O/T: "Drill Baby Drill"

Page 10 of 15  
On 5/7/2010 11:23 AM, Upscale wrote:

My whole existence is based on being honest and fair to my fellow man.

I will have no choice. You and the rest of the villagers with torches have made it or will make it so. Since I am not suicidal, I will do what I need to in order to survive. This will not keep from calling it what it is - a wealth redistribution system based on theft... with folks like you as the armorers.

This is flatly false. I just don't support your kind of folks ... you know, the defenders of stealing, lying, cheating, and irresponsibility.

I serve to help you vent your 4 word vocabulary. You should be grateful.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Situational ethics are your friend.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/7/2010 12:38 PM, Robatoy wrote:

Wrong. Consistency of integrity is my purpose. Not harming others my watchword. Being honest and honorable in how I deal with other my commitment.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Robatoy wrote:

That's the liberal view. Put another way, "The end justifies the means."
The religious person holds that morality is absolute and that no good can come from an immoral act.
The God-fearing person asks: "Is an hour's worth of pleasure worth an eternity of damnation and being immersed in a firey pit of burning offal?" The progressive asks: "How can I make it last an hour?"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Uhhhh, no, Bub... Robatoy did not write that except the last line.

Yo, Bub!
Robatoy did not write that first quoted paragraph... orrrrr, is that one of those 'tricks' you learned on the campaign trail? <G>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Didn't he say "situational ethics is your friend?"
.. orrrrr, is that

My hero was Dick Tuck (who had a hard-on for Richard Nixon).
In one whistle-stop tour, Tuck hired four VERY pregnant women to stand on the rope-line carrying signs that said "Nixon's the One!"
You can imagine what photo appeared in every newspaper in the country the next day.
Speaking of pictures... When George Murphy ran against Pierre Salinger for California's senate seat, Murphy paid one of the press members traveling with the Salinger campaign to keep Salinger supplied with quality cigars. Virtually every photo of Salinger that ran in the press showed him with a fat stogie stuck in his face. Murphy was able to pin the label of Mob Boss on Salinger, and had art to prove it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But, of course, Dick didn't smear Helen Gahagen Douglas...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You, of course, are not the only one involved - there's the other party's actions to consider. By far, the most successful, long-term, strategy is "Tit-for-Tat." You start off by being fair, and repeat what the other party does in the fair/not-fair realm.
For example, if you agree that walnuts are $5 for a one-pound sack, you give an envelope containing $5 for the sack. If the sack contains only four pounds, the next time you put only $4 in the envelope. If, on the second exchange, you get a fair weight, you go back to the original agreement.
I, on the other hand, prefer the "Scorched Earth" strategy. I start off by being fair, and if I am ever treated unfairly, I change my tactic to unfair. Forever.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 06 May 2010 16:43:19 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
The big difference between the two of us is that I approve of the benefits of universal healthcare whole heartedly and support it unconditionally.
Unlike you who consider that healthcare to be a form of stealing, but admit at the same time that you'd be happy to take from it when you could.
You see dipshit, I don't have any conflict of interest when using universal healthcare whereas you're completely prepared to immediately dispose of any ethics you have to benefit from it. That says that you're a greedy, self-interested hypocrite without the morals to follow your own code.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

And how much contributory negligence is due the shrimp fishermen for plying their trade in an area where such a contingency was possible? Would it be your position that in the absence of insurance for the shrip-catchers - or at the least income protection insurance - is their tough luck?
There is a defensible view that the fishermen took their chances and lost.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/6/2010 8:44 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Maybe. But I have to tell you that this is a kind of inverted logic when the victim of negligence/accident/poor judgment is somehow made culpable. We're not talking about a rudder that got sheared because it ran afoul of some flotsam when a shrimper got too close to an oil rig. We're talking about an entire fishery being neutered. By this line of reasoning, I'm responsible for the drunk driver that hits me, the unbalanced psycho that illegally uses a weapon to shoot me, or the guy that cuts me off in traffic and causes me to roll my truck over on the highway. Your dog doesn't hunt.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Harrumph. You probably think that women who wear short skirts aren't inviting rape.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nowheremonfrere.com wrote:

I suggest, then, that the fault is not in the way I express facts but in your apprehension of them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

In defense of Obama, there were fifty-seven venues in which the Democratic Party held primaries.
* The fifty states, of course. * District of Columbia. * Guam. * Puerto Rico. * U.S. Virgin Islands. * American Samoa, er... * Rhodesia, and, er, * Patagonia
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

In defense of truth, Obama said "states" and he thought there were 57 of them (states, not "venues") not including the "states" of Alaska and Hawaii.
Your defense of Obama is, like Obama, a fraud.
--
Jack
Got Change: Inconvenient Truth =====> Convenient Lies!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jack Stein wrote:

Just to throw gasoline on the fire here, there may not be 57 states in the USA, but there are 57 states in the Organization of Islamic Conferences (OIC): <http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/islamic-states.html . Freudian slip?
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Only if you don't count Alaska and Hawaii...
--
Jack
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/6/2010 9:44 PM, HeyBub wrote:

You people have the weirdest notions about sea life. Shrimpers, of necessity, ply their trade where the shrimp are. They don't put the shrimp there, they don't control where the shrimp go or what the shrimp do, all they can do is put their nets down where they hope to find shrimp.
So if there is negligence in the fishery it is on the part of the shrimp. Perhaps you should explain to them the error of their ways.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In what way are the oil companies different. They have to put their oil rigs where the oil lives.

s/shrimp/oil/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote the following:

No, they CAN raise prices, covering all that and making a tidy (several $B) profit on it at the same time.
I quit smoking (2+ packs/day) in '89 and never missed it. I quit smoking smoking long before that, even before I sobered up.
-- All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. --Thomas Paine
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

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.