Powell not resigning and going before the UN and lying his ass off made me lose all respect for a once honorable soldier. He betrayed his oath.
Eric -----Original Message----- From: denstar [mailto:valliants...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 1:56 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Shocker: Major corporations may dump health insurance, pay penalties instead On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Sam wrote: > > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:17 AM, denstar wrote: > >> Then we grow up, become indoctrinated in our politics, and are all >> like -- at least politically, mind -- those Palestinian and Israeli >> kids, when they "grew up". > > You do realize you were the Palestinian kid that was taught Jews make > matzoh out of blood and I'm the Jew wondering why you look at me like > that? :) Heh. When they were kids they didn't have any trouble getting along. Somewhere along the line though... failure to communicate. :) >> As stated previously, what happened to Powell was shameful. Another >> mark against Bush43's administration, in my book. >> >> That was super-lame, man. > > Powell was the wrong man for the job, it's his own fault he's not > adaptable. He should have resigned. Yes, I get pissed when my screwdriver doesn't make a good hammer. He should have resigned though. Showily. >> That book "Red October" was awesome. > > You get too much reality from fiction and musicians. Get grounded man. Ha! "Too much reality" is why the author was called to the white house. Extrapolation, pure and simple. >>>> You didn't read that link I posted to that court ruling, did you? >>> >>> I might next time you post it. >> >> It's from epic.org. Same site I use every time. :) > > Couldn't find anything about wiretaps except some lawsuit epic filed. "Decision of Judge Taylor of the District Court of the Eastern District of Mich. in ACLU v. NSA, Ruling NSA Eavesdropping Program Illegal (pdf), Aug. 17, 2006" http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/acluvnsaop081706.pdf Let me know what you think. >>> What is it you think the wiretap program is? Do you think they can >>> just call you a commie like MLK and listen in? >> >> You think they can't? Warrants are just one way of preventing crap >> like that, my friend. > > I think they had a warrant for MLK. So it was legal, according to your logic. Heck, even without a warrant. It's the same people anyways. Tho they might be RUSSIAN SPIES! >> There's blackmail, political shit (are those different?), and just all >> kinds of reasons to keep a fucking tight grip on this shit. > > Blackmail is the same with or without a warrant, still illegal. At issue here is access to information. Blackmail is a form of information. Sorta. >> http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/acluvnsaop081706.pdf >> I really liked it, but that's probably because it fit my world view or whatever. > > Circuit Court overturned Taylor's ruling in a 2-1 vote. When was that? The last thing I saw was this: XI. Conclusion For all of the reasons outlined above, this court is constrained to grant to Plaintiffs the Partial Summary Judgment requested, and holds that the TSP violates the APA; the Separation of Powers doctrine; the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and the statutory law. >> Illegal wire taps, for one. Paying a lot of money to invade themselves for two. > > They were legal. So were the ones on MLK, right? You don't have a problem with COINTELPRO? Basically, you don't have a problem with domestic spying so long as it's "legal"? You're a letter of the law kind of guy, eh? Like your loopholes? >> Was it not you who expressed concern about spies in the government? > > Enemy spies. Ah yes. Friendly spies do things like offer you a nice cup of tea, we can't get rid of them. >> Imagine the power of being a Listener. > > Don't you need some kind of clearance, not easy to come by. You'll > still get a rogue but it's the wit/without a warrant. If you work for the government, you're supposed to have clearance, Clarance. So they can turn your past into a vector, Victor. We're talking about verifying that this shit is being taken with the utmost of care. Knowing who had access to what, when, yadda yadda. It's as much for our own security as for peace of mind. >> Only I don't think they were spies. They were just identified as >> being high risk or something. If what I read was true, only like 20 >> people lost jobs, and the rest were cleared after deeper background >> checks or something. > > People were fired for being questioned, suspicion and all that. Most > were in but at different levels. I wasn't there, but I read that most kept their jobs. The folk who got fired for suspicion were your average Joe. Humans are just dicks like that. Look out for the Evil Eye! >> People killed themselves because they got blacklisted, yo. > > You lie. So you're saying it was more like murder? Hrm. Is "mob mentality" a hate crime? Have you really read much history? The Red Scare (the one I'm talking about) had it's tentacles all over the place. Fear is an amazing tool, don't you think? I wonder why I'm fond of Faith... >> Especially if they have the power to gather whatever information they >> like, how they like, with no oversight. > > Are