[FairfieldLife] Re: The Three Stages of Panic

[sparaig]

Of course, that commentary was out of date the day it was published.
Obama is back in the lead natioally in most polls, AND in most
of the electoral college counts as well.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> During the primaries and up until the convention, many Obama
> supporters pushed the narrative that Hillary supporters had to go
> through the classic stages of grief before accepting Obama. Josh
> Marshall and others: "started running the "stages of grief" trope on
> Hillary supporters way back in February�you know, from anger, through
> denial, bargaining, depression, to acceptance..."
> 
> Of course this "stages of grief" narrative oozed with sexism and
> condescension. The subtext implied that Hillary's female supporters,
> emotional at the loss, had to be given post-partum recovery time, but
> then they would come around and, for those hold-outs, a few reminders
> about Roe v. Wade would get them in line. That was the strategy
> throughout the summer.
> 
> McCain's selection of Palin as vice president, exquisitely timed to
> halt Obama's bounce, has dominated the news for more than two weeks.
> It has also radically re-shaped the race. By most reports, Obama is
> slightly behind McCain in national polls and, more importantly, McCain
> has taken the lead in the electoral college. The panic from the
> Obamabots in palpable.
>  
> Hillary won the popular vote and nearly all the important states. She
> was positioned to win the General Election. Hillary, like President
> Clinton, built a coalition based on economic opportunity and national
> renewal. Obama took the nomination because he controlled much of the
> Party's infrastructure: his supporters controlled the hierarchy of the
> Democratic Party, specifically the Rules and Bylaws Committee, and he
> was funded and fueled by the activist base, by groups like MoveOn.org,
> and he was supported by the netroots and the media.
> 
> Now that the General Election is in peril, these groups, who failed to
> provide the base of the Party with any reason to vote for Obama other
> than habit, scramble to connect with the very voters they demonized
> during the primary as "low information" and hopelessly bitter. No one
> television ad or high paid adviser can turn the tide. Let them panic. 
> 
> Posted 9/18/08 by Bud White. Read More... http://tinyurl.com/3qoqx2
>

[FairfieldLife] Conan O' Brien (Outraged Palin Defender (9/10/08)

[cardemaister]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkHrt6SziXE

[FairfieldLife] Re: palin and TMO

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> >
> > On Sep 19, 2008, at 11:06 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
> > 
> > >> The "slur" of course, was to try to come up with some
> > >> rational excuse for her insane behavior the day Trig
> > >> was born. Most people found it more plausible that she
> > >> would pretend to have been pregnant in order to cover for
> > >> her child's pregnancy
> > 
> > I don't think there's much doubt anymore that Trig
> > is Sarah's.  The question now, as I understand it,
> > is whether or not he's her husband's.  If not, that
> > might explain why no showing of records.
> > 
> 
> Well, its still an interesting question: is Sarah Palin as crazy as
> that little WaterBreakGate scenario I posted suggested or are
> there otehr things going on?
> 
> COnsider that thehre's a pattern of sexual-abuse "stuff"
> running through all of this:
> Wassila is a very sexually abusive town;
> Palin's doctor is a sexual abuse specialist, not an OB/GYN;
> while Palin was mayor, Wassila used to charge rape victims for 
> rape kits; 
> she believes that victms of rape or incest may not have an abortion;
> 
> I may have missed something, but a pattern of some kind appears to
> be there...
> 

Here's another fun factoid: Sarah Palin's defense for firing the guy who
wouldn't fire her ex borther-in-law: he was insubordinate by
attending a seminar on sexual assualt rather than supporting her
agenda to lower the alcoholism rate in Alaska. Except, the record shows 
her assistant signed off on the guy's trip.

Also, despite the fact that Palin got  knocked up a month before her marriage 
to Todd, Palin exiled her daughter to another state to attend school once
she learned Bristol was pregnant, or so the Enquirer is now claiming.


Still seeing a pattern there as more bits and pieces of Sarah Palin's
family and professional life come to light.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Those wacky Alaskans

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , bob_brigante  wrote:
> >
> > "Not all Alaskan families are as weird as the Palins, right?" wrote
a
> > friend from California.
> > "Let me assure you," I wrote back. "They are all freaks."
> > http://www.slate.com/id/2200404  
 >
> >


> Extreme temperatures, in this case the cold, does something to the
> personality.
>

***

There's actually little difference between the winter temps in AK's
biggest city, Anchorage (Palin's town is a suburb of Anchorage), and
Iowa (because Anchorage is protected from the worst of the Arctic air by
its proximity to the ocean, while Iowa is far away from such stabilizing
influence):

Anchorage: http://www.rssweather.com/climate/Alaska/Anchorage/


Des Moines: http://www.rssweather.com/climate/Iowa/Des%20Moines/

[FairfieldLife] The Daily Mash: Obama defends 'creationist psycho bitch' remark

[TurquoiseB]

Delights from The Daily Mash, which seems to be a 
British humor site that specializes in writing what 
the people in the pubs are really thinking:


http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/obama-defends-%27creationist-psycho-bitch%27-remark-200809111247/

OBAMA DEFENDS 'CREATIONIST PSYCHO BITCH' REMARK

Democratic candidate Barak Obama last night claimed he 
was quoted out of context after describing Governor 
Sarah Palin as a 'creationist psycho bitch'.

Image
'Less fuckable than a dead pig'

He dismissed the 'phoney outrage' of the Republican 
camp, insisting the remark was not intended to do 
anything other than draw attention to Governor Palin's 
insane beliefs and ugly, bitch-like qualities.

Senator Obama said: "I was simply implying what a 
stupid, horrible, terrifying freak she is. I can't 
help it if people decide to take that literally.

"I was using a metaphor to make the important point 
that if you want another four years of psychotic, 
blood thirsty creationists who love sucking the oil 
industry's big fat cock, then vote for my opponents."

He added: "I did then go on to say that if Jesus 
came down from heaven and told me I would have to 
fuck either Sarah Palin or a pig, you'd have to 
drag me off the pig.

"Now that doesn't mean I'm comparing Governor Palin 
to a pig. What I am saying is that if it's a straight 
choice between Governor Palin and a pig, I'm fucking 
the pig.

"If I then went on to say that I'd rather fuck a dead 
pig than Governor Palin, that should not be construed 
in any way as a personal attack."

Senator Obama refused to apologise to the Governor, 
insisting it would take too long to translate the words 
into her 'retarded hillbilly language'.


And if you liked this, you might also check out:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/ama-gonna-git-me-a-niggra%2c-says-palin-200809041227/

and

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/everyone-making-everything-worse%2c-all-the-time-200809171261/

[FairfieldLife] Re: NY Times article on possible dangers of ayurvedic products

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  
wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks, Nabby. I appreciate your feedback. FFL would be a 
much 
> > duller place
> > > > without you.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > You know, I can't speak to the validity of Nablusoss' claims, 
nor 
> > to the content of
> > > MAPI products (though only 2 products out of the hundred 
actually 
> > exceeded the
> > > more liberal standards for heavy metals, IIRC,and I don't know 
if 
> > they were 
> > > MAPI or not), I'd like to point out that MAK ambrosia
> > > and nectar  BOTH are really good for the skin in certain 
> > circumstances. The nectar
> > > makes the best burn ointment I've ever seen, for example, and 
both 
> > tend to have
> > > nice properties when applied to skin infections like pimples or 
cat 
> > bites.
> > 
> > Everything you venture to digest should be exposed to the test I 
> > suggested. Everything, including the bread you eat and the milk 
you 
> > drink.
> > 
> > For women; put the said food on your left wrist at the spot where 
the 
> > Vaidya will take your pulse; for men on the same spot on the 
right 
> > wrist.
> > 
> > Slowly you will understand the nature of what you eat.
> > 
> > Have a checking and this process will become a thousand fold more 
> > effective.
> >
> I am curious.  Do you do this with each item at every meal? In 
restaurants?  When eating at 
> work?

Haha, ofcourse not !

[FairfieldLife] Stanford Univ. Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

[Jonathan Chadwick]

Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be 
as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stanford Univ. Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's 
> support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there 
> were no white racial prejudice.
>  
> http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race


In a related study, also funded at taxpayer expense,
researchers found that life would be more fair if
it wasn't so unfair.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Three Stages of Panic

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Of course, that commentary was out of date the day it was published.
> Obama is back in the lead natioally in most polls, AND in most
> of the electoral college counts as well.

TODAY: Obama 202 McCain 216 http://tinyurl.com/4kuk2x Obama 252 McCain
265 http://tinyurl.com/4f7w6 Obama 202 McCain 208
http://tinyurl.com/ys6njl At the end of the primary Obama was leading
McCain 302 and Hillary was leading McCain 327 "Obama Implodes in
Georgia" http://tinyurl.com/429paf "In Michigan, A Tight Race — Still
Obama by Three" http://tinyurl.com/3k4xyl

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > During the primaries and up until the convention, many Obama
> > supporters pushed the narrative that Hillary supporters had to go
> > through the classic stages of grief before accepting Obama. Josh
> > Marshall and others: "started running the "stages of grief" trope on
> > Hillary supporters way back in February�you know, from anger,
through
> > denial, bargaining, depression, to acceptance..."
> > 
> > Of course this "stages of grief" narrative oozed with sexism and
> > condescension. The subtext implied that Hillary's female supporters,
> > emotional at the loss, had to be given post-partum recovery time, but
> > then they would come around and, for those hold-outs, a few reminders
> > about Roe v. Wade would get them in line. That was the strategy
> > throughout the summer.
> > 
> > McCain's selection of Palin as vice president, exquisitely timed to
> > halt Obama's bounce, has dominated the news for more than two weeks.
> > It has also radically re-shaped the race. By most reports, Obama is
> > slightly behind McCain in national polls and, more importantly, McCain
> > has taken the lead in the electoral college. The panic from the
> > Obamabots in palpable.
> >  
> > Hillary won the popular vote and nearly all the important states. She
> > was positioned to win the General Election. Hillary, like President
> > Clinton, built a coalition based on economic opportunity and national
> > renewal. Obama took the nomination because he controlled much of the
> > Party's infrastructure: his supporters controlled the hierarchy of the
> > Democratic Party, specifically the Rules and Bylaws Committee, and he
> > was funded and fueled by the activist base, by groups like MoveOn.org,
> > and he was supported by the netroots and the media.
> > 
> > Now that the General Election is in peril, these groups, who failed to
> > provide the base of the Party with any reason to vote for Obama other
> > than habit, scramble to connect with the very voters they demonized
> > during the primary as "low information" and hopelessly bitter. No one
> > television ad or high paid adviser can turn the tide. Let them panic. 
> > 
> > Posted 9/18/08 by Bud White. Read More... http://tinyurl.com/3qoqx2
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stanford Univ. Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's
support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were
no white racial prejudice.
>  
> http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race
>

On the other hand, according to these articles Obama benefits from
"White Guilt" http://tinyurl.com/3jqhxg http://tinyurl.com/44htqy If
Obama loses it won't be because of his race. It will be because of the
DNC's stupid 50 state strategy that is proving to be a miserable
failure. ELECTORAL COLLEGE MAPS TODAY: Obama 202 McCain 216
http://tinyurl.com/4kuk2x Obama 252 McCain 265
http://tinyurl.com/4f7w6 Obama 202 McCain 208
http://tinyurl.com/ys6njl At the end of the primary Obama was leading
McCain 302 and Hillary was leading McCain 327 "Obama Implodes in
Georgia" http://tinyurl.com/429paf "In Michigan, A Tight Race — Still
Obama by Three" http://tinyurl.com/3k4xyl

Re: [FairfieldLife] Conan O' Brien (Outraged Palin Defender (9/10/08)

[gullible fool]

 
I just hope Conan doesn't lose his edge when he changes jobs and takes over for 
Leno next June.
 
"Love will swallow you, eat you up completely until there is no `you,' only 
love." 

   
- Amma  

--- On Sat, 9/20/08, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

From: cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Conan O' Brien (Outraged Palin Defender (9/10/08)
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, September 20, 2008, 3:10 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkHrt6SziXE




To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links






  

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Daily Mash: Obama defends 'creationist psycho bitch' remark

[guyfawkes91]

Brilliant! Totally brilliant.

