OT: Please send this link to everyone one your mailing list

Page 6 of 12  
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Assuming you even understood them ...

There is certainly some truth to this - another demonstration of the profound stupidity of the voting public. They (well about half of them) were so unhappy with a deeply flawed President, that they chose an evil one to replace him.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

..and what if Fitzgerald had found nothing out of the ordinary? Would it shut the likes of you up?

Conjecture with the hope that some of it sticks. Maybe you have wet dreams about Nancy Grace and Janet Reno in a three-some as well?... just speculating about your seminary school sexual training... just speculating..

Nothing but conjecture and Repuglican party talking points. Maybe you should start a tabloid, Timbo. Call it "TIMBO", all the news that is fitted (made up) to print.
Oh, and that link you left for me? I'll waste no time clicking on it.
PS.. I'm bored with you already, same old, same old.. *yawn*
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

I live in Illinois. The "ordinary" here is corruption at a breathtaking scale. Finding the "ordinary" would mean finding considerable evidence of cronyism, payoffs, backroom deals, political clout, and mob ties. This is the U.S. President's political and moral legacy. It makes me very proud.

I do not fantasize about pigs rutting.

I was quite clear that this is just a guess on some folks' part. It is not the speculation that is noteworthy. It is noteworthy that the political environment in IL - the state that spewed forth the political career of the Obamessiah - is such the this kind of speculation is entirely plausible. It should bother people but it mostly doesn't since liberty has now been overrun by "change".

Not a *single* word about Obamessiah's background I cited is "conjecture". Every single point has been verified repeatedly by the IL press, Obama's political opponents, and even the national media (what's left of it). The guy is a political scumbag, the public doesn't care. Obama's not the bad guy here, the voting sheeple are in their incredible stupidity and greed.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

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

I appreciate the support. Be aware that merely agreeing with such a position is likely to get you strung up around here. There are many do-gooders who don't like having their inconsistency, poor moral values, and blindness to this sort of stuff pointed out in a public forum.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Is that the same as you harassing me privately now Tim? Obviously, you can't handle our "discussion" in a public forum, so now you're directing your sights on my inbox. As well as being an asshole, your lack of ethics and missing integrity have shown themselves exactly for what they are.
Can you even spell "Hypocrite"?
From your website: "I don't want to tell other people how to run their lives - I'd appreciate it if they'd do the same for me."
Yet, here you are trying to tell me how I should live and worse, telling the world how you feel about my country's policies with things like healthcare. Is this what you call a hands off approach? You are a proven liar and can't even live up to your own "credo" printed for all to see on your website.
http://www.tundraware.com/Musings/What-I-Want/What-I-Want.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

I have never harrassed you privately or publicly. You're being childish. (Now there's a shock.) Either that, or your state-funded meds are wearing off.

I inadvertently hit "Reply All" to one of your posts. That's that grand total of my suspicious behavior. Methinks you're getting desperate for material to make your nonexistent case - the sign of a truly lost argument.

No I'm not. I don't care how (or how long) you live. I condemn your support for theft that benefits you but harms others. This is not telling you "what to do", it's calling you out for evil behavior. Following your "logic" above, it would be "telling someone what to do" if I condemned rapists, murderers, and child molesters. After all, if I can't condemn theft and/or the people who support theft as morally OK, then pretty much no invasion of other people's lives should be open to comment. As I said, you're being puerile, whether by personality disorder or simply because the limit of your discussion skills is unclear.

Just as you and any number of your countrymen bleated on and on (and on and on) here and elsewhere about my country's foreign policy over the past eight years. That, Sparky, is what a political conversation entails. You don't just get to vomit your ideas and then scream "hands off" when someone pushes back on them. Not once have you ever seen me demand that "foreigners" not comment on U.S. policy. However, when the tables are turned, you blow a gasket.

My credo remains the same. So does yours. My asks for privacy, the rule-of- law and property rights. Yours is a neverending whine for access to the assets of others. I prefer mine.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[snipped the usual]
If you were in a car accident, you'd expect assistance from your insurance company, right? Why? Because you paid into it.
Does that make you a thief, Timbo?
We, as a free people, have mandated our government, to divert some of our tax moneys to pay for health insurance. That is what we wanted, that is what we got.
Before you get into the part that we are legislated into participation of our system, are you allowed to drive in the state of Blago without insurance? And if you opted out of car insurance, and you crippled somebody, all they would have to get from you is some home-made wine?
Nice guy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Correct. The car insurance company - a private institution - and I entered into a private agreement as to each of our respective responsibilities.