you talking about now or the 50's? You're blurring them together aren't you? Like I blurred Watergate. Only it's more of a link, than a blur. History repeating, Salem witch hunts, McCarthyism, civil rights groups in the 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's... But I guess you could sorta flip through them real fast and they'd seem to blur into one concept or some such. >> They're all politicians, and politicians == scum. Everybody knows that. :) > > Lawyer politicians are the worst of two worlds. I know! Everybody knows that. It's so true, too! >> I'm implying that backs were scratched, so to speak, yes. > > Are you implying that lawyers, unions and insurance co's aren't > getting there backs scratched now? > If we lower the eligibility age for president we can get a political > virgin right out of high school. Just need to find out who his/her > daddy worked for. So now it's like, way worse than ever. The back scratching, that is. Before it wasn't so bad, but now, now we should revolt? Because of health care, specifically? Not out of control spending in general, but health care? Because it's "socialist"? >> That happens a *lot* in politics, of course, but this was blatant, and >> I dunno about the whole corp + religious + gov mix. > > Blatant like allowing BP to bypass inspection on a deep water rig > after donating millions? The debate isn't about whether or not shit happens, but if shit happens in equal amounts. I have stated, and backed up with anecdote, that I don't think the amount of shit is the same. >> Frankly, I don't know how Apple keeps it up. ;) > > Great marketing. They even took a dork and made him into the cool guy > on Mac vs PC. Peoplel will buy anything Apple tells them too. The cool guy, by his very nature, wasn't in the ad. He runs an open source operating system. Anyways, Apple is following it's cycle too. Right back into the ground unless they can be more adaptable than Colin Powell. >> And more to the point, it's not as effective as being honest. > > Honest? Suggesting a 12-year-old to abstain is not honest? Suggesting? If there's only one option, can you really call it a suggestion? >> The idea is to equip our kids, not hobble them. They need to be able >> to be honest with us. > > When they hit 15-16 we can teach them how to condom a cucumber. They > don't need to know that at 12. We are sexual creatures, like it or not, and the fun starts before 12, for some. But I wasn't talking about experimentation or good/bad-touch. I was talking about "only" abstaining. Is that the only option you give yours? >> They are moral issues, which should be up to people, not laws. > > Again, so you're against ethical laws? Ethics aren't /quite/ the same thing as morals. I think ethics are more like a system than morals are. I don't think it's ethical (or moral) to ban anal sex, or discriminate based on gender, etc.. >> Remember when anal sex was illegal? Don't try to sell me this, "it's >> ok here, but not here" deal. > > I thought it still was illegal in most states. I don't think so. I think even Texas had to give up the anal sex stuff. And you know how they loved their anal sex stuff. There are only a few states that were really into that anal stuff, IIRC. I remember comics who bring up laws that are still in the books. Law... you like legal stuff, neh? How do you feel about illegal stuff? If it's illegal, it's wrong? Like how you think if it's legal it's right? (unless it's a democrat (it's usually them, they're the worst) who is also a lawyer (again, democrats are generally lawyers or poor minorities (probably illegals, really) using the law in a way that it wasn't meant to be used of course.) >> We're capable of figuring it out ourselves. We don't need Big >> Brother, and further, it cheapens the experience. > > So you want to regulate everything except sex? What about age of > consent? What about pedophilia? Actually, promoting the ABC's vs. Abstinence Only *is* regulating sex. And sexually transmitted shit, and better mental health and whatnot. I can see you trying to blur the sex ed, consent and pedophilia into a concept -- much like I blur stuff -- but I don't exactly see what the concept is. How do those others relate to a logical (or scientific, if you prefer) approach, versus a religious (or moral, if you prefer?) one? >> It's verifiable. Was funding cut for Planned Parenthood? Was >> Abstinence Only the Official doctrine, when it has been proven to be >> less effective than the ABCs or whatever? Those are just the easy >> ones. > > It's also verifiable you don't need to be reigous to be concerned with > Planned Parenthood. Abstinence Only was used sometimes for the young. > It was not official doctrine it was an experiment that started with > Clinton and was expanded. The results are mixed and I believe teen > pregnancy went down for that age group only but had no effect once > they reached 17+. As many folks have personally stated on this list, Planned Parenthood is a valuable resource. I concur. There is a lot more to it than reducing unplanned pregnancy. And if you're going to be against killing, you need to be against all killing, or else it's a double-standard (your favorite theme!). And we already covered that we kill to live, so... good luck with that. >> That's bad if it's "just" social