And this one

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/us-becomes-world%27s-biggest-council-estate-200809081236/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[curtisdeltablues]

> > OTOH we are in a shitstorm so going with whoever you think has the
> > brainpower and perspective to lead us through it makes sense. 
> 
> Compare Solutions to Financial Crisis: Warm and Fuzzy Non-Specific
> Obama: http://preview.tinyurl.com/43dolg Strong and Specific Hillary:

Sometimes I wonder where you are going with this.  There could be a
role for Hillary to advance her ideas in a cabinet position.  But
right now it is Obama vs McCain and Hillary's positive qualities don't
seem to matter much right now.  I think an Obama presidency would be
more likely to utilize her skills over a McCain one.  And I can't
really imagine that any woman would feel that an anti-abortion
republican in the White House would be a better friend on woman's
issues. We have seen what an anti-science president does to subvert
the scientific method, to politicize issues like global warming
reducing our chances of understanding how to best proceed.  

I didn't spend a lot of time studying the candidates in the primaries
because I really only care about who we have to choose from now.  It
is hard for me to care about Hillary right now.  I hope her supporters
don't pull a Ralph Nader on this campaign and give us another four
years of republican administration with the furthest right VP in history.





> http://tinyurl.com/4ervw5 "Hillary took to the floor of the Senate
> today to lay out her plan for halting the economic meltdown, and her
> Senate staff has the video of her speech up online. She's speaking
> about what needs to be done NOW to address the economic meltdown
> taking place up on Wall Street this week. She talks in detail for over
> 20 minutes and dammit, it just breaks my heart that someone this
> capable and brilliant isn't headed to the White House this fall."
> Alegre http://tinyurl.com/4cy7ur on Hillary's statements.
> 
>  I can't
> > fault people who believe it is McCain.  I personally wish he had
> > beaten Bush 8 years ago.  We might not be in this mess today. But 8
> > years ago he wouldn't have picked Sara "didja know she's a hockey
> > mom'n gun, tote'n, feather ruffl'n, maverick?" Palin.
> 
> M Mooseburgers!
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: NY Times article on possible dangers of ayurvedic products

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71"  
> wrote:
> > >
> > I am curious.  Do you do this with each item at every meal? In 
> restaurants?  When eating at 
> > work?
> 
Haha, ofcourse not !
Because I wear the Rolex on my right wrist and don't like to take it 
off. ;-)

[FairfieldLife] "Hillary sent me" vs. "My outraged misandry keeps me hating Obama"

[TurquoiseB]

Isn't it fascinating the level of grace and knowing 
what is important and what isn't that Hillary Clinton
brings to how she lives her life, as opposed to how
some loons who actually consider themselves her 
"supporters" bring to theirs?

Hillary, to her credit, can think outside the box of
her own anger and disappointment, whereas these idiots
who can't even disguise the hatred they have for Obama
and men in general can't get past that anger and 
consider even for a moment what might be better for 
the country and the world. 

My bet is that Hillary wouldn't piss on these insane 
bitches if see saw them on fire. And she'd be right
not to. 


Clinton Unveils New Pro-Obama Effort

MINNEAPOLIS — Hillary Rodham Clinton stepped up her efforts 
Friday to swing her supporters behind Democratic presidential 
candidate Barack Obama, her former rival for the nomination.

In an outreach dubbed "Hillary Sent Me," the New York senator 
invited her primary-season partisans to get involved directly 
in Obama's campaign and to donate to it. As part of that, she 
urged them to travel to a specific battleground state each 
weekend, beginning with New Hampshire on Sept. 27, when she 
will be campaigning for Obama in Michigan.

"Today I am asking all of you to stand up with me, to hit 
the road and spread the word that we must elect Barack Obama 
president and send a Democratic, filibuster-proof majority 
to Congress," Clinton told supporters in a conference call 
Friday. "This is a call to action, a must-do. We all have 
a role. And there is not a moment to lose."

[FairfieldLife] Bill Maher - Free Levi Johnston Political Prisoner [hilarious]

[do.rflex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veX4TCgtmok

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Triumph of Teminism: Hillary & Sarah

[feste37]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Men are simple creatures, so easy to please...food, sex, pretend you
> are listening and a flat screen.

Poor raunchydog, never been able to find a man who will listen to her
. . . I wonder why?

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Hillary sent me" vs. "My outraged misandry keeps me hating Obama"

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Isn't it fascinating the level of grace and knowing 
> what is important and what isn't that Hillary Clinton
> brings to how she lives her life, as opposed to how
> some loons who actually consider themselves her 
> "supporters" bring to theirs?
> 
> Hillary, to her credit, can think outside the box of
> her own anger and disappointment, whereas these idiots
> who can't even disguise the hatred they have for Obama
> and men in general

BZZZT.  "Men in general"--wrong. Stupidly wrong.

And why, exactly, should we be disguising how we
feel about Obama? ("Hate" is the wrong word, BTW.)

 can't get past that anger and 
> consider even for a moment what might be better for 
> the country and the world.

Actually that's precisely what we're considering,
and it isn't a matter of anger at this point.

Here's a newsflash for you: Having been Hillary
supporters in the primaries does not mean we think
exactly like she does in every respect or
automatically agree with all her conclusions. We
feel no obligation to do what she tells us if it
conflicts with what we think we should be doing.

We think for ourselves, in other words.

You and some of the other Obamazoids here haven't
spent even a second trying to understand where
we're coming from, even though we've explained it
many times. Not that if you had, you'd agree with
us, but simply that you wouldn't keep getting your
mental image of us so drastically, stupidly wrong.

Do you really think your dimwit insults are
somehow going to convince us to support Obama if
Hillary's pleas haven't done so? Or do you think
those insults might simply reinforce our lack of
support for him, since you obviously haven't the
foggiest notion of what we're about?

> My bet is that Hillary wouldn't piss on these insane 
> bitches if see saw them on fire. And she'd be right
> not to.

More likely, she wouldn't piss on you if she saw
you on fire. Too many asshole Obama supporters
called her a bitch during the primaries for her
to feel much sympathy for them when they call her
supporters bitches while singing her praises now
that they've realized they need her to get Obama
elected.

We bitches are the very people she's trying to
reach out to (since Obama hasn't bothered). And
you're only getting in her way. How intelligent
of you. You're the folks who aren't able to
suppress your anger for the sake of your goals.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Triumph of Teminism: Hillary & Sarah

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  
wrote:
> 
> > Men are simple creatures, so easy to please...food, sex,
> > pretend you are listening and a flat screen.
> 
> Poor raunchydog, never been able to find a man who will listen
> to her . . . I wonder why?

Ooops, it seems your misogyny is getting in the way
of your reading comprehension. Try it again.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Triumph of Teminism: Hillary & Sarah

[feste37]

You're right there, Judy! 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  
> wrote:
> > 
> > > Men are simple creatures, so easy to please...food, sex,
> > > pretend you are listening and a flat screen.
> > 
> > Poor raunchydog, never been able to find a man who will listen
> > to her . . . I wonder why?
> 
> Ooops, it seems your misogyny is getting in the way
> of your reading comprehension. Try it again.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ayurveda and lead

[nsm108]

Does anyone know which mapi product this is?



- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > From a friend:
> > 
> > Hi Rick,
> > 
> > Just looking at the discussion on 'humanised' heavy metals in 
Ayurveda -
> > people should know that the stuff that poisoned Franes Gaskell 
(mentioned in
> > the NYT article) was a 'humanised' lead preparation sold by MAPI 
in India -
> > recommended for pregnant women.� The net result was that she 
and her unborn
> > child were seriously poisoned.� Lead is particularly nasty - 
just Google
> > 'lead poisoning'.� No word as to whether they are still selling 
it.
> > 
> > Regards
> >
> 
> Well, the TMO has been warning people for several years NOT to go 
to the clinics
> in India for health reasons, ostensibly due to hygiene in India, 
but perhaps this was
> a politically correct way of acknowledging the heavy metal issue 
without saying it
> out loud.
> 
> 
> Lawson
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > OTOH we are in a shitstorm so going with whoever you think
> > > has the brainpower and perspective to lead us through it
> > > makes sense. 
> > 
> > Compare Solutions to Financial Crisis: Warm and Fuzzy
> > Non-Specific Obama:
> > http://preview.tinyurl.com/43dolg
> > Strong and Specific Hillary:
> 
> Sometimes I wonder where you are going with this.  There could
> be a role for Hillary to advance her ideas in a cabinet position.
> But right now it is Obama vs McCain and Hillary's positive 
> qualities don't seem to matter much right now.

I think the point is that neither of the two
candidates has the brainpower or perspective
to lead us through this. And enlisting Hillary's
help after the election is likely to be too late,
no matter who wins.

How Hillary's grasp of the situation--which she's
been on top of for a long time, BTW--could matter
a lot right now is if Obama were to start 
listening to her and trying to talk like she does.
His response to the crisis has been pitiful, not
as bad as McCain's, but nowhere near adequate.

> I didn't spend a lot of time studying the candidates in the 
> primaries because I really only care about who we have to
> choose from now.

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard
you say. If you'd paid attention, you could have
had a *voice* in who we have to choose from now.

[FairfieldLife] Re: palin and TMO

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Here's another fun factoid: Sarah Palin's defense for firing
> the guy who wouldn't fire her ex borther-in-law: he was 
> insubordinate by attending a seminar on sexual assualt rather
> than supporting her agenda to lower the alcoholism rate in
> Alaska. Except, the record shows  her assistant signed off on
> the guy's trip.
> 
> Also, despite the fact that Palin got  knocked up a month
> before her marriage to Todd, Palin exiled her daughter to 
> another state to attend school once she learned Bristol was 
> pregnant, or so the Enquirer is now claiming.
> 
> Still seeing a pattern there as more bits and pieces of
> Sarah Palin's family and professional life come to light.

The pattern I see here is the mirror image of the
anti-Obama nutcases' attempts to prove that he's
really a Muslim.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Three Stages of Panic

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

[quoting Bud White:]
> Now that the General Election is in peril, these groups, who
> failed to provide the base of the Party with any reason to
> vote for Obama other than habit, scramble to connect with the
> very voters they demonized during the primary as "low
> information" and hopelessly bitter.

Or, as in the case of a few nitwits on this forum,
*continue* to demonize them as bitches and man-haters
and ugly frumps who could never attract a man (even
though the nitwits have no idea what they look like).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[curtisdeltablues]

> > I didn't spend a lot of time studying the candidates in the 
> > primaries because I really only care about who we have to
> > choose from now.
> 
> That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard
> you say. If you'd paid attention, you could have
> had a *voice* in who we have to choose from now.


I know my limitations Judy.  I don't really think my voice in politics
is important.  I have my pet issues and try to focus on them.  But the
time to really understand all the candidates in the primaries to be
informed enough just doesn't make the time/payback cut for me.  Like
you, I wasn't overly impressed with Obama in the primaries. But I
wasn't behind Hillary either, so I let them slug it out.  My bias is
anti-republican.

Let me put it this way.  You spent a lot of time and had your "voice",
and now you have Obama.  So do I.  But my time has been spent on the
specific issues that I can more directly effect.  And it isn't that I
didn't pay ANY attention.  I just didn't come up with a candidate that
I really believed in enough to invest more time.  Everyone is not
meant to be political, that is why I appreciate our republic, often
misnamed a democracy.  




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > > > OTOH we are in a shitstorm so going with whoever you think
> > > > has the brainpower and perspective to lead us through it
> > > > makes sense. 
> > > 
> > > Compare Solutions to Financial Crisis: Warm and Fuzzy
> > > Non-Specific Obama:
> > > http://preview.tinyurl.com/43dolg
> > > Strong and Specific Hillary:
> > 
> > Sometimes I wonder where you are going with this.  There could
> > be a role for Hillary to advance her ideas in a cabinet position.
> > But right now it is Obama vs McCain and Hillary's positive 
> > qualities don't seem to matter much right now.
> 
> I think the point is that neither of the two
> candidates has the brainpower or perspective
> to lead us through this. And enlisting Hillary's
> help after the election is likely to be too late,
> no matter who wins.
> 
> How Hillary's grasp of the situation--which she's
> been on top of for a long time, BTW--could matter
> a lot right now is if Obama were to start 
> listening to her and trying to talk like she does.
> His response to the crisis has been pitiful, not
> as bad as McCain's, but nowhere near adequate.
> 
> > I didn't spend a lot of time studying the candidates in the 
> > primaries because I really only care about who we have to
> > choose from now.
> 
> That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard
> you say. If you'd paid attention, you could have
> had a *voice* in who we have to choose from now.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[authfriend]

191004

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  
wrote:
> >
> > Video: http://tinyurl.com/46xqjq
> 
> Media is fractionated for different markets.  You gotta watch
> more than one network to get both sides.  Fox news represents
> almost none of my values, that is why I also watch it.  I need
> to hear the other side.

