Linux-Advocacy Digest #913, Volume #29 Sun, 29 Oct 00 09:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Static66)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Static66)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Static66)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Caveman)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Static66)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Static66)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Static66)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Static66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:10:38 GMT
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 04:59:58 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Static66
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:24:13 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >How panicked is the Algore camp? They election is two weeks away, and
>> >already, they trotting out the excuses about how the American public
>> >has been "fooled" by Bush....because they just can't admit that the
>> >American public doesn't buy his phoney-baloney pagan environmentalist
>> >babble, nor his targeted-for-nobody non-tax-cuts, or the fact that he
>> >is a pathalogical liar.
>
> Dream on.
>
>> >I liked Nader's response when someone mentioned that he's costing
>> >Algore votes: "Of course I am...the whole purpose of being a candidate
>> >is to take votes from the other candidates"
>
>> That is a good one.. He is still just another EnviroNazi the world can
>> do with out. I like Browne though. He just makes too much damn sense.
>> He has really been railroaded by the media he and nader should have
>> recieved equal time.
>
> However, according to "private sector good, public sector bad"
>ideology, the news media is doing the Right Thing. And if it is not,
>then why hasn't it gone broke?
You are truely an idot Loren..WTF kind of arguement is that? How can
you draw a corelation between not wanting state run schools into it is
ok for the press not to give third party canidates equal time?
For that matter wtf call them third party. why not canidates.If they
recieved the same amount of press I would think they have as much
chance to be elected as anyone else.
I believe it is against the law for them to give more time to a dem
than a repl right? So why not give the green and the lib equal time?
This should fit into your "making the world fair through socialism"
philosphy Loren..
------------------------------
From: Static66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:15:26 GMT
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:25:42 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rick wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >
>> > WickedDyno wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Loren Petrich wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > You leftists are ALWAYS using "laudable goals" to excuse DESTRUCTIVE
>> > > > > > RESULTS.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > While you right-wingers are proud of being Evil People?
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm a Libertarian.
>> > > >
>> > > > Right-wingers are socialist assholes, just like you left-wingers.
>> > > >
>> > > > Libertarianism is ANTITHETICAL to socialism in any form, fatass
>> > > > shit-for-brains.
>> > >
>> > > IME, it's also antithetical to reality in any form.
>> > >
>> > > I know libertarians who claim that the U.S. Govt. should sell all
>> > > National parks to private companies because whoever bought them would be
>> > > in possession of such a beautiful place, they would never harm it.
>> >
>> > Why are all of the out-of-control forest fires on FEDERAL lands?
>> >
>>
>> ... becasue the Federal lands are larger?
>
>Bzzzzzzzt! Wrong... try again.
>
>Because the LUMBER COMPANIES manage *THEIR* forests much better.
>
>1. They do "controlled burns" periodically to clear out underbrush
> (which is responsible for the fires that get REALLY out of
> control).
>
>2. They cut "fire breaks" in their forests, so that when a fire
> breaks out, it can only go so far before running out of
> trees to burn. This limits the extent of the fire.
>
>
>
>>
>> > Laset time I checked, the Fed Gov's forest management practices have
>> > been absolutely atrocious compared to those of timber companies.
>> >
>>
>> ... and of course, you are an expert in land management.
>
>I never claimed to be. I'm just looking at who protects their forests,
>AND surrounding property, and who's fucking up, and allowing neighboring
>homes to go up in flames...because they can't contain their fires.
>
Lets not forget that the federal government STARTED the fire this
summer.
Another thing. we have more trees now than when the settlers arrived
on this continent. Much of the plains (which were a sea of drifting
grass) are gone and many a forest planted in their place.
>
>
>>
>> > >
>> > > They also claim that people will be safer if we disband the police and
>> > > have everyone carry concealed handguns.
>> >
>> > You are confusing libertarianism with Anarchy.
>> >
>> > Don't be such a shit-head.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > And that Big Business really wants to protect the environment, workers'
>> > > rights, consumer rights, etc. -- government regulations are just
>> > > confusing the issue.
>> >
>> > In case you haven't noticed, every time some politician starts jabbering
>> > about how government should pass a law to make sure that workers have
>> > this benefit or that benefit....you will notice that "Big Business"
>> > is ALREADY giving those benefits to it's employees.
>> >
>>
>> Where have you gotten this idea? 40 hr workweeks didnt come from big
>> business. Neither did overtime. Benefits are often forced on big
>> business.
>>
>> > You see, fool, such laws are actually to AID Big Business....so
>> > burden their smaller competitors with employee-benefit costs which
>> > the smaller businesses are not as able to handle.
>> >
>> > Public schools -- originated as a benefit for employees of 'big business'
>>
>> Once again, you show your ignorance of the school system. Public schools
>> were created at teh beginnign of the Repulic, by statesman like
>> Jefferson. The idea took hold and moved with the people. Ever hear of
>> the little one-room school house?