conservatism, and far worse if >> religiously motivated. > > It's not motivated by my religion. So what's the logic? >> People *will* die because of that decision, if they haven't already. >> People who's deaths could have been prevented had not "morals" gotten >> in the way. > > Who died from abstinence only education? You mean the twelve-year-old > that knew all about sex but not about condoms because GWB denied her > the education she needed to survive? Damn him! Are you arguing with the data? Is that too, a grand conspiracy? *Really* AO works better than the ABCs, but the liberal doctors and statisticians colluded to make it appear the opposite. I hear they went so far as to intentionally infect people with AIDS! (or was it HIV? Are they even related?!?!) >>> Compared to Obama? Yes. >> Really? Obama made it because of family ties and tax loopholes? El Busho! > > They say some Egyptian guy payed for his Ivy league education but we > can't prove it. Guess why? He never released any documents about his > life except what was written in his book. But we should trust him. *It doesn't have to about trust*. That's my whole point. You bitch about oversight and then go on about "trusting" people in the government. With checks and balances and as little emotion as possible, you don't need much "trust". >> You're right about one thing, it's an issue of scale Were the >> weathermen involved to the extent that Saudi money is, you betcha I'd >> be all over that stank. > > Can you please provide the link connecting the Saudi Royal Family to > Osama Bin Laden? > At least Ayers repented...didn't he? I never claimed there was a link. I was talking about protecting ourselves from terror attacks, and the wisdom of focusing on Iraq. The Saudis were just one example too, mind. How would you feel about the Weathermen attacking China? >> Look at me trembling in my boots. I bet they'll raise 'em socialist, >> too! Oh noes! Poor dumb kids. > > Look around. Seems the Euro is about to collapse so is Greece. Maybe a > few others. You sure we should be teaching reaching for failure? I remember when Regan said our schools were failing. Statistics are freaking cool, aren't they? Too bad monkeys have to die to get some of 'em, but, well, that's math! >> The shit he talks about doesn't need embellishment, but other than >> that, I think he's pretty tits. > > What's he a D-cup? I'll set 'em up... :) >>> Like digging ditches and then filling them in? It's the quality that counts >> Quality can only go so far when faced with quantity. There's three >> things, pick two, so to speak. > > That's not quality or quantity, it's hard useless labor welfare. See > you dig a ditch, then you fill it in. No reason except to find a > reason to pay people. Makes it easier to plant stuff, too. We'd use computers these days. >> And nobodies against campaign finance reform either. It has to start >> somewhere. > > You got to get it right. You do it wrong and it gets repealed. Yeah, that's how it works! Only it's not /really/ about right and wrong. But sure, 3 steps forward and then 3 back is better than 2 back. If you're in the Rockettes. And then maybe we could debate on the "best" way for a while more, before we actually do anything? That would be swell. >> I will extrapolate that there really was a program where people just >> did pointless stuff to be employed. Dig holes, eh? > > The big dig was a multibillion dollar disaster. I think they finally > finished it. I'll have to look that up, it sounds like I should know about it. Maybe I do and I just forgot; I did that a lot before I started doing any drugs. >> I know you hate it, and think it spells the end of America as we know >> it, but it is progress. >> We can't sit around and argue about what the "best" way to do things >> are forever. > > http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/obamaca re-taking-on-water-95104599.html > > The money quote "To know ObamaCare is apparently not to love ObamaCare." And No Child Left Behind is loved by all, as is every other government initiative (state or local), including road work. Acid Rain and Welfare: destroying Life as we Know It. >>> It was easy to make fun of Reagan. Musicians always go against the >>> R's. It's like that kid that said when I was 16 my dad was an idiot >>> but when I turned 24 he was a genius? How did he learn so much so >>> quickly? >>> Musicians never get that revelation but the fans do. Mostly. >> That seems like a rather encompassing statement. And if true, perhaps >> there's something not exactly unfair about it; it /is/ art. > > Well the audience is always the same age range, you just rotate the new ones in. Heh. I don't think it works like that. Ah, but the recording industry is another fucked up deal. Wow. >> Remember that study Regan quoted, where they killed that poor monkey, >> and blamed it on the herb? > > Nah., I was too wasted. The War on Drugs, now that I think about it, shared a lot with the War on Terror. Did I say that already? Anyways, it's crazy that history can still repeat itself when there are people who are actively like, "yo, that's history right there!". And I bet it's *always* been like that. From the second after the first. Crazy that it'll always be new. Eh. I wander... >> And you're saying this age's health care system? > > It's