Huh? What does this have to do with anything?

The point of this clip is that the host wouldn't
let the woman explain why she was supporting 
McCain over Obama.

Everybody knows Fox News has a strongly
conservative slant, but CNN pretends to be
objective politically.

> I don't think the written commentary was that good.  Most of
> the interview was journalism 101 where the person was asked
> for specifics.

She wasn't allowed to *give* the specifics.

>  I don't see how it would advance our understanding to give
> this woman an unchallenged voice on TV.

She should be allowed to make her points,
*then* challenged.

  The truth is that her claim about
> Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle.

Uh, no. "Elitism" doesn't have anything to do
with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle;
it's an attitude of superiority. One can be
an elitist without being wealthy; and not all
wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism
has much more to do with class and education.


> The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain
> out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I
> guess.  But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get
> nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal
> go for McCain/Palin.

The liberals who are supporting McCain are
doing so because they believe the Democratic
Party has failed them and needs to be brought
down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see
the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court
nominations as a kind of blackmail.

I'm not supporting McCain, but the above is
the reason I'm not supporting Obama either.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I didn't spend a lot of time studying the candidates in the 
> > > primaries because I really only care about who we have to
> > > choose from now.
> > 
> > That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard
> > you say. If you'd paid attention, you could have
> > had a *voice* in who we have to choose from now.
> 
> I know my limitations Judy.  I don't really think my voice in 
> politics is important.

No single voter's voice in politics is "important"
except maybe in very local elections. But if all
voters "knew their limitations," we wouldn't have
an electorate.

And why bother voting in the general election if
you don't think your voice in the primary is
important enough to vote? You have even *less* of
a voice in the general.

  I have my pet issues and try to focus on them.  But the
> time to really understand all the candidates in the primaries
> to be informed enough just doesn't make the time/payback cut
> for me.

Working on issues is a fine thing, but you'll be
a lot more effective if you have simpatico people
as your elected officials. If you can't walk and
chew gum at the same time, the answer isn't to do
nothing but chewing gum or nothing but walking; it's
to spend appropriate time walking and then switch
to chewing gum for a while when that becomes
important, IMHO.

  Like
> you, I wasn't overly impressed with Obama in the primaries. But
> I wasn't behind Hillary either, so I let them slug it out.  My
> bias is anti-republican.

Yes, so was that of most people who voted for
either Obama or Hillary in the primaries.

> Let me put it this way.  You spent a lot of time and had
> your "voice", and now you have Obama.  So do I.

But without the voice.

  But my time has been spent on the
> specific issues that I can more directly effect.

I think that's a poor choice if it excludes working
for a primary candidate.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[curtisdeltablues]

>   The truth is that her claim about
> > Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle.
> 
> Uh, no. "Elitism" doesn't have anything to do
> with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle;
> it's an attitude of superiority. One can be
> an elitist without being wealthy; and not all
> wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism
> has much more to do with class and education.
> 

I appreciate an opportunity to focus on what the word really means.  I
just spent a few minutes searching.  I think the conclusion I draw is
that it is a stupid term when used in elections between people who
obviously fit the definition in most ways.  I know some really poor
uneducated people who carry an attitude of superiority over more
educated richer people because of their street smarts.  So the
definitions become vague enough that people can use it as a weapon in
politics like the word "liberal" to demonize the other person.  I
don't find it very useful since it is so subjective. I know highly
educated poor people, rich uneducated people, and each of them can use
their situation to be elitist if that is how they roll.  I don't
believe it is the most important thing to focus on in a candidate.  I
still think it was a legitimate challenge in this interview.

> 
> > The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain
> > out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I
> > guess.  But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get
> > nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal
> > go for McCain/Palin.
> 
> The liberals who are supporting McCain are
> doing so because they believe the Democratic
> Party has failed them and needs to be brought
> down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see
> the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court
> nominations as a kind of blackmail.

How can it be blackmail when it is just a fact?  The
liberal/conservative choice for the next judges will effect the rest
of our lives.  No one is blackmailing anybody.

I also feel betrayed by the democratic party for cowering to Bush's
Iraq war.  But after 8 years of republicans I don't believe it can be
brought down any more.  I believe that it can rebuild a lot better
with a democrat in the White House.  I don't see how four years of
McCain/Palin is going to help re-build the party.  

I fear that this crazy logic that electing McCain will HELP the
democratic party will sentence us to four more years of
republicans,and yes, more ultra conservative Supreme Court judges.  If
the Bush/Gore fiasco didn't convince you of the wide reaching
implications for the democratic party didn't convince you, I don't
know what will. 



> 
> I'm not supporting McCain, but the above is
> the reason I'm not supporting Obama either.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 191004
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Video: http://tinyurl.com/46xqjq
> > 
> > Media is fractionated for different markets.  You gotta watch
> > more than one network to get both sides.  Fox news represents
> > almost none of my values, that is why I also watch it.  I need
> > to hear the other side.
> 
> Huh? What does this have to do with anything?
> 
> The point of this clip is that the host wouldn't
> let the woman explain why she was supporting 
> McCain over Obama.
> 
> Everybody knows Fox News has a strongly
> conservative slant, but CNN pretends to be
> objective politically.
> 
> > I don't think the written commentary was that good.  Most of
> > the interview was journalism 101 where the person was asked
> > for specifics.
> 
> She wasn't allowed to *give* the specifics.
> 
> >  I don't see how it would advance our understanding to give
> > this woman an unchallenged voice on TV.
> 
> She should be allowed to make her points,
> *then* challenged.
> 
>   The truth is that her claim about
> > Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle.
> 
> Uh, no. "Elitism" doesn't have anything to do
> with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle;
> it's an attitude of superiority. One can be
> an elitist without being wealthy; and not all
> wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism
> has much more to do with class and education.
> 
> 
> > The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain
> > out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I
> > guess.  But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get
> > nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal
> > go for McCain/Palin.
> 
> The liberals who are supporting McCain are
> doing so because they believe the Democratic
> Party has failed them and needs to be brought
> down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see
> the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court
> nominations as a kind of blackmail.
> 
> I'm not supporting McCain, but the above is
> the reason I'm not supporting Obama either.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[curtisdeltablues]

>   But my time has been spent on the
> > specific issues that I can more directly effect.
> 
> I think that's a poor choice if it excludes working
> for a primary candidate.

Well that is what defines our lives, all this choices of where we
spend our time.  I don't believe in the political process enough for
it to fully engage me.  Everyone can't focus on everything in life. 
My focus is education, and I work on it with whatever party is in office. 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > > > I didn't spend a lot of time studying the candidates in the 
> > > > primaries because I really only care about who we have to
> > > > choose from now.
> > > 
> > > That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard
> > > you say. If you'd paid attention, you could have
> > > had a *voice* in who we have to choose from now.
> > 
> > I know my limitations Judy.  I don't really think my voice in 
> > politics is important.
> 
> No single voter's voice in politics is "important"
> except maybe in very local elections. But if all
> voters "knew their limitations," we wouldn't have
> an electorate.
> 
> And why bother voting in the general election if
> you don't think your voice in the primary is
> important enough to vote? You have even *less* of
> a voice in the general.
> 
>   I have my pet issues and try to focus on them.  But the
> > time to really understand all the candidates in the primaries
> > to be informed enough just doesn't make the time/payback cut
> > for me.
> 
> Working on issues is a fine thing, but you'll be
> a lot more effective if you have simpatico people
> as your elected officials. If you can't walk and
> chew gum at the same time, the answer isn't to do
> nothing but chewing gum or nothing but walking; it's
> to spend appropriate time walking and then switch
> to chewing gum for a while when that becomes
> important, IMHO.
> 
>   Like
> > you, I wasn't overly impressed with Obama in the primaries. But
> > I wasn't behind Hillary either, so I let them slug it out.  My
> > bias is anti-republican.
> 
> Yes, so was that of most people who voted for
> either Obama or Hillary in the primaries.
> 
> > Let me put it this way.  You spent a lot of time and had
> > your "voice", and now you have Obama.  So do I.
> 
> But without the voice.
> 
>   But my time has been spent on the
> > specific issues that I can more directly effect.
> 
> I think that's a poor choice if it excludes working
> for a primary candidate.
>

[FairfieldLife] Greed - Lack of Conscience - and Destroying Rules

[do.rflex]

It is one of the great curiosities of conservatism that its adherents
enthusiastically destroy regulations which — besides a conscience —
act as a bulwark against greed and corruption, thereby making greed
and corruption inevitable. Because when (a) there's no wrong way to
make a buck, and (b) no accountability or consequences for
malfeasance, there's no disincentive either. (Other than being able to
sleep at night, which isn't a problem if you don't have a conscience
in the first place.) 

And when the inevitable happens, the resulting disaster spreads
(because it is never *really* contained), they bemoan the very same
rampant greed and corruption their deregulation made inevitable. 

~~  Terrance DC
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/9/19/174357/322



McCain's top economic advisor Phil Gramm orchestrated the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 which "destroyed the Depression-era
barrier to the merger of stockbrokers, banks and insurance companies." 

He also pushed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000, which
made legal "the mortgage swaps distancing the originator of the loan
from the ultimate collector." The Nation writes that "those two acts
effectively ended significant regulation of the financial community." 

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080922/scheer 



"You are interviewing the greatest free trader you will ever
interview, and the greatest deregulator you will ever interview." 

~~  John McCain, May 29, 2007 - Wall Street Journal 
http://blogs.wsj.com/dnotebook/2007/05/29/mccains-high-tech-cabinet/ 

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Hillary sent me" vs. "My outraged misandry keeps me hating Obama"

[Robert]

 (snip)
> 
> We bitches are the very people she's trying to
> reach out to (since Obama hasn't bothered). And
> you're only getting in her way. How intelligent
> of you. You're the folks who aren't able to
> suppress your anger for the sake of your goals.
>
'We Bitches?'
What is a we bitch?
Is that like black people using the 'N' word?

Why are people like Caroline Kennedy and Hillary and Bill Clinton 
supporting Senator Obama?
Do you really believe that John McCain will do anything differently 
than George Bush?
Do you think the country can survive going down this same track?
Do you really believe Barack Obama 'tricked' everyone to get where he 
is?
Can't you see he wasn't born into this role, like Mr. Bush or Mr. 
McCain?
He is completely a self made man.
The truth is Hillary was and has been riding on Bill's coat-strings.
She is not a self made political person at all.
But, she is more loyal to her values and ideas than many  of her 
supporters.
And that's a shame.

[FairfieldLife] Real women don't screech

[TurquoiseB]

And I can tell you this with some certainty, 
because two of them have been staying with
me the last couple of days, and will be 
through the weekend. One is English, living
in Paris, and a noted speaker and presenter
at women's forums worldwide. The other is
French, from Chateauroux, and also works in
the field of empowering other women.

Before anyone does the FFL Two Step and starts
mouthing off about Turq's latest ménage à many,
both are just friends and they're staying with
me because I have a three-bedroom house and
they're avoiding 500 Euros or so in hotel costs
while attending a women's conference here in
Sitges.

http://www.winconference.net/

As a result, I been up to my crown chakra in 
women and women's thinking for the last two days, 
not only being with my friends and sitting and 
talking with many of the other participants at 
the conference, but be able to sit in on some 
of the meetings as well.

And I'm here to tell you that real women don't
screech. Real women don't whine. Real women 
don't hold onto losing positions once they have
proven themselves lost; they move on immediately
to the next-best winnable position. Real women 
don't try to blame men for their problems. Real 
women don't hide behind the excuse of misogyny. 
Instead, they talk about what they want to 
achieve, and help each other achieve it.

It's really neat to see, and to feel the vibe of.

And I hope it explains a little bit why I might
have seemed a tad...uh...excessive in my writings
about real feminism vs. faux feminism lately. 

It's like I've been able to sit and watch and talk
with Vanessa Redgrave and Jane Fonda during the day
and much of the evening, but one hour a day (the
time I spend on Fairfield Life), I have to watch
their parts being played by third rate actors and
fourth-rate women.

