funds because a tiny fraction of the benefits would go to something they don't subscribe to.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/23/2012 6:40 PM, Han wrote:

Sometimes but by no means always. That's the trouble with the Left wingnut point of view -- they think like the economy is a zero-sum game, that the only way one person gets richer is if someone else gets poorer.

I used to belong to a professional organization, but quit when the organization, which to my mind should have been apolitical, began using my dues to support political causes I disagreed with.

That leaves me confused. Do you have something in particular in mind?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That 20% goes to the IRS already. So, I am already doing what you suggest.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Tepid? TEPID?
Job growth hasn't kept up with population increase in a very long time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:11:16 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

Yes, the problem is uncertainty. Until Obama is gone, business will just sit on its hands (rather than being strangled with taxes and regulations). Without Obama's anti-business (and anti-consumer) policies, the economy would have taken off, all by itself, by now.

It's not just NY. Government is forcing jobs off-shore, too. ...but everyone knows that (Democrats won't admit it, though).

Yes, but isn't it time to try to slow it down?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your rhetoric would be more compelling were you to support it with some actual facts. Name specific regulations. Name specific policies. Show how they are attributed to President Obama, not prior administrations or the congress (who, after all, passed _all_ the regulations that get codified as law). Show how the policies hurt or benefit consumers, the public and/or business. Noting that legislation, such as the clean-air act, may cost business more $$, but improve the life of the public; show that the harm to the business outweighs the benefit to the consumer or citizen.
But, you won't. You'll just ditto conservative commentators and resort to offensive name calling behavior, as is your wont.
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Lurndal wrote:

1. Name specific regulations Just yesterday, in a ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia:
" 'EPA has used the good neighbor provision to impose massive emissions reduction requirements on upwind states without regard to the limits imposed by the statutory text,' the court said." http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/22/utilities-texas-epa-idINL2E8JLCSI20120822
2. Policies that hurt or benefit consumers Irrelevant if the regulations are not in compliance with the law. Good intentions or good outcomes are flawed if they are illegal.
3. Offensive name calling Studies show that "liberal" or "progressive" sites have 18 times more profanity than their opposite number.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And here I thought it was the combination of naysayers in the House especially that kept Simpson-Bowles from being even discussed. And the same hi-faluting combo that said yes to the fiscal cliff proposal that is NOW the big problem. Who to blame ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Han, you're getting more stupid by the day.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


That statement doesn't asnwer the question, Keith. But if you have another basis for starting a discussion on what should or should not be done please let me know. I'll start working on a list too.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do I have to answer a question you ask twenty times, thirty times, just to make you happy?
Simpson Bowles is irrelevant because your boy Obama made it so. *HE* is the one who killed it.

What should, indeed *MUST*, be done is quite simple. Cut costs, at *least* back to 2007 levels, if not 2000.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here in NJ, it is a Republican heavy weight poster boy who has just about singlehandedly instituted severe austerity. SO far no result on the jobs whatsoever.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
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.