way more than that. I always said give Obama 10 years in politics > and he might make a great president, but you folks couldn't wait. What did you expect? You folks got Bush43 in there. Twice. I like to think that Greed and whatnot... well, that there's Karma, or a God. A self-organizing plan, if you will. >>> Did you forget the pilgrims already? Did you read the constitution? >> >> It wasn't "religion" they were saving, it was "the freedom of". > > That's what we're talking about. I don't see the lack of religious freedom. Political Correctness is a bitch tho. >> Is that what's happening? Are places of worship being turned into >> parking lots? And I don't mean lots for "super churches". > >> I mean like labyrinths being destroyed and idols defaced. People >> getting killed. By the government, because of their religion. > > Crosses are being taken down, the word Christmas is nearly illegal. > But you don't care until the shooting starts? It might be too late. You paint a grim picture. I had no idea it was so bad. Oh no! They'll have the precedent they need to start knocking on the doors of folks who are foolish enough to say "Christmas" over an unencrypted line, too! Guess you should have thought of that before they came for *you*, though, right? Damn. I can't even remember what that poem was called. "The Hangman", or something. Oh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... >> I was unaware that we were lacking in that regard. Aren't there 38 >> symbols on headstones, so to speak? > > Soon to be 37. Hopefully not one of the Super Best Friends!?! >> I thought it was anal when the new boss came in several years ago and >> made folk stop putting up Christmas decorations (they weren't even >> "Christian" Christmas decorations) but I understood the reasoning. I >> still thought it was a lame move, but there were bigger issues to >> address. Pick your battles and all that rot. > > Or when do you start fighting. Remember what you keep saying about > principal, fight always or never? Well, yah. That's like, the definition of principled. I'm not principled. Not all the way. When I am, weird stuff happens, and I start fearing the end of life as we know it, due to my actions. And *man* does being unprincipled make life easier! Don't get me wrong, being principled makes it easiest, but it's a different kind of easy. You never have to be wrong, for instance. >>>> Fighting DVD pirates is like, super important, you know. >>> Are they still fighting that fight? Copyrights are so bogus. >> See! Like peas in a pod. *That's* the stuff we could use to garner >> support from the poles. > > I was joking, don't people deserve the rights to there music, > software, books etc... Hell no! There are no individuals, only the collective. Nothing would be made if not for others (ye would not be here were it not for thy parents), thus, nothing is made by one. Or by *you*, per-se. Soon, "I" will not even be in the language... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out it's a mix of the singular and the plural. What we got now ain't right. The git-damn recording industry has been technologically fucking HOBBLING America for decades, backed by the US government. It is not about protecting the "people's" rights, that much is clear. >> I wonder why we spend so much time fighting about things like that >> than fighting Big Money's influence over our system. > > Because you only fight big money when your told by other big money. Or a beer commercial. >> The leaders may be talking crap, but the people love us. > > They don't, they never did and they never will. Everything is a mix. I think every who's anyone is happy to see a peoples come up and represent in a hopey and changey kind of way. That is what we need to focus on. Screw this defeatist attitude. Health care reform is a damn-sight better goal than invading Iraq. >> It's the people who matter, they're the ones with the power. When >> they realize it. > > Yeah right. I swear it is true. And one individual can be a firebrand. >> That's just in general. I cheered for the campaign finance reform >> stuff, I think that was an R driven deal. > > That was a moderate with a Dem. It was a good idea with a bad bill. Ah well. I don't think we even need the law, really. If enough people just felt a certain way, problem solved. (I wonder why I typed "felt" and not "thought"?) ok, so if we can't agree that domestic spying is bad, at least we've got reform (or refactoring, so to speak). >>> Yeah, that whole 9/11 thing messed up the books.Or does that not count? >> It's a ready excuse, I'll give you that. I've never seen our country >> so united though, we could have done amazing things. > > We did. You just won't admit it. Amazing-er. >> Not that the protests and riots and whatnot weren't amazing, in their own way. > > Then they were amazing now... I don't think the National Guard was called out to the last Tea Party deal here. >>> Tax cuts raised revenue, even though you mock that theory as idiotic, >>> when presented with proof you spin it. >>> The spending went up, yeah bad thing that, but the tax cuts raised tax >>> revenue. Just not enough to keep up with the excessive spending. >> It's more the implementation that I mock. I get the theory, and it's >> awesome that CEOs are making oodles of cash, but