I'm sorry, but the *contrast* between the women I'm
talking to and the two women talk talk talk talking
and demanding demanding demanding to be heard heard
heard and taken seriously seriously seriously is so 
intense that I can sometimes not contain my outrage 
that these two harpies dare call themselves women.

[FairfieldLife] 'Genius Recognising Genius + The Stakes are High'

[Robert]

 






US director Woody Allen poses for photographers after the sc...



US filmmaker Woody Allen, best known for such comedy classics as "Annie Hall," 
says it will be no laughing matter if Barack Obama fails to win the race for 
the White House. 
"It would be a disgrace and a humiliation if Barack Obama does not win," he 
told Spanish journalists at the ongoing 56th San Sebastian film festival, where 
his latest film "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" is being screened. 
"It would be a very, very terrible thing for the United States in many, many 
ways," he said. 
Democratic hopeful Obama, Allen said, is "so much better" than Republican rival 
John McCain, and "represents a huge step upward from (the) incompetence and 
misjudgement" of the Bush administration. 
"It would be a terrible thing if the American public was not moved to vote for 
him, that they actually preferred more of the same." 
On Thursday, Spanish-born Hollywood actor Antonio Banderas, who is also in San 
Sebastian, said he is backing Obama for the sake of his daughter -- 
acknowledging, however, that he cannot vote as he is not a US citizen. 


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Real women don't screech

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And I can tell you this with some certainty, 
> because two of them have been staying with
> me the last couple of days, and will be 
> through the weekend. One is English, living
> in Paris, and a noted speaker and presenter
> at women's forums worldwide. The other is
> French, from Chateauroux, and also works in
> the field of empowering other women.
> 
> Before anyone does the FFL Two Step and starts
> mouthing off about Turq's latest ménage à many,
> both are just friends and they're staying with
> me because I have a three-bedroom house and
> they're avoiding 500 Euros or so in hotel costs
> while attending a women's conference here in
> Sitges.
> 
> http://www.winconference.net/
> 
> As a result, I been up to my crown chakra in 
> women and women's thinking for the last two days, 
> not only being with my friends and sitting and 
> talking with many of the other participants at 
> the conference, but be able to sit in on some 
> of the meetings as well.
> 
> And I'm here to tell you that real women don't
> screech. Real women don't whine. Real women 
> don't hold onto losing positions once they have
> proven themselves lost; they move on immediately
> to the next-best winnable position. Real women 
> don't try to blame men for their problems. Real 
> women don't hide behind the excuse of misogyny. 
> Instead, they talk about what they want to 
> achieve, and help each other achieve it.
> 
> It's really neat to see, and to feel the vibe of.
> 
> And I hope it explains a little bit why I might
> have seemed a tad...uh...excessive in my writings
> about real feminism vs. faux feminism lately. 
> 
> It's like I've been able to sit and watch and talk
> with Vanessa Redgrave and Jane Fonda during the day
> and much of the evening, but one hour a day (the
> time I spend on Fairfield Life), I have to watch
> their parts being played by third rate actors and
> fourth-rate women.
> 
> I'm sorry, but the *contrast* between the women I'm
> talking to and the two women talk talk talk talking
> and demanding demanding demanding to be heard heard
> heard and taken seriously seriously seriously is so 
> intense that I can sometimes not contain my outrage 
> that these two harpies dare call themselves women.
>

Barry doesn't like it when the harpies (OMG there are TWO!) tweak his
prissy, small minded definition of a "real" woman, deigning to give us
an hour of his precious time while he gallivants with the quasi rich
and famous, elitist snoot in the air looking down on the unwashed
masses of FF Life. http://tinyurl.com/3orkzl What's wrong with getting
it up for ménage à many?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Real women don't screech

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And I can tell you this with some certainty, 
> because two of them have been staying with
> me the last couple of days, and will be 
> through the weekend. One is English, living
> in Paris, and a noted speaker and presenter
> at women's forums worldwide. The other is
> French, from Chateauroux, and also works in
> the field of empowering other women.
> 
> Before anyone does the FFL Two Step and starts
> mouthing off about Turq's latest ménage à many,
> both are just friends and they're staying with
> me because I have a three-bedroom house and
> they're avoiding 500 Euros or so in hotel costs
> while attending a women's conference here in
> Sitges.
> 
> http://www.winconference.net/
> 
> As a result, I been up to my crown chakra in 
> women and women's thinking for the last two days, 
> not only being with my friends and sitting and 
> talking with many of the other participants at 
> the conference, but be able to sit in on some 
> of the meetings as well.
> 
> And I'm here to tell you that real women don't
> screech. Real women don't whine. Real women 
> don't hold onto losing positions once they have
> proven themselves lost; they move on immediately
> to the next-best winnable position. Real women 
> don't try to blame men for their problems. Real 
> women don't hide behind the excuse of misogyny. 
> Instead, they talk about what they want to 
> achieve, and help each other achieve it.
> 
> It's really neat to see, and to feel the vibe of.
> 
> And I hope it explains a little bit why I might
> have seemed a tad...uh...excessive in my writings
> about real feminism vs. faux feminism lately. 
> 
> It's like I've been able to sit and watch and talk
> with Vanessa Redgrave and Jane Fonda during the day
> and much of the evening, but one hour a day (the
> time I spend on Fairfield Life), I have to watch
> their parts being played by third rate actors and
> fourth-rate women.
> 
> I'm sorry, but the *contrast* between the women I'm
> talking to and the two women talk talk talk talking
> and demanding demanding demanding to be heard heard
> heard and taken seriously seriously seriously is so 
> intense that I can sometimes not contain my outrage 
> that these two harpies dare call themselves women.
>

We all know you just want to get a piece...er, real peace among women.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Real women don't screech

[curtisdeltablues]

> Before anyone does the FFL Two Step and starts
> mouthing off about Turq's latest ménage à many,
> both are just friends

How about if we are just expressing our disappointment that this is
not the case and that lurid details will not be forthcoming? 

At the very least you could throw us a bone with a description of the
sudden parting of a morning robe (even Plato sprinkled these into his
writing although he chose to describe men) or the momentary slip of
the towel when stepping out of the bathroom...I'm just saying...or
when both of them rise from their seats at the table at the same time
and accidentally kiss. (according to Jerry Seinfeld this is actually
possible)  Oh forget it, my newest issue of Misogynist Digest, Women
We Love to Hate, just came in the mail, so I'll just entertain myself.
(figuratively you pervs!) 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And I can tell you this with some certainty, 
> because two of them have been staying with
> me the last couple of days, and will be 
> through the weekend. One is English, living
> in Paris, and a noted speaker and presenter
> at women's forums worldwide. The other is
> French, from Chateauroux, and also works in
> the field of empowering other women.
> 
> Before anyone does the FFL Two Step and starts
> mouthing off about Turq's latest ménage à many,
> both are just friends and they're staying with
> me because I have a three-bedroom house and
> they're avoiding 500 Euros or so in hotel costs
> while attending a women's conference here in
> Sitges.
> 
> http://www.winconference.net/
> 
> As a result, I been up to my crown chakra in 
> women and women's thinking for the last two days, 
> not only being with my friends and sitting and 
> talking with many of the other participants at 
> the conference, but be able to sit in on some 
> of the meetings as well.
> 
> And I'm here to tell you that real women don't
> screech. Real women don't whine. Real women 
> don't hold onto losing positions once they have
> proven themselves lost; they move on immediately
> to the next-best winnable position. Real women 
> don't try to blame men for their problems. Real 
> women don't hide behind the excuse of misogyny. 
> Instead, they talk about what they want to 
> achieve, and help each other achieve it.
> 
> It's really neat to see, and to feel the vibe of.
> 
> And I hope it explains a little bit why I might
> have seemed a tad...uh...excessive in my writings
> about real feminism vs. faux feminism lately. 
> 
> It's like I've been able to sit and watch and talk
> with Vanessa Redgrave and Jane Fonda during the day
> and much of the evening, but one hour a day (the
> time I spend on Fairfield Life), I have to watch
> their parts being played by third rate actors and
> fourth-rate women.
> 
> I'm sorry, but the *contrast* between the women I'm
> talking to and the two women talk talk talk talking
> and demanding demanding demanding to be heard heard
> heard and taken seriously seriously seriously is so 
> intense that I can sometimes not contain my outrage 
> that these two harpies dare call themselves women.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Ron Paul - the only person making any sense.

[Bhairitu]

off_world_beings wrote:
> Ron Paul - the only person making any sense.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQsC-F9YRxk
> 
>
> OffWorld
And the stupid American sheeple are embracing big government coming to 
the rescue.  Like Paul says we should have just let the speculators go 
bust.  Maybe we can stick them with the bill.  Maybe we should do a tax 
revolt.  Screw the whole system over. We outnumber them 99 to 1.  Power 
to the people.

[FairfieldLife] Billions for Bailouts! Who Pays?

[Rick Archer]

Billions for Bailouts! Who Pays?

By Sen. Bernie Sanders

 

The current financial crisis facing our country has been caused by the
extreme right-wing economic policies pursued by the Bush administration.
These policies, which include huge tax breaks for the rich, unfettered free
trade and the wholesale deregulation of commerce, have resulted in a massive
redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the very wealthy. 

 

The middle class has really been under assault. Since President Bush has
been in office, nearly 6 million Americans have slipped into poverty, median
family income for working Americans has declined by more than $2,000, more
than 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance, over 4 million
have lost their pensions, foreclosures are at an all time high, total
consumer debt has more than doubled, and we have a national debt of over
$9.7 trillion dollars.

 

While the middle class collapses, the richest people in this country have
made out like bandits and have not had it so good since the 1920s. The top
0.1 percent now earn more money than the bottom 50 percent of Americans, and
the top 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The wealthiest
400 people in our country saw their wealth increase by $670 billion while
Bush has been president. In the midst of all of this, Bush lowered taxes on
the very rich so that they are paying lower income tax rates than teachers,
police officers or nurses.

 

Now, having mismanaged the economy for eight years as well as having lied
about our situation by continually insisting, "The fundamentals of our
economy are strong," the Bush administration, six weeks before an election,
wants the middle class of this country to spend many hundreds of billions on
a bailout. The wealthiest people, who have benefited from Bush's policies
and are in the best position to pay, are being asked for no sacrifice at
all. This is absurd. This is the most extreme example that I can recall of
socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.

 

In my view, we need to go forward in addressing this financial crisis by
insisting on four basic principles:

 

(1) The people who can best afford to pay and the people who have benefited
most from Bush's economic policies are the people who should provide the
funds for the bailout. It would be immoral to ask the middle class, the
people whose standard of living has declined under Bush, to pay for this
bailout, while the rich, once again, avoid their responsibilities. Further,
if the government is going to save companies from bankruptcy, the taxpayers
of this country should be rewarded for assuming the risk by sharing in the
gains that result from this government bailout.

 

Specifically, to pay for the bailout, which is estimated to cost up to $1
trillion, the government should: 

 

a) Impose a five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year
for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers. That would raise more
than $300 billion in revenue; 

 

b) Ensure that assets purchased from banks are realistically discounted so
companies are not rewarded for their risky behavior and taxpayers can
recover the amount they paid for them; and 

 

c) Require that taxpayers receive equity stakes in the bailed-out companies
so that the assumption of risk is rewarded when companies' stock goes up.

 

(2) There must be a major economic recovery package which puts Americans to
work at decent wages. Among many other areas, we can create millions of jobs
rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and moving our country from fossil
fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. Further, we must protect
working families from the difficult times they are experiencing. We must
ensure that every child has health insurance and that every American has
access to quality health and dental care; that families can send their
children to college, that seniors are not allowed to go without heat in the
winter, and that no American goes to bed hungry. 

 

(3) Legislation must be passed which undoes the damage caused by excessive
de-regulation. That means reinstalling the regulatory firewalls that were
ripped down in 1999. That means re-regulating the energy markets so that we
never again see the rampant speculation in oil that helped drive up prices.
That means regulating or abolishing various financial instruments that have
created the enormous shadow banking system that is at the heart of the
collapse of AIG and the financial services meltdown. 

 

(4) We must end the danger posed by companies that are "too big too fail,"
that is, companies whose failure would cause systemic harm to the U.S.
economy. If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. We need to
determine which companies fall in this category and then break them up.
Right now, for example, the Bank of America, the nation's largest depository
institution, has absorbed Countrywide, the nation's largest mortgage lender,
and Merrill Lynch, the n

[FairfieldLife] Comic potential

[curtisdeltablues]

http://www.churchsigngenerator.com/

This really cracked me up.