>
>Wrong. They predate Jefferson. The original public schools were set
>up in England, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution...
>and they were set up BY THE FACTORY OWNERS!
>
>>
>> > Health Insurance -- " " " " " " " " "
>>
>> Whats your source?
>
>History
>
>>
>> > Maternity Leave -- " " " " " " " " "
>>
>> Whats your source?
>
>History
>
>>
>> > etc., etc.
>> >
>> > Every time you hear about some new employee benefit being contemplated
>> > by politicians, you will discover that such benefits are already being
>> > offered to employees of most Fortune 500 companies already.
>> >
>> > Now..what *I*, as an employee, really fucking resent is the government
>> > MANDATING that I must be given benefits that I have no interest in.
>> >
>>
>> YOU are not the only person on the planet, or in your company... unless
>> you are the owner of a 1 person company.
>
>Precisely. So why the fuck should *I* be forced to take a loss in pay
>to get an employment benefit that I don't want...just because *YOU* think
>everybody should have it.
>
>
>
>>
>> Hmmmm, and you might also be the only person in your own little world
>> too.
>
>
>Actually, YOU are the one insisting that all employees have the same
>needs as yourself. *I* am advocating that each employee should be free
>to negotiate their own combination of pay + benefits.
>
>>
>> > Think about it....benefits only come at a cost....that cost being
>> > a REDUCTION IN MY PAYCHECK. Fuck the government and their goddamned
>> > stupid benefit mandatess...LET MY EMPLOYER GIVE ME $$$$$$$$$$$$, and
>> > then let me do with it as I please
>> > (i.e. no fucking not-really-"free lunches" from the government, to the
>> > tune of 40% of my pay, either).
>> >
>>
>> There are ways to do just that. You dont HAE to participate in Social
>> Security. You can probably talk to your employer about getting paid for
>> sick/vacation days... etc.
>
>Oh, really.
>
>Please document for us how you get out of the Social Security system.
>If I knew of such a way, I would renounce my SS number immediately.
>
>
>>
>> Space hogging, badwidth wasting signature snipped.
>
>Keeps the trolls away.
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Rick
>> * To email me remove NOSPAM from my address *
------------------------------
From: Static66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:19:32 GMT
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:47:34 +0000 (UTC),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel) wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:25:42 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:
>:Bzzzzzzzt! Wrong... try again.
>:
>:Because the LUMBER COMPANIES manage *THEIR* forests much better.
>:
>:1. They do "controlled burns" periodically to clear out underbrush
>: (which is responsible for the fires that get REALLY out of
>: control).
>:
>:2. They cut "fire breaks" in their forests, so that when a fire
>: breaks out, it can only go so far before running out of
>: trees to burn. This limits the extent of the fire.
>
>This is logical, because the trees owned by a lumber company are a valuable
>monetary asset.
>
>The political question is whether the parks should be sold or given to
>private enterprises.
>
>If logging is prohibited on these then the value of the trees is much lower
>and there would be much less incentive to do all the preventative maintenance
>that they do on land that they can log.
>
>So, if one can generate a public consensus that it is acceptable to,
>e.g., log Yellowstone at libitum, then I agree that private industry
>would do better than government at preventing devastating forest
>fires.
A private company could generate healthy tourism dollars. I would pay
to hunt the bears that have overrun the damn place.
I saw a funny story on endangered animals there. It seems the
"endangered bears" were eating the "endangered trout" the rangers
tried getting the bears to eat dog food and other things left at the
river banks , but the bears wanted the trout. sweet irony if you ask
me.
>
>:> > Laset time I checked, the Fed Gov's forest management practices have
>:> > been absolutely atrocious compared to those of timber companies.
>:> >
>:>
>:> ... and of course, you are an expert in land management.
>:
>:I never claimed to be. I'm just looking at who protects their forests,
>:AND surrounding property, and who's fucking up, and allowing neighboring
>:homes to go up in flames...because they can't contain their fires.
>
>It takes money and effort.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Caveman)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:22:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Terje Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Caveman wrote:
>> The only thing which differentiates the present business climate from
>> the Wild West or the Chicago Mafia is that most people are assassinated
>> by lawyers instead of guns, but the result is the same, their lives and
>> careers and families are destroyed.
>
>This is a popular misconception (re "Wild West"), obviously even within
>the US:
>
>The truth is that over a period of several years, the number of killings
>(murders) in the "Wild West" was comparable to the current daily total.
>
>I.e. afair the total was less than 10.
Well, we presently have about that many a day in the city where I live.
Nobody bothers to report most of them.
Anyway, this sort of statistical worldview concerns me. Not to pick on
you personally, you seem one of the more enlightened posters here.
What I was referring to is the issue of settling disputes with some form
of violence or its socioeconomic equivalent, not numbers.
It seems to me that it's pretty significant, even if there's only one
murder in ten years if you're the victim.