the idea is actually >> to spread the wealth around (don't laugh, it's true), and that ain't >> been happening. > > So when a tax cut raises revenue the CEO's make the money? They > actually invest it in jobs and facilities and that's why the > government makes more money. When they're afraid to invest it get's > banked. The CEO's invest their personal income in jobs and facilities? That's a company owned luxury yacht? Jobs for naked guys painted gold? >>>> Call it a success? >>> >>> Worked when Kennedy, Reagan and Bush did it. I'd call that a success >> >> Maybe sometimes it seems like you're doing something good when you >> aren't, really. Everyday peeps have not been making as much more, >> relatively, as the rich peeps have, over time. > > I'd rather have everyone working than millions not working and the > remainder getting raises. Isn't that supposed to be your position? I thought that was your position. That the ones getting raises will use the money to invest in jobs and facilities. Problem solved. Socialism on the intra-corporate scale. Eventually it would trickle out, through like, cleaning staff and construction crews, to the rest of the world. That's why bubbles are really *good* things, I get that now. When Anybody is making money, Everybody is making money! Money seeks to be with The People, and it's just the Government that twists it to it's own nefarious purposes. Specifically the Democrats. 'cause they're politicians AND lawyers. Without them, *everyone* would be Rich. >> We gotta reform that defense spending too though, you know. Regulate. > > Strip the military ala Carter/Clinton? I don't think so. We need to tighten our belts a little, is all. >>> Why are you so interested in little girls having sex and getting >>> abortions? Aren't there more pressing issues like a collapsing health >>> care system? > >> Years of data says abstinence only isn't as effective as the ABCs, yet >> somehow there's an argument about it? It's like pushing for ID in >> science class. > > Why are you so against trying? Why do we need to tech children all about sex? If we teach A, we need to teach B and C too. >> Why did that Hightower guy think that Big Money was behind the Tea Party? > > He thinks it's behind everything. The tea Party isn't organized, it's > groups all over the country and yes lots of people trying to lasso it > in under their umbrella. But to claim big Business started it is pure > hogwash. Again trying to discredit true grass roots movements. My > question is if you agree with them why are you trying so hard to > discredit them? He is a content expert as far as this stuff goes. It would be in his best interest to team up with like minded people, that's what he seems to do. He seemed to think that it was fake grass, so to speak. I'm trying to figure out if I agree with the amorphous goals of the Tea Party. If it's solely about health care, and budget cuts elsewhere are off the table, screw that, it is a corporate initiative. You'd have to be thick to think that's the only place we need reform, and otherwise we're good. >> They must want cuts to the defense budget and whatnot too, right? >> Down with pork projects? Etc..? > > Pork yes. Defense...depends. Defense is a good chunk of our budget, right? Everything depends, but you knee-jerked when I mention it... >>>> So far, it seems like an opportunistic movement. If you want success, >>>> people like me shouldn't see it that way. >>> That's shallow. >> It's true. Do you really want to see a responsible government, or >> /just enough/ change to keep up the charade? > > Looking through history I'd say we have one of the best systems. > Rather than just throwing it out and starting over let's just put the > feet to the fire when they step out of bounds. But it's seems you want > an all or nothing approach even though the masses don't agree. Like > most people want health care reform, just not this version. It isn't all versus nothing, it's /something/ vs. nothing. Every government initiative has needed refinement, I don't know many that sprung forth close to perfection. >>> Last year. >> >> Yes. I don't think it's because of what happened recently though. >> More the housing bubble. > > Nothing about the unemployment hovering around 10%? And that is solely because of health care reform, and Obama? >> Earnings for the middle class have been stagnant for the last 10 >> years, if you believe [some] economists. > > Again, people had jobs not raises. Now they have neither. At least people were treading the water while it was rising, eh? >> After a bubble pop like that, what did you expect? Smooth sailing? > > Yeah, all other recession ended much sooner. I wonder why this ones different? It was worse. >>>> Perhaps Usama chose then because he hated daddy and the Bushes are >>>> daddy's friends? >>> You do know Osama is Saudi? But not from the Saudi Royal family. >> Didn't mean to imply he was literally a prince, but he's sorta turned >> on The Family so to > > His daddy has Line monster. :-/ :Den -- Job's forthright indictment of the injustice of this world is surely right. The ways of the world are weird and much more unpredictable than either scientists or theologian ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:319927 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