How do we post pictures if we use Web access?  I know Shemp has been
able to do it.  If I use the rich text editor, I could link to a pic
online but what if I want to add one that is not online?

[FairfieldLife] McCain on banking and health - [you won't believe this one]

[do.rflex]

Here's what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health
reform:


"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous  
nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in 
banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less 
burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."


So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising
financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago — and promising that if we
marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!

Links here:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/

or, http://tinyurl.com/48cd2a

[FairfieldLife] Re: Real women don't screech

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Before anyone does the FFL Two Step and starts
> > mouthing off about Turq's latest ménage à many,
> > both are just friends
> 
> How about if we are just expressing our disappointment that this 
> is not the case and that lurid details will not be forthcoming? 

One can never tell. I relate to you (no shit)
the conversation that just took place a moment
ago. The woman from Chateauroux mentioned a
woman participant in the course she had met 
who was an expert on the Cathars. I mentioned
that I'm somewhat of an expert on the Cathars.
She said, "Oh, then I must introduce you to 
Durga."

My response was automatic: "You must introduce
me to Durga."

I mean, a woman who is interested in the Cathars
who is named after one of the kickass goddesses?
This person I've got to meet.

And here's the best line of the conference so far.
It just charmed my socks off. This afternoon they
had an exercise in which all 600 of the women were
to submit their ideas for what *should* exist in
the world, what it would contain if it worked right.

One woman wrote, "Sexy shoes that don't hurt."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Real women don't screech

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> And I'm here to tell you that real women don't
> screech. Real women don't whine. Real women 
> don't hold onto losing positions once they have
> proven themselves lost; they move on immediately
> to the next-best winnable position. Real women 
> don't try to blame men for their problems. Real 
> women don't hide behind the excuse of misogyny. 
> Instead, they talk about what they want to 
> achieve, and help each other achieve it.
 
> I'm sorry, but the *contrast* between the women I'm
> talking to and the two women talk talk talk talking
> and demanding demanding demanding to be heard heard
> heard and taken seriously seriously seriously is so 
> intense that I can sometimes not contain my outrage 
> that these two harpies dare call themselves women.

Trouble is, you haven't been reading what the
"two harpies" have been saying and doing.

All the things that you list at the top are
your *fantasies*. They have no connection to
what's actually been going on.

You proudly boast that you don't read our posts;
it's no wonder you keep getting it so wrong.

That's what you do with anybody here you don't
like: you fantasize about their behavior, and
then you denounce them for what you've
fantasized. We've seen it over and over and
*over* again.

Here's a paragraph from another of your
hysterical denunciatory posts:

> The misogyny thing with regard to both Sarah
> Palin and Hillary Clinton was *always* a whine.
> The bottom line on both of these women is very
> simple -- will they accomplish the goals they
> set for themselves or not? One failed miserably, 
> and the other...well, that remains to be seen. 
> But blaming others for WHY they failed, and 
> trying to get people to argue about it? Total 
> waste of time. I've got better things to do.

Never have either raunchydog or I suggested that
Hillary lost the primary (and she didn't lose it
"miserably"--to the contrary, it was the closest
primary in recent history, perhaps ever) because
of misogyny. Nor did Hillary ever suggest it.

Nor will Palin lose because of misogyny, if she
loses.

You made that up out of whole cloth so you'd have
a straw man (or woman, in this case) to take 
potshots at.

(It's interesting, though, that in a different
post you appeared to accept as a truism that if
Obama loses, it'll be because of racism.)

If anybody's been whining, it's been you. The
very post I'm responding to has been one loud,
screeching whine. And it's not the only such
post of yours by any means.

[FairfieldLife] Look Who's Irrational Now

[authfriend]

>From an article in the Wall Street Journal:

...From Hollywood to the academy, nonbelievers are convinced that a 
decline in traditional religious belief would lead to a smarter, more 
scientifically literate and even more civilized populace.

The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging 
religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, 
enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new 
levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on 
faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released 
by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian 
religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of 
palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the 
irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, 
far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely 
to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical 
Christians.

Read more:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html?
mod=googlenews_wsj

http://tinyurl.com/53xr95

[FairfieldLife] Re: Real women don't screech

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > > Before anyone does the FFL Two Step and starts
> > > mouthing off about Turq's latest ménage à many,
> > > both are just friends
> > 
> > How about if we are just expressing our disappointment that this 
> > is not the case and that lurid details will not be forthcoming? 
> 
> One can never tell. I relate to you (no shit)
> the conversation that just took place a moment
> ago. The woman from Chateauroux mentioned a
> woman participant in the course she had met 
> who was an expert on the Cathars. I mentioned
> that I'm somewhat of an expert on the Cathars.
> She said, "Oh, then I must introduce you to 
> Durga."
> 
> My response was automatic: "You must introduce
> me to Durga."
> 
> I mean, a woman who is interested in the Cathars
> who is named after one of the kickass goddesses?
> This person I've got to meet.
> 
> And here's the best line of the conference so far.
> It just charmed my socks off. This afternoon they
> had an exercise in which all 600 of the women were
> to submit their ideas for what *should* exist in
> the world, what it would contain if it worked right.
> 
> One woman wrote, "Sexy shoes that don't hurt."
>

What kind of fancy frock did you wear to the conference? Silk Brocade,
or Chiffon? Do take notes and keep us apprised of all the fun girly
things fit to print. Wear your pumps proudly.

[FairfieldLife] The Contrast: Barack Obama vs. John McCain

[do.rflex]

Comparing the styles of Obama and McCain yesterday when addressing the
massive economic crisis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmfeesYmx1Y

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Three Stages of Panic

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > Of course, that commentary was out of date the day it was published.
> > Obama is back in the lead natioally in most polls, AND in most
> > of the electoral college counts as well.
> 
> TODAY: Obama 202 McCain 216 http://tinyurl.com/4kuk2x Obama 252 McCain
> 265 http://tinyurl.com/4f7w6 Obama 202 McCain 208
> http://tinyurl.com/ys6njl At the end of the primary Obama was leading
> McCain 302 and Hillary was leading McCain 327 "Obama Implodes in
> Georgia" http://tinyurl.com/429paf "In Michigan, A Tight Race � Still
> Obama by Three" http://tinyurl.com/3k4xyl

Actually, some of those poll URLs show obama n  the lead, not behind.

And I tend to look at the composite of the polls and intertrade more than 
individual polls.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stanford Univ. Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Chadwick 
> wrote:
> >
> > Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's
> support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were
> no white racial prejudice.
> > �
> > http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race
> >
> 
> On the other hand, according to these articles Obama benefits from
> "White Guilt" http://tinyurl.com/3jqhxg http://tinyurl.com/44htqy If
> Obama loses it won't be because of his race. It will be because of the
> DNC's stupid 50 state strategy that is proving to be a miserable
> failure. ELECTORAL COLLEGE MAPS TODAY: Obama 202 McCain 216
> http://tinyurl.com/4kuk2x Obama 252 McCain 265
> http://tinyurl.com/4f7w6 Obama 202 McCain 208
> http://tinyurl.com/ys6njl At the end of the primary Obama was leading
> McCain 302 and Hillary was leading McCain 327 "Obama Implodes in
> Georgia" http://tinyurl.com/429paf "In Michigan, A Tight Race � Still
> Obama by Three" http://tinyurl.com/3k4xyl
>

Larry Johnson sounds like a good place to find unbiased info...


Lawson

Re: [FairfieldLife] Billions for Bailouts! Who Pays?

[Bhairitu]

Rick Archer wrote:
> Billions for Bailouts! Who Pays?
>
> By Sen. Bernie Sanders
>
>   

> (4) We must end the danger posed by companies that are "too big too fail,"
> that is, companies whose failure would cause systemic harm to the U.S.
> economy. If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. We need to
> determine which companies fall in this category and then break them up.
> Right now, for example, the Bank of America, the nation's largest depository
> institution, has absorbed Countrywide, the nation's largest mortgage lender,
> and Merrill Lynch, the nation's largest brokerage house. We should not be
> trying to solve the current financial crisis by creating even larger, more
> powerful institutions. Their failure could cause even more harm to the
> entire economy.
Absolutely.  We don't need one big corporation running the world but 
that's where we're headed.  And what about the disparity in incomes.  
The highest paid executives in this country earned 411 times what the 
lowest paid earned.  That is ridiculous and nobody, I repeat nobody is 
that good at running a company.  Those executives are con men that 
conned the companies and stockholders into paying them that much.  In 
Japan the highest paid is only 11 times what the lowest is paid.   We 
have had a bunch of gangsters and bandits robbing the American middle 
class and hiding behind the Chicago School of Economics to justify their 
crimes to the public.  "Trickle down economics?"  It's more like the 
rich peeing on us.

And if they steel our retirement accounts then I say steal their stuff.

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Hillary sent me" vs. "My outraged misandry keeps me hating Obama"

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> We bitches are the very people she's trying to
> reach out to (since Obama hasn't bothered). And
> you're only getting in her way. How intelligent
> of you. You're the folks who aren't able to
> suppress your anger for the sake of your goals.
>

How would you have Obama reach out to "we bitches?"


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Help With Confusion

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Wow. This is the most blatant instance of
> > deliberate distortion of an exchange I've ever seen
> > on an electronic forum.
> 
> I don't really know if your distortion was deliberate Judy,
> but it is a distortion of my intent.  The comment that I made
> that seemed to make you feel you had a license to launch and 
> offensive personal attack on my character was this:

Yes, exactly as I pointed out in the post to
Vaj that you quote above. *HE DELETED YOUR
COMMENT THAT I WAS RESPONDING TO* and cut-and-
pasted a different, less offensive one, *from
a different post*, to hide the issue of
violence against women, to make it appear that
I was overreacting, and to obscure the appalling
remark of yours that you go on to quote that I
*was* responding to.

As I said, it's the most blatant, malicious
instance of deliberate distortion of an exchange
I've ever seen on an electronic forum. And you
try to obscure what Vaj did by falsely accusing
*me* of distortion.

> > > > Drama doesn't help your case. If you are feeling threatened,
> > > > call a cop.
> 
> I was bringing the discussion of violence on women back to the
> place where it belongs, in the legal system.

Oh, please, Curtis, have some self-respect.

You had been dissing me and raunchydog for
finding the language used against Palin
offensive. Here's what I said that you
responded to with "Drama doesn't help your
case":

> It's not that the words are offensive in some
> abstract way, it's that they promote an attitude
> toward women that literally threatens their
> physical well-being.

In other words: You were pooh-poohing offense
at language, and when I pointed out that such
language leads to violence against women,
*you pooh-poohed that too*. It wasn't "drama"
that I was dragging in to "help my case," it
was my, and raunchydog's, whole point in the
first place.

Your remark is also appalling because it
ignores the fact that calling the police can
itself put a woman with an abusive husband,
and/or her children, in even greater danger.

That's not to say such a woman should stay
away from the police, only that it's not as
simple as picking up the phone when her
husband gets angry and threatens her.

The nature of domestic abuse and how it
should be handled is an extremely complex
issue. To brush it off with "call a cop"
is inexcusably ignorant and callous.

Worse, to put the responsibility for 
preventing violence against women on law
enforcement is to take as a given that women
are at risk in the first place, rather than
addressing *why* they are at risk and trying
to figure out what to do to change that
situation.

> Remember when feminists got caught with the fabrication of
> violence against women spiking to absurd heights during the 
> Superbowl?  It didn't help the cause, it hurt it.

What does that have to do with anything?

> So when people discuss political discussions of Sara Palin's
> attractiveness as a prelude to abuse to women, I cry foul.

Nobody's discussing that. That's how you're
dishonestly framing what we were discussing
so you have an excuse to pooh-pooh it and
avoid looking at the real issue.

The article about Palin, and the misogynistic
garbage directed at Hillary Clinton, are 
*manifestations* of an *attitude* toward women
that leads to their physical (not to mention
emotional) abuse. The only reason Palin 
(or Hillary) come up in this context is because
the misogyny directed at them has been so
blatant and public. Normally it's much more
hidden.

> I live in an immigrant community and I can tell you there is
> such a thing as violence against women.  But there is a
> distrust of the legal system and charges are rarely pressed.

There are more reasons why charges are
rarely pressed than distrust of the legal
system, Curtis.