Of course not. The transaction was private, voluntary, and spelled out from the beginning. Either party has the perfect right to terminate the agreement as they see fit. Well ... I have that right. The various government regulatory and legislative bodies - doing the bidding of the various moochers in the state - have imposed fairly draconian rules concerning just when, where, and how the insurance company can step away from the agreement.

I do not question your *legal* right to do this. I question your *moral* right to do it.

OK, hold on a moment. You're buying into Upscale's foaming rants. I will summarize what I think in this matter:
1) If you are forced to participate in a government mandated insurance system, it is not fraudulent to collect the benefits thereof. I have no problem with Upscale, you or anyone else therefore taking benefits from a system that is required by law and that you *have* to pay into.
2) What I do have a problem with is *defending* such forced government action as moral, "doing good", or any of the other appellations given theft by its defenders. Honest people should seek to remove such acts of government force from their lives, not defend theft because they happen to personally benefit from them. The family member I mentioned in a previous post that currently is in need of medical care would certainly benefit directly if the U.S. forced Bill Gates to pay $10B into the system "because he can afford it." This would not make such an action moral or OK.
3) As to car insurance. The Communists here in the People's Republic of IL require car insurance by law. They do not, however, require you to buy it *from* the government nor do they tax everyone around the state to pay for it. You're simply required to carry car insurance - at your own expense - if you wish to drive on public roads. That's very different than making, say, Richie Rich pay into a state run car insurance program that I then get to use at a discounted rate because I am not rich.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

As you so quickly label a viewpoint a 'foaming rant', simply because it shows how precarious your own position is, allow me to ask you what the 'morality' of the following example is. A soldier comes home, has no medical insurance, freezes to death under a bridge because there is no place to cure him from either physical or mental damage. IF he were to accept help from the US safety net Medicaid (whatever you guys call it) he's a thief? Really? If he gets treated by the military (tax payer money) he is a thief also? Oh, a soldier serves his country, you say? Well, so does every tax payer in one way or another.
I fully understand what you are saying. Unfortunately, selfishness to that degree is difficult for me to get my head around. The way you register on my 'Human Meter' is that you're a coldhearted, pitifully misguided man who has ice-water running through his veins.
Just like the aromatic they put in lacquer, as a warning system, people become more sensitive to it the more they're exposed to it. In extreme cases, just a whiff can make a man puke. Your presence here is like that. The 'Timbo First' doctrine has an aroma to it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:06:04 -0800 (PST), Robatoy

Ever wonder what one of his woodworking posts smells like? Here's a list of them to try out:
Nice selection, eh?
--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LRod wrote:

Hey - if you don't know - let me be the first to clue you in:
This is an OT thread with political content.
I do not start OT threads, and certainly not political ones (at least I haven't for a very long time). I didn't start this one or even join it near its inception.
Given that this NG has a long tradition of OT threads - including political ones - I'll feel quite free to jump into the ones already underway if I wish. This will happen no matter how much you hold your breath, throw temper tantrums, turn blue, and generally whine as I (and probably others) confront your silly little political ideas.
When I have something that is on topic to add, I'll do that to. But my grasp of WWing is fairly elementary compared to a good many experts here. If there were no OT political threads, I'd be quite happy to lurk and learn. Since you/Robo/Upscale/<Cast of thousands> feel that politics is in bounds, don't get your panties in a wad when someone that disagrees with you jumps in to say so.
Your clueing-in is now complete.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

Upscale is unable to respond to an idea without attacking the speaker. I attack Upscale's ideas and values, but I've never remotely launched the profanity soaked personal invective he think passes for dialog. He foams and he rants because he cannot argue his own position with any articulation.

A soldier has provided a service to his country (all of us citizens). He is entitled to whatever level of support - financial, healthcare, and so on - that was agreed-to at the time of his enlistment. This is part of the "salary" he agreed to in order to risk life and limb for his country. IOW, there is a voluntary exchange of value between the nation and its defenders in such a situation. This is no different that any other employer that offers healthcare benefits to its employees as an inducement to work for them.
This situation is also quite different than private sector wealth redistribution for another reason: Soldiering is part of the legitimate purview of government insofar as defending the nation and its borders is one of the very few things government is legitimately entitled to do.