That's what bothers me, the notion that individual humans simply
aren't important so long as the "average" person is happily ignorant.
--
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when
the need for illusion is deep."
-- Saul Bellow
------------------------------
From: Static66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:23:21 GMT
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 01:44:55 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Why are all of the out-of-control forest fires on FEDERAL lands?
>> >
>> > Laset time I checked, the Fed Gov's forest management practices have
>> > been absolutely atrocious compared to those of timber companies.
>>
>> Seems like some propaganda Mr. Kulkis is repeating. Which makes me
>> wonder why he is not absolutely ashamed to have been an employee of
>> that supposed evil empire.
>
>Of all of the out-of-control forest fires this summer, how many were
>on federal land, and how many were on lands owned by timber companies?
>
>Fact is...the timber companies do a MUCH better job of protecting
>the trees than does the Federal Government.
>
>Which indicates "tree hugging" is merely a charade for some other
>motive, which the Fed Gov refuses to talk about: reducing the
>amount of real estate available for purchase by the general public...
>which directly contradicts the interests of "the little guy" by
>driving up real estate prices.
It is true the federal government owns more land than ANYONE. prettty
scary if you ask me. The last 7 years they have been gobling land up
at a frantic pace. Any time the government is "protecting me from
myself" I gotta wonder about the true motive..
>
>
>>
>> > In case you haven't noticed, every time some politician starts jabbering
>> > about how government should pass a law to make sure that workers have
>> > this benefit or that benefit....you will notice that "Big Business"
>> > is ALREADY giving those benefits to it's employees.
>>
>> Great conspiracy theory.
>
>Actually, it's a fact. A large majority if auto-industry regulation
>is first presented BY the automakers themselves, as a method of keeping
>upstarts (DeLorean, Tucker, etc.) from ever rising above the barriers
>to entry long enough to successfully start a new company WITHOUT the
>blessing of the Big Three.
>
>
>> Now tell us all about how Linux is the
>> result of a Communist conspiracy theory.
>
>Since that's YOUR line, why don't you tell us?
>
>
>>
>> > You see, fool, such laws are actually to AID Big Business....so
>> > burden their smaller competitors with employee-benefit costs which
>> > the smaller businesses are not as able to handle.
>>
>> > Public schools -- originated as a benefit for employees of 'big business'
>>
>> Mr. Kulkis shows his overactive imagination here.
>
>Contact Prof. Vernard Foley,
>History Department
>University Hall
>Purdue University
>West Lafayette, IN 47904.
>
>>
>> > Health Insurance -- " " " " " " " " "
>> > Maternity Leave -- " " " " " " " " "
>>
>> > (i.e. no fucking not-really-"free lunches" from the government, to the
>> > tune of 40% of my pay, either).
>>
>> Thank you for attacking the source of much of your pay.
>
>Goddamn, you're a stupid fat-assed idiot.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Loren Petrich
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>> And a fast train
------------------------------
From: Static66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:24:10 GMT
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 03:57:43 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>> > Don't be too sure. She may have thought that you were a more
>> > reliable immigration ticket.
>
>> Yes, women do find the ability to properly support one's self (without
>> depending on government bureaucrats) to be attractive.
>
> This from someone whose pay had been handled by government
>bureaucrats for many years. And whose pay nowadays is being handled by
>big-business bureaucrats.
>
>> By the way, do you interpret a desire to increase one's standard
>> of living to be something shameful?
>
> So if someone tries to extort money from you, you say "Hooray! Here
>is someone who wants to improve his standard of living."?
Loren it is you that advocates criminal behavior as an alternative to
honest work.
------------------------------
From: Static66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:31:46 GMT
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 04:08:27 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Static66
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:26:22 -0400, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Ask Go Computing, VOBIS, Digital Research, or any other company M$ has
>> >injured. M$ OS prices are artificially high, and they have apparently
>> >violated their consent decree. I think you might want to do some more
>> >research on Micro$oft.
>
>> How can the price be "artificially high". wtf does that mean. This is
>> simple economics. They charge the price they feel is correct based on
>> their costs incurred developing/producing the product. Obviously the
>> market accepts it since it is the most purchased! right? No-one is
>> forced to buy it.
>
> I'm sure that Static66's personal website has copies of many of the
>memos in which Microsoft employees discuss how they have set the prices
>of their company's products. So please point me to the appropriate
>URL's.
Do you have copies of said memos? They are guilty because you say they
are. true communist you are Loren.
>
> Also, this "nobody is forced to buy it" ignores compatibility and
>stuff like that. It's like saying that Static66 has no right to
>complain about taxes since he is 100% free to move to some tax-free
>capitalist utopia.
What compatibility? There are other os's you can run..or Buy an apple.
so when ford doesn't have a car in the color orange but chevy does and
you really like orange, is chevy then the monopoly, no because you can
still buy another car. I think the same logic applies to computers.
There you go trying to tie two completely different arguements
together. you are an dolt Loren.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