  So while self proclaimed
> feminists argue about terms being used for a woman who might
> conceivably be facing down Putin someday, real women are
> actually being harmed, and it has nothing to do with mentioning 
> Palin's rack in an article.

This is just incoherent. Again, "real" women
are being harmed because of the same 
misogynistic attitudes that generate sexist
comments about Palin, and it's doubly shocking
when a *woman* uses language that perpetuates
those attitudes.

Violence against women *does* have to do with
sexist language, but not in the straw-man way
you're trying to dismiss.

  It has to do with men who are abusive to women and
> sometimes vise versa. (some of my African neighbors have
> this problem.)  So my appeal was to call a cop if you
> actually feel threatened by any man (or woman) and remember
> the story of the boy who called wolf.

Non sequitur.

> Regarding your tired old claim that I have a "I'm such a nice
> guy facade": You haven't pulled this one out in a while Judy,
> but I see it is always under the surface for you.

I st

Re: [FairfieldLife] McCain on banking and health - [you won't believe this one]

[Bhairitu]

do.rflex wrote:
> Here's what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health
> reform:
>
>
> "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous  
> nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in 
> banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less 
> burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."
>
>
> So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising
> financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago — and promising that if we
> marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!
>
> Links here:
> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/
>
> or, http://tinyurl.com/48cd2a
And just imagine where we'd be if the public had bought into Bush's 
privatized health care. Vote McCain for more insane same. But then the 
Republicans don't want the cleanup on their watch so they can blame the 
Dems. That's why the picked the Alaskan goofball for VP.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: palin and TMO

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> 
> > Here's another fun factoid: Sarah Palin's defense for firing
> > the guy who wouldn't fire her ex borther-in-law: he was 
> > insubordinate by attending a seminar on sexual assualt rather
> > than supporting her agenda to lower the alcoholism rate in
> > Alaska. Except, the record shows  her assistant signed off on
> > the guy's trip.
> > 
> > Also, despite the fact that Palin got  knocked up a month
> > before her marriage to Todd, Palin exiled her daughter to 
> > another state to attend school once she learned Bristol was 
> > pregnant, or so the Enquirer is now claiming.
> > 
> > Still seeing a pattern there as more bits and pieces of
> > Sarah Palin's family and professional life come to light.
> 
> The pattern I see here is the mirror image of the
> anti-Obama nutcases' attempts to prove that he's
> really a Muslim.
>

So, I'm a nutcase, thanks Judy.

Sanity issues aside, I *still* see a pattern. Whether it is real
or not, is another question entirely.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Three Stages of Panic

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  
> wrote:
> 
> [quoting Bud White:]
> > Now that the General Election is in peril, these groups, who
> > failed to provide the base of the Party with any reason to
> > vote for Obama other than habit, scramble to connect with the
> > very voters they demonized during the primary as "low
> > information" and hopelessly bitter.
> 
> Or, as in the case of a few nitwits on this forum,
> *continue* to demonize them as bitches and man-haters
> and ugly frumps who could never attract a man (even
> though the nitwits have no idea what they look like).
>

My own personal taste runs to personality, intelligence and looks,
 in that order with intelligence trumping personality occasionally, to
my great regret.

As long as I'm not embarrassed to be seen in public with someone, looks 
don't matter very much. And the only peopel I've been embaressed to be 
seen in public with are the ones with mental/emotional disorders so 
severe that it is reflected in their hygiene and body language. Thankfully,
I've either outgrown my own self-destructiveness, or have just unconsciously
decided to be a monk, since I don't go out any more, save with close friends,
and only platonically, for the last 12+ years.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stanford Univ. Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  
wrote:

> > If Obama loses it won't be because of his race. It will be 
> > because of the
> > DNC's stupid 50 state strategy that is proving to be a miserable
> > failure. ELECTORAL COLLEGE MAPS TODAY: Obama 202 McCain 216
> > http://tinyurl.com/4kuk2x Obama 252 McCain 265
> > http://tinyurl.com/4f7w6 Obama 202 McCain 208
> > http://tinyurl.com/ys6njl At the end of the primary Obama was
> > leading McCain 302 and Hillary was leading McCain 327 "Obama 
> > Implodes in Georgia" http://tinyurl.com/429paf "In Michigan,
> > A Tight Race � Still Obama by Three"
> > http://tinyurl.com/3k4xyl
> 
> Larry Johnson sounds like a good place to find unbiased info...

Oh, that's a good way to decide whether poll
information is accurate, just by whose blog
reports it.

FYI, only two of the five links are to posts on
No Quarter, and both of those cite respectable
polls. The Michigan one is from station WXYZ in
Detroit and the Detroit Free Press; the Georgia
one is from Insider Advantage.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 191004
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Video: http://tinyurl.com/46xqjq
> > 
> > Media is fractionated for different markets.  You gotta watch
> > more than one network to get both sides.  Fox news represents
> > almost none of my values, that is why I also watch it.  I need
> > to hear the other side.
> 
> Huh? What does this have to do with anything?
> 
> The point of this clip is that the host wouldn't
> let the woman explain why she was supporting 
> McCain over Obama.

That's not how I saw it.

> 
> Everybody knows Fox News has a strongly
> conservative slant, but CNN pretends to be
> objective politically.
> 
> > I don't think the written commentary was that good.  Most of
> > the interview was journalism 101 where the person was asked
> > for specifics.
> 
> She wasn't allowed to *give* the specifics.

That's not how I saw it.

> 
> >  I don't see how it would advance our understanding to give
> > this woman an unchallenged voice on TV.
> 
> She should be allowed to make her points,
> *then* challenged.
> 

My own take: she was going through a list of talkign points that was
meant to be long enough that there would have been no time to ask questions
at the end.

>   The truth is that her claim about
> > Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle.
> 
> Uh, no. "Elitism" doesn't have anything to do
> with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle;
> it's an attitude of superiority. One can be
> an elitist without being wealthy; and not all
> wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism
> has much more to do with class and education.
> 

Heh. She's the LADY Rothschilde, with a PhD, homes all
over the world, and a distain for someone who wants to
boost her taxes (and his own) by a significant amount.

I've done the math, Judy. She's elitist.


> 
> > The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain
> > out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I
> > guess.  But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get
> > nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal
> > go for McCain/Palin.
> 
> The liberals who are supporting McCain are
> doing so because they believe the Democratic
> Party has failed them and needs to be brought
> down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see
> the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court
> nominations as a kind of blackmail.
> 

So, you're going to stand on princile because blackmailers should never
be dealt with, even if you have good reason to assume they ARE going to
ruin your life if you don't comply.

> I'm not supporting McCain, but the above is
> the reason I'm not supporting Obama either.
>

Eh, good luck with that, Judy.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Look Who's Irrational Now

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From an article in the Wall Street Journal:
> 
> ...From Hollywood to the academy, nonbelievers are convinced that a 
> decline in traditional religious belief would lead to a smarter, more 
> scientifically literate and even more civilized populace.
> 
> The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging 
> religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, 
> enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new 
> levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on 
> faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us.
> 
> "What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released 
> by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian 
> religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of 
> palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the 
> irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, 
> far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely 
> to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical 
> Christians.
> 
> Read more:
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html?
> mod=googlenews_wsj
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/53xr95
>

Hmmm. sounds like someone with an agenda. Because, the less liberal 
sects believe in a strict interpretation of the bible, with such thigns as
transubstantiation, miracles, raising from the dead, healing by laying on hands,
parting of the Red Sea, the End of Days, etc.


Perhaps the study found that lerberal religious people are more likely to 
*indulge*
 in their beliefs but to suggest that orthodox Christians don't believe in 
suchthigns is, 
well, deceptive, at best.


Andf of course, I recall Skip Alexander's PhD thesis which found that prison
inmates who converted to the most strict religious sects became worse on every
personality measure.

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Hillary sent me" vs. "My outraged misandry keeps me hating Obama"

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> [...]
> > We bitches are the very people she's trying to
> > reach out to (since Obama hasn't bothered). And
> > you're only getting in her way. How intelligent
> > of you. You're the folks who aren't able to
> > suppress your anger for the sake of your goals.
> 
> How would you have Obama reach out to "we bitches?"

It almost doesn't matter *how* he does it as
long as he looks like he's making an effort
instead of taking our votes for granted--saying
"They'll get over it" or "They have nowhere else
to go" or "We can win without them."

As to specifics, he could show a lot more
interest in women's issues, take some cues from
Hillary in that area, show some fire. And he
could let it be known in no uncertain terms that
he does not approve of his supporters dissing
them. He could also make far better use of
Hillary (and Bill) than he's done up to now.

Basically, he needs to *ask for our votes*. So
far, he hasn't done that.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Contrast: Barack Obama vs. John McCain

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Comparing the styles of Obama and McCain yesterday when addressing the
> massive economic crisis.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmfeesYmx1Y
>

Obama is reaching out to people who want a thoughtful leader who will think
his or her way out of the crisis. McCain is reaching out to people who want
someone who acts decisively in a crisis.


Certainly, each is talking to their base using the rhetoric their base prefers
to hear. But,  I am not sure who will get a better response overall from the
American people. Past a certain point in a crisis, McCain's political choice of
political rhetoric will ALWAYS work. My own hope is that we're not quite there 
yet.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: McCain on banking and health - [you won't believe this one]

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> do.rflex wrote:
> > Here's what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health
> > reform:
> >
> >
> > "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous  
> > nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in 
> > banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less 
> > burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."
> >
> >
> > So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising
> > financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago � and promising that if we
> > marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!
> >
> > Links here:
> > http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/
> >
> > or, http://tinyurl.com/48cd2a
> And just imagine where we'd be if the public had bought into Bush's 
> privatized health care. Vote McCain for more insane same. But then the 
> Republicans don't want the cleanup on their watch so they can blame the 
> Dems. That's why the picked the Alaskan goofball for VP.
>

More immediately, imagine if everyone had put 25% of their social security 
payments into "safe" stock market investments.

McCain recently referred to Wall Street investment as playing at a casino. THis 
is
ironic given that he was a staunch supporter of using the legalized gambling
of the stock market as a place to put your retirement money.

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stanford Univ. Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  
> wrote:
> 
> > > If Obama loses it won't be because of his race. It will be 
> > > because of the
> > > DNC's stupid 50 state strategy that is proving to be a miserable
> > > failure. ELECTORAL COLLEGE MAPS TODAY: Obama 202 McCain 216
> > > http://tinyurl.com/4kuk2x Obama 252 McCain 265
> > > http://tinyurl.com/4f7w6 Obama 202 McCain 208
> > > http://tinyurl.com/ys6njl At the end of the primary Obama was
> > > leading McCain 302 and Hillary was leading McCain 327 "Obama 
> > > Implodes in Georgia" http://tinyurl.com/429paf "In Michigan,
> > > A Tight Race � Still Obama by Three"
> > > http://tinyurl.com/3k4xyl
> > 
> > Larry Johnson sounds like a good place to find unbiased info...
> 
> Oh, that's a good way to decide whether poll
> information is accurate, just by whose blog
> reports it.
> 
> FYI, only two of the five links are to posts on
> No Quarter, and both of those cite respectable
> polls. The Michigan one is from station WXYZ in
> Detroit and the Detroit Free Press; the Georgia
> one is from Insider Advantage.
>


And the polls are changing very fast and drastically, over the past few days

Look at the composite polls. And Larry Johnson's analysis was what I was 
referring
to, and his weighting of the significance of each poll.

We all have our biases Judy, but I'd like to think mine are a bit less obvious 
than
Johnson's.

Lawson

RE: [FairfieldLife] McCain on banking and health - [you won't believe this one]

[Rick Archer]

> -Original Message-
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bhairitu
> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 2:42 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] McCain on banking and health - [you won't
> believe this one]
> 
> And just imagine where we'd be if the public had bought into Bush's
> privatized health care. 

You mean privatized Social Security?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> > The point of this clip is that the host wouldn't
> > let the woman explain why she was supporting 
> > McCain over Obama.
> 
> That's not how I saw it.

Watch it again.
 
> > Everybody knows Fox News has a strongly
> > conservative slant, but CNN pretends to be
> > objective politically.
> > 
> > > I don't think the written commentary was that good.  Most of
> > > the interview was journalism 101 where the person was asked
> > > for specifics.
> > 
> > She wasn't allowed to *give* the specifics.
> 
> That's not how I saw it.

Read the transcript.

