My whole existence is based on being honest and fair to my fellow
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 email@example.com
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?"
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
In defense of Obama, there were fifty-seven venues in which the Democratic
Party held primaries.
* The fifty states, of course.
* District of Columbia.
* Puerto Rico.
* U.S. Virgin Islands.
* American Samoa, er...
* Rhodesia, and, er,
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
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
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.
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.
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.