You're entitled to your view and quite wrong. It is not charitable, warmhearted, kind, or compassionate to hire the government to steal money from the richer citizens and then give it to you. This is effectively what all socialist systems depend upon: That there will be far more beneficiaries who vote than contributors. Your argument for this sort of nonsense is essentially utilitarian and outcome based: We should redistribute wealth because it helps more people than it harms. This *exact* ideation has been the basis for every single despot, dicatorship and murderous regime throughout the past several hundred years (and most of them through history).
As I have said repeatedly: The voluntary participation in genuine charity is one of the greatest things a human can ever do. It is incredibly rewarding for both the recipient and the donor. But what you espouse is forced altruism at the point of the government's gun. Altruism is a scam used by the masses to get what they cannot earn for themselves. It is NOT charity. It is NOT kind. It is NOT noble. It is NOT a blessing. It is evil.

The doctrine I espouse is not mine by a long shot - I'm not that smart. It is a doctrine borne in the Enlightenment by intellectual giants like Locke and Smith, and later realized by political giants like Jefferson, Madison, Adams (both of 'em), Franklin, and Paine.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:37:32 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Welcome to Daneliuk Land - set your watch back 200 years :-).
--
It's turtles, all the way down

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

Larry Blanchard wrote:

No. I don't believe in slavery. Today, such beliefs are the sole province of the KKK and the political Left.
On a more serious note ... Why on earth does the political Left object to more power for the States and less for the Feds? Virtually every beef any of us - Right, Left, Libertarian - have with the government is directed mostly at our Federal system. The Left disdained the Feds under Bush and Reagan. The Right similarly disliked Carter, Clinton, and, now, Obama. We Libertarians are in despair over some of the policies of all the above. The fact is that we cannot take the "average" of these positions and come up with a satisfactory, effective, and efficient central government. Why not return power to the States where it was intended to be in the first place?
Our Founders understood that a powerful central government would be subject to considerable influence peddling and abuse - and they were right. Limiting the Feds to their Constitutionally mandated role would enable each State to do what made sense locally. More importantly, it would allow us each as citizens to have far more influence in how "our" government works and spends money.
As a small example, let me cite something Obama has proposed that is exactly *right* and in this vein. He wants the EPA to permit individual States to set their own mileage/emissions levels. This is absolutely in the spirit of keeping the nosy Feds out of the equation and letting people make local decisions as they see fit. If I don't like Kalifornia's laws in this regard, I just won't live there.
History has ample demonstration that central power is corruptive, out of touch with reality, and generally tends towards abuse. Diffusing power makes our government flexible, resilient, and trending toward faster local control. I cannot fathom objections to this. I'd much rather be having a policy debate with my neighbors than 300 million fellow citizens that have unique conditions and needs on a State-by-State basis. You want "progressive" political policy? Fine, live in a State that embraces this. You want cultural and political conservatism? Great. Live in place that affirms this. *Everyone* wins in this kind of Constitutionally mandated system.
It's the greatest possible horserace - each community can try - and refine - the ideas they think would work for them and we can all see what does- and does not work over time. The current powerful central Federal system is not only an abomination before the intent of the Constitution, it is an imposition - by implicit force - of "outsiders" telling each of us what we should do. I would think that all of us - Left, Right, Center, Liberarian, Communist, Rational Anarchist, and Indifferent - would be better served by the diffusion of power back into the hands of local people.
We are a nation of mutts. We come from a breadth of beliefs, traditions, ethnicities and practices. Yet, until about 60 years ago, we managed to make it work and delivered more liberty for more people faster than any recorded human civilization. It wasn't perfect, but it was magnificent. But we're in major trouble. Our freedoms are under assault, our economy is crippled, our faith in each other is gutted. It wasn't Rightwing, Leftwing, or Libertarian politics that got us here - at least not in the first order. It was the Leviathan of a powerful centralized government that did it. Whoever happens to be in power, names the tune. This means that half the country is disenfranchised, marginalized, and angry.
We lost our sense of connection to and control over our government that got us in this mess. This same powerful Federal system is trying to peddle the idea that it was the banks that cratered our economy, that a lack of central power fouled our freedoms, and that the central government alone can restore our faith in each other and the system as a whole. It's a scam. In actual fact, our current mess is directly attributable to the disconnection the average citizen feels as regards to their government. The Feds ran amok and we - the Concerned Citizens - couldn't do much about it. Most all of us know - at least at some visceral level - that we have precious little influence on the Bozos In Washington. Mark Twain was right, the U.S. has no indigenous criminal class, except perhaps for the Congress. Lefties, Righties, and Libertarians ought to covenant together to return power to the people by giving it back to the States and local governments where we can actually be heard and make a difference in a way that makes sense locally.
I proudly embrace the intent of the Framers and the expression of the Constitution. Outside defending the national borders, running the requisite DOJ and military required to do this, ensuring there are no trade barriers between states, and so forth, We The Sheeple should tell the Feds to butt out of our lives and let us live locally as we see fit. Sadly, the Sheeple keep voting as if choosing one side or the other of the usual political spectrum will make things better. It will not. Only a large pruning of central Federal power will work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:31:44 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Now THAT's a bad example. If the West Coast states toss out emission controls the entire country will breathe their pollution. A perfect example of the need for federal control.
And this may surprise you Tim, but in general I'm in favor of states assuming more responsibility. But it's my understanding that they don't want to, it's easier to blame the feds for taxes, fees, etc. than it is to justify them to the local voters. And of course the states that receive more than their share of federal funds are vehemently opposed.
--
It's turtles, all the way down

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

Nope. Assume, for a moment that each state is in control of their own emissions standards. Now assume that the state next to yours sets their's unreasonably low and starts polluting *your* air. Your state should then *sue* the adjacent state for actual and compensatory damages. Litigation is a far better answer than central regulation because litigation deals with the claim of *actual* damages (as opposed to the potential damages addressed by regulatory law). Litigation is also better because the 50 several States are likely to have more resources in total to fight about this stuff than the Federal EPA bureaucracy. I'll say it again: Diffuse power is more efficient and better at getting to good results than concentrated power, which is usually both very inefficient and almost always heavy handed and wrong.

Yeah, and I'd like to not have to pay *my* bills. The only way we get back to honest government is to insist on the Constitutional limits on Federal power and drive the responsibility and action back where it belongs - the the people in each locale'. That's why - even though I think Obama's ideas mostly range from very foolish to profoundly dangerous - I don't think Obama (or Bush, or Clinton, or ...) are the problem. The lazy, greedy, population is the problem, the vast majority of which wants to benefit individually but pay nothing for it. Making States accountable for their own would go a long way to fix this.
I am reminded of a friend who says that the way to fix water pollution is to require the intakes for water to be down stream of the outflows, whether in homes or factories. Local control and accountability would work - it did for the first 150 or so years of our Republic...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Nope. Assume, for a moment that each state is in control of their own emissions standards. Now assume that the state next to yours sets their's unreasonably low and starts polluting *your* air. Your state should then *sue* the adjacent state for actual and compensatory damages. Litigation is a far better answer than central regulation because litigation deals with the claim of *actual* damages (as opposed to the potential damages addressed by regulatory law). Litigation is also better because the 50 several States are likely to have more resources in total to fight about this stuff than the Federal EPA bureaucracy. I'll say it again: Diffuse power is more efficient and better at getting to good results than concentrated power, which is usually both very inefficient and almost always heavy handed and wrong.

Yeah, and I'd like to not have to pay *my* bills. The only way we get back to honest government is to insist on the Constitutional limits on Federal power and drive the responsibility and action back where it belongs - the the people in each locale'. That's why - even though I think Obama's ideas mostly range from very foolish to profoundly dangerous - I don't think Obama (or Bush, or Clinton, or ...) are the problem. The lazy, greedy, population is the problem, the vast majority of which wants to benefit individually but pay nothing for it. Making States accountable for their own would go a long way to fix this.
I am reminded of a friend who says that the way to fix water pollution is to require the intakes for water to be down stream of the outflows, whether in homes or factories. Local control and accountability would work - it did for the first 150 or so years of our Republic...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

And how exactly would they determine actual damages from pollution? Wait until people croak and then count the bodies and multiply by dollars? Maybe they just start cleaning the soot off of cars, houses and trees and charge backcharge them for the cleanup costs?
You may have a point and a position but that example....bzzzzzzzzzzzt.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

By the showing the costs of the losses. This is done routinely when assessing damages in a won lawsuit.

Exactly. Again - not a new concept - it's been done for years.

Something along those lines. "Because of your pollution, our state incurrent $x in cleanup costs and suffered $x in lost business and tourism revenue. We ask to court for that amount plus a multiplier of y to disincent the other state from ever doing this again." Like I said, a very normal legal activity that takes place regularly.

I don't see why not - it's done every day. States might even choose to pay for insurance against such claims.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

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.