> > >  I don't see how it would advance our understanding to give
> > > this woman an unchallenged voice on TV.
> > 
> > She should be allowed to make her points,
> > *then* challenged.
> 
> My own take: she was going through a list of talkign points
> that was meant to be long enough that there would have been
> no time to ask questions at the end.

Nonsense. It was almost a seven-minute interview.
Let her run on for two minutes, *then* interrupt
if needed.

> >   The truth is that her claim about
> > > Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle.
> > 
> > Uh, no. "Elitism" doesn't have anything to do
> > with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle;
> > it's an attitude of superiority. One can be
> > an elitist without being wealthy; and not all
> > wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism
> > has much more to do with class and education.
> 
> Heh. She's the LADY Rothschilde, with a PhD, homes all
> over the world, and a distain for someone who wants to
> boost her taxes (and his own) by a significant amount.
> 
> I've done the math, Judy. She's elitist.

Non sequitur. As I just said, wealth isn't a
measure of elitism.

And in any case, she isn't running for president.

> > > The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain
> > > out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I
> > > guess.  But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get
> > > nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal
> > > go for McCain/Palin.
> > 
> > The liberals who are supporting McCain are
> > doing so because they believe the Democratic
> > Party has failed them and needs to be brought
> > down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see
> > the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court
> > nominations as a kind of blackmail.
> 
> So, you're going to stand on princile because blackmailers
> should never be dealt with, even if you have good reason to
> assume they ARE going to ruin your life if you don't comply.

I don't have *enough* reason to make that assumption
in this case.

I don't think it's that likely that Roe v. Wade
will be overturned. And on the other hand, I
don't trust Obama to nominate and fight for justices
that will uphold Roe v. Wade, or other progressive
measures, for that matter.

Bottom line, Supreme Court nominations by themselves
are nowhere near a sufficient threat to get me to
vote for Obama.

> > I'm not supporting McCain, but the above is
> > the reason I'm not supporting Obama either.
> 
> Eh, good luck with that, Judy.

You think I'm going to have some kind of problem
voting for McKinney?

Re: [FairfieldLife] McCain on banking and health - [you won't believe this one]

[Bhairitu]

Rick Archer wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bhairitu
>> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 2:42 PM
>> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] McCain on banking and health - [you won't
>> believe this one]
>>
>> And just imagine where we'd be if the public had bought into Bush's
>> privatized health care. 
>> 
>
> You mean privatized Social Security?
Oops, yes that is what I meant.  We already have ripoff privatized 
health care.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Look Who's Irrational Now

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > From an article in the Wall Street Journal:
> > 
> > ...From Hollywood to the academy, nonbelievers are convinced
> > that a decline in traditional religious belief would lead to
> > a smarter, more scientifically literate and even more
> > civilized populace.
> > 
> > The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging 
> > religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, 
> > enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new 
> > levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take
> > on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us.
> > 
> > "What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study 
> > released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that
> > traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in 
> > everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the
> > usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious
> > and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, 
> > far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more
> > likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than 
> > evangelical Christians.
> > 
> > Read more:
> > 
> > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html?
> > mod=googlenews_wsj
> > 
> > http://tinyurl.com/53xr95
> 
> Hmmm. sounds like someone with an agenda. Because, the less
> liberal sects believe in a strict interpretation of the bible,
> with such thigns as transubstantiation, miracles, raising from
> the dead, healing by laying on hands, parting of the Red Sea,
> the End of Days, etc.

I suggest you read the article, if not the study
itself (it was performed by Gallup).

> Perhaps the study found that lerberal religious people are more
> likely to *indulge* in their beliefs but to suggest that
> orthodox Christians don't believe in suchthigns is, well, 
> deceptive, at best.

They didn't "suggest," they have data to prove it.

But the key is the phrase "such things." What 
evangelicals believe in is the traditional Christian
stuff (see above). The point is that atheists and the
"irreligious," rather than being all scientifically
minded, believe more in New Age-type stuff.

Evangelicals, basically, are limited to traditional
Christian beliefs as a matter of dogma, whereas the
"irreligious" can believe in a whole range of nutty
stuff, with no limitations; their beliefs aren't
prescribed by or constrained by Scripture as the
evangelicals' beliefs are.

> Andf of course, I recall Skip Alexander's PhD thesis which found
> that prison inmates who converted to the most strict religious 
> sects became worse on every personality measure.

Speaking of folks with an agenda, you mean?

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Hillary sent me" vs. "My outraged misandry keeps me hating Obama"

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  (snip)
> > 
> > We bitches are the very people she's trying to
> > reach out to (since Obama hasn't bothered). And
> > you're only getting in her way. How intelligent
> > of you. You're the folks who aren't able to
> > suppress your anger for the sake of your goals.
> >
> 'We Bitches?'
> What is a we bitch?
> Is that like black people using the 'N' word?

No, it's like my using the word Barry used to
characterize me and raunchydog.

> Why are people like Caroline Kennedy and Hillary and Bill
> Clinton supporting Senator Obama?

Various reasons. Bill and Hillary are supporting
him because they're committed Democrats and would
lose all their political power if they didn't;
Caroline Kennedy is supporting him because she
wasn't able to see through the hype.

> Do you really believe that John McCain will do anything
> differently than George Bush?

Oh, I'm sure he'll do quite a few things differently.

> Do you think the country can survive going down this same track?

Don't know. Don't know if it will survive going
down the Obama track either.

> Do you really believe Barack Obama 'tricked' everyone to get
> where he is?

He and the Democratic leadership, yes indeed.
But he didn't trick "everyone"; some of us are
wise to his game.

> Can't you see he wasn't born into this role, like Mr. Bush
> or Mr. McCain?

Did I say he was?

> He is completely a self made man.

With a lot of help from his political allies,
beginning in Chicago.

> The truth is Hillary was and has been riding on Bill's
> coat-strings.

I think you mean "coat tails." Strings are for aprons.

> She is not a self made political person at all.

Actually, she has been since she became a senator.

> But, she is more loyal to her values and ideas than
> many of her supporters.

As I pointed out to Barry, having been a Hillary
supporter in the primaries does not mean agreeing
with her on everything. There's loyalty, and then
there's blind loyalty. We aren't blind.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >   The truth is that her claim about
> > > Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle.
> > 
> > Uh, no. "Elitism" doesn't have anything to do
> > with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle;
> > it's an attitude of superiority. One can be
> > an elitist without being wealthy; and not all
> > wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism
> > has much more to do with class and education.
> 
> I appreciate an opportunity to focus on what the word
> really means.  I just spent a few minutes searching.
> I think the conclusion I draw is that it is a stupid
> term when used in elections between people who obviously
> fit the definition in most ways.  I know some really
> poor uneducated people who carry an attitude of
> superiority over more educated richer people because of
> their street smarts.  So the definitions become vague
> enough that people can use it as a weapon in politics
> like the word "liberal" to demonize the other person.  I
> don't find it very useful since it is so subjective.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think it is
about Obama that some folks are calling "elitist"?

 I know highly
> educated poor people, rich uneducated people, and each of them
> can use their situation to be elitist if that is how they roll.
> I don't believe it is the most important thing to focus on in
> a candidate.  I still think it was a legitimate challenge in
> this interview.

But not in terms of its being hypocritical for her
to call Obama an elitist because she's rich. It's
fine to challenge her on whether Obama is an elitist.

> > > The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain
> > > out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I
> > > guess.  But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get
> > > nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal
> > > go for McCain/Palin.
> > 
> > The liberals who are supporting McCain are
> > doing so because they believe the Democratic
> > Party has failed them and needs to be brought
> > down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see
> > the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court
> > nominations as a kind of blackmail.
> 
> How can it be blackmail when it is just a fact?

How can it be a fact when it hasn't happened yet?

(And even if it were a fact, why would that mean
it couldn't be blackmail??)

  The
> liberal/conservative choice for the next judges will effect the
> rest of our lives.  No one is blackmailing anybody.

Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all
the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president,
they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict
McCain will do that we won't like.

> I also feel betrayed by the democratic party for cowering to
> Bush's Iraq war.  But after 8 years of republicans I don't
> believe it can be brought down any more.

It wasn't "the party," strictly speaking, that caved
to Bush on the war; it was the Democrats in Congress.

  I believe that it can rebuild a lot better
> with a democrat in the White House.  I don't see how four
> years of McCain/Palin is going to help re-build the party.

The party leadership--Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, et
al.--will be discredited if McCain wins; that
will mean it will *have* to be rebuilt, with 
different people in the leadership. If Obama wins,
it'll just be more of the same; they'll have been
proved "right."

> I fear that this crazy logic that electing McCain will HELP the
> democratic party will sentence us to four more years of
> republicans,and yes, more ultra conservative Supreme Court judges.

Again, it's a matter of destroying the current
party and putting together a new one, not helping
the current party.

  If
> the Bush/Gore fiasco didn't convince you of the wide
> reaching implications for the democratic party didn't
> convince you, I don't know what will.

Want to try this again? Your syntax got garbled. Didn't
convince me of what, exactly?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Look Who's Irrational Now

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > From an article in the Wall Street Journal:
> > > 
> > > ...From Hollywood to the academy, nonbelievers are convinced
> > > that a decline in traditional religious belief would lead to
> > > a smarter, more scientifically literate and even more
> > > civilized populace.
> > > 
> > > The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging 
> > > religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, 
> > > enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new 
> > > levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take
> > > on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us.
> > > 
> > > "What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study 
> > > released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that
> > > traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in 
> > > everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the
> > > usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious
> > > and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, 
> > > far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more
> > > likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than 
> > > evangelical Christians.
> > > 
> > > Read more:
> > > 
> > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html?
> > > mod=googlenews_wsj
> > > 
> > > http://tinyurl.com/53xr95
> > 
> > Hmmm. sounds like someone with an agenda. Because, the less
> > liberal sects believe in a strict interpretation of the bible,
> > with such thigns as transubstantiation, miracles, raising from
> > the dead, healing by laying on hands, parting of the Red Sea,
> > the End of Days, etc.
> 
> I suggest you read the article, if not the study
> itself (it was performed by Gallup).
> 
> > Perhaps the study found that lerberal religious people are more
> > likely to *indulge* in their beliefs but to suggest that
> > orthodox Christians don't believe in suchthigns is, well, 
> > deceptive, at best.
> 
> They didn't "suggest," they have data to prove it.
> 
> But the key is the phrase "such things." What 
> evangelicals believe in is the traditional Christian
> stuff (see above). The point is that atheists and the
> "irreligious," rather than being all scientifically
> minded, believe more in New Age-type stuff.
> 
> Evangelicals, basically, are limited to traditional
> Christian beliefs as a matter of dogma, whereas the
> "irreligious" can believe in a whole range of nutty
> stuff, with no limitations; their beliefs aren't
> prescribed by or constrained by Scripture as the
> evangelicals' beliefs are.
> 
> > Andf of course, I recall Skip Alexander's PhD thesis which found
> > that prison inmates who converted to the most strict religious 
> > sects became worse on every personality measure.
> 
> Speaking of folks with an agenda, you mean?
>

Well, the religion and therapy sessions were neutral in that they showed
some improvement in some areas while in other areas they showed the 
opposite. TM, of course, showed improvement in all areas, while
Fundamentalist Christianity showed the opposite from TM.

Interestingly enough, when I cited this study in another context on A.M.T.
many years ago you were all for it, as I recall.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Elitist, was: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[Rick Archer]

As I heard someone point out today, isn't it ironic that a guy worth $100
million with 9 houses in three time zones is accusing a guy raised by a
single mother on food stamps of being elitist. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Look Who's Irrational Now

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > From an article in the Wall Street Journal:
> > > 
> > > ...From Hollywood to the academy, nonbelievers are convinced
> > > that a decline in traditional religious belief would lead to
> > > a smarter, more scientifically literate and even more
> > > civilized populace.
> > > 
> > > The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging 
> > > religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, 
> > > enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new 
> > > levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take
> > > on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us.
> > > 
> > > "What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study 
> > > released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that
> > > traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in 
> > > everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the
> > > usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious
> > > and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, 
> > > far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more
> > > likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than 
> > > evangelical Christians.
> > > 
> > > Read more:
> > > 
> > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html?
> > > mod=googlenews_wsj
> > > 
> > > http://tinyurl.com/53xr95
> > 
> > Hmmm. sounds like someone with an agenda. Because, the less
> > liberal sects believe in a strict interpretation of the bible,
> > with such thigns as transubstantiation, miracles, raising from
> > the dead, healing by laying on hands, parting of the Red Sea,
> > the End of Days, etc.
> 
> I suggest you read the article, if not the study
> itself (it was performed by Gallup).
> 

At the request of a religious college, which differentiated between
beliefs in traditional christian beliefs and not-so-traditional beliefs
as though this meant that they were different in some fundamental sense.


ALl the study really showed is that people who are members of a 
conservative group tend to believe only in the beliefs of that conservative
group while members of more liberal gorups tend to be more ecclective
in their belief systems.

The questionaire also found that not only did most people believe in Angels,
but that they had been *helped* those angels and that they had been spoken
to by God. How is this any different than believing in palmreading or speaking
to the dead via a medium, save that the church they belong to only recognizes
chruch-snacitoned supernatural phenomena as real?

> > Perhaps the study found that lerberal religious people are more
> > likely to *indulge* in their beliefs but to suggest that
> > orthodox Christians don't believe in suchthigns is, well, 
> > deceptive, at best.
> 
> They didn't "suggest," they have data to prove it.
> 
> But the key is the phrase "such things." What 
> evangelicals believe in is the traditional Christian
> stuff (see above). The point is that atheists and the
> "irreligious," rather than being all scientifically
> minded, believe more in New Age-type stuff.
> 

That is, non-Conservative Christian stuff.

> Evangelicals, basically, are limited to traditional
> Christian beliefs as a matter of dogma, whereas the
> "irreligious" can believe in a whole range of nutty
> stuff, with no limitations; their beliefs aren't
> prescribed by or constrained by Scripture as the
> evangelicals' beliefs are.
> 

Well, gee, and this means what, exactly? That conservative
people tend to accept a much more narrow set of beliefs
as valid than liberals?

BTW, I can see why you didn't want me to read the original
study, but merely the article, by someone who is herself a 
published writer whose religion and writings favor the study's 
findings.


http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=52815


> > Andf of course, I recall Skip Alexander's PhD thesis which found
> > that prison inmates who converted to the most strict religious 
> > sects became worse on every personality measure.
> 
> Speaking of folks with an agenda, you mean?
>

yes indeedy. Speaking of someone with a rather obvious agenda...

Judy...


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > >   The truth is that her claim about
> > > > > Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle.
> > > > 
> > > > Uh, no. "Elitism" doesn't have anything to do
> > > > with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle;
> > > > it's an attitude of superiority. One can be
> > > > an elitist without being wealthy; and not all
> > > > wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism
> > > > has much more to do with class and education.
> > > 
> > > I appreciate an opportunity to focus on what the word
> > > really means.  I just spent a few minutes searching.
> > > I think the conclusion I draw is that it is a stupid
> > > term when used in elections between people who obviously
> > > fit the definition in most ways.  I know some really
> > > poor uneducated people who carry an attitude of
> > > superiority over more educated richer people because of
> > > their street smarts.  So the definitions become vague
> > > enough that people can use it as a weapon in politics
> > > like the word "liberal" to demonize the other person.  I
> > > don't find it very useful since it is so subjective.
> > 
> > Just out of curiosity, what do you think it is
> > about Obama that some folks are calling "elitist"?
> 
> I'm curious as to what YOU think is elitist. The sound bites that
> people point to, like "clinging to guns and religion" were hardly
> elitist in the context they were made in.

I want to hear what Curtis thinks first.

> >  I know highly
> > > educated poor people, rich uneducated people, and each of them
> > > can use their situation to be elitist if that is how they roll.
> > > I don't believe it is the most important thing to focus on in
> > > a candidate.  I still think it was a legitimate challenge in
> > > this interview.
> > 
> > But not in terms of its being hypocritical for her
> > to call Obama an elitist because she's rich. It's
> > fine to challenge her on whether Obama is an elitist.
> > 
> 
> I would say its hypocritical for her to call him elistist
> while citing erroneous, even outright false claims to
> explain it.

That isn't hypocrisy, that's being mistaken or lying.


> >   The
> > > liberal/conservative choice for the next judges will effect the
> > > rest of our lives.  No one is blackmailing anybody.
> > 
> > Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all
> > the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president,
> > they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict
> > McCain will do that we won't like.
> 
> The *one* thing? So, on every other issue, you believe that
> McCain will "do the right thing?" OR, do you mean women's 
> issues in general?

I didn't say "the one thing." Read it again, please.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Elitist, was: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As I heard someone point out today, isn't it ironic that a guy worth $100
> million with 9 houses in three time zones is accusing a guy raised by a
> single mother on food stamps of being elitist.
>

Its all in the attiude, don't you know? Obama is out of touch with "real 
Americans:
while McCain, like BUsh, is a good ole boy you'd love to have a beer with 
because,
well, you know, he doesn't talk down to you and you instinctively know he
understands you more than Obama would.



Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
[...]
> > > But not in terms of its being hypocritical for her
> > > to call Obama an elitist because she's rich. It's
> > > fine to challenge her on whether Obama is an elitist.
> > > 
> > 
> > I would say its hypocritical for her to call him elistist
> > while citing erroneous, even outright false claims to
> > explain it.
> 
> That isn't hypocrisy, that's being mistaken or lying.
> 

So, accusing someone of being elitist based on something you know
to be a lie isn't hypocritical, merely lying?

> 
> > >   The
> > > > liberal/conservative choice for the next judges will effect the
> > > > rest of our lives.  No one is blackmailing anybody.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all
> > > the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president,
> > > they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict
> > > McCain will do that we won't like.
> > 
> > The *one* thing? So, on every other issue, you believe that
> > McCain will "do the right thing?" OR, do you mean women's 
> > issues in general?
> 
> I didn't say "the one thing." Read it again, please.
>

You said 'with "one" thing' implying that no other thing was being
argued. That's "the one thing," by definition, Judy.

Sheesh. Where has your mind and mental equilibrium gone, Judy? 

Your ability to argue has always ben better than this.


lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Elitist, was: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As I heard someone point out today, isn't it ironic that a
> guy worth $100 million with 9 houses in three time zones is
> accusing a guy raised by a single mother on food stamps of
> being elitist.

Actually, it was Obama himself who said that 
claim during the uproar over his "bitter"
comments. Whoever you heard today was just
recycling it and adding the McCain part.

But of course it isn't the least bit "ironic,"
because elitism doesn't have to do with wealth,
it has to do with attitude.

And Obama wasn't "raised by a single mother on
food stamps." His mother was *briefly* on food
stamps when she was getting her PhD while Obama
was living with his grandparents in Hawaii and
going to an expensive private school.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Elitist, was: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[Sal Sunshine]

On Sep 20, 2008, at 4:35 PM, sparaig wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


As I heard someone point out today, isn't it ironic that a guy  
worth $100
million with 9 houses in three time zones is accusing a guy raised  
by a

single mother on food stamps of being elitist.



Its all in the attiude, don't you know? Obama is out of touch with  
"real Americans:
while McCain, like BUsh, is a good ole boy you'd love to have a  
beer with because,
well, you know, he doesn't talk down to you and you instinctively  
know he

understands you more than Obama would.


And isn't that also called "white privilege"?

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Look Who's Irrational Now

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

[Lawson wrote:]
> ALl the study really showed is that people who are members of
> a conservative group tend to believe only in the beliefs of
> that conservative group while members of more liberal gorups
> tend to be more ecclective in their belief systems.

As I said:

> The point is that atheists and the
> "irreligious," rather than being all scientifically
> minded, believe more in New Age-type stuff.

In other words, the militant atheists' notion that
if we get rid of religion everyone will come to their
senses and not believe anything weird is bunk.

> The questionaire also found that not only did most people
> believe in Angels, but that they had been *helped* those
> angels and that they had been spoken to by God. How is
> this any different than believing in palmreading or
> speaking to the dead via a medium, save that the church
> they belong to only recognizes chruch-snacitoned supernatural
> phenomena as real?

The point is that the militant atheists' notion that
if we get rid of religion everyone will come to their
senses and not believe anything weird is bunk.

> > > Perhaps the study found that lerberal religious people are more
> > > likely to *indulge* in their beliefs but to suggest that
> > > orthodox Christians don't believe in suchthigns is, well, 
> > > deceptive, at best.
> > 
> > They didn't "suggest," they have data to prove it.
> > 
> > But the key is the phrase "such things." What 
> > evangelicals believe in is the traditional Christian
> > stuff (see above). The point is that atheists and the
> > "irreligious," rather than being all scientifically
> > minded, believe more in New Age-type stuff.
> 
> That is, non-Conservative Christian stuff.
> 
> > Evangelicals, basically, are limited to traditional
> > Christian beliefs as a matter of dogma, whereas the
> > "irreligious" can believe in a whole range of nutty
> > stuff, with no limitations; their beliefs aren't
> > prescribed by or constrained by Scripture as the
> > evangelicals' beliefs are.
> 
> Well, gee, and this means what, exactly? That conservative
> people tend to accept a much more narrow set of beliefs
> as valid than liberals?

The point is that the militant atheists' notion that
if we get rid of religion everyone will come to their
senses and not believe anything weird is bunk.

> BTW, I can see why you didn't want me to read the original
> study, but merely the article

I'm sorry, where did you see me say I didn't want
you to read the original study? I left the whole
thing in above so you can point it out to me.

As Barry would say, I'll wait.

, by someone who is herself a 
> published writer whose religion and writings favor the study's 
> findings.
> 
> http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=52815
> 
> > > Andf of course, I recall Skip Alexander's PhD thesis which found
> > > that prison inmates who converted to the most strict religious 
> > > sects became worse on every personality measure.
> > 
> > Speaking of folks with an agenda, you mean?
> 
> yes indeedy. Speaking of someone with a rather obvious agenda...
> 
> Judy...

HAW!! And my agenda is...?

[FairfieldLife] Morphing Paul and Sanders -- Re: Billions for Bailouts! Who Pays?

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Its noteworthy that a socialist (Sanders) and a extreme libertarian
(Paul) have some of the more productive views views on this massive
financial unwinding -- relative to the hysteria in Washington. I think
elements of both are the clearest and most productive path out of this
mess. 

The course that Poulson is taking us down may bankrupt government, 
destroy the dollar -- as he essentially nationalizes major parts of
the financial, insurance and housing sectors. Which ultimately may
lead to the break-up of the US as some regions opt out of the massive
debt and create new, sounder currencies and financial systems. 

> The current financial crisis facing our country has been caused by the
> extreme right-wing economic policies pursued by the Bush administration.

While the Bush administration is deplorable on most fronts, the
class-warfare vision Bernie is picture tries to paint did not create
this crisis. Cutting marginal tax rates across the board did not
create this crisis. Bush certainly missed the boat on regulating hedge
funds and the huge derivatives markets -- but that was hardly a
"extreme right-wing" mistake. Mr. Treasury -- former chairman of
Goldman Sachs -- the pre-eminent investment bank --  and Mr Fed --
mainstream guys -- were all for that. 

Actually the current crises was, in good part due to the strong
interventionist (left-wing) policies of the Fed. Bernie may have
actually applauded this at the time. Paul was not a fan. The Fed / 

Greenspan created the dot.com bubble with massive infusions of easy
money. This however was a learning curve venture. The fed got even
better at juicing up the economy and created a really massive
spectacular speculative bubble in real estate -- strongly fueled by
cheap, even free money with the massive intervention of the Fed after
9/11. Too much money chasing too few sound investments -- the surplus
splashed into real estate and made homes unaffordable to 80-90% of new
buyers in many regions. And that created an economy on meth so to
speak -- driven in the last years of the "boom" by home equity loans
on phantom home values. 

continued .. adjacent post

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> > > > Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all
> > > > the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president,
> > > > they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict
> > > > McCain will do that we won't like.
> > > 
> > > The *one* thing? So, on every other issue, you believe that
> > > McCain will "do the right thing?" OR, do you mean women's 
> > > issues in general?
> > 
> > I didn't say "the one thing." Read it again, please.
> 
> You said 'with "one" thing' implying that no other thing was
> being argued. That's "the one thing," by definition, Judy.

The one thing being argued, yes. But that wasn't
how you interpreted it the first time. You thought
I meant the one thing McCain would do that I
wouldn't like.

> Sheesh. Where has your mind and mental equilibrium gone, Judy? 
> 
> Your ability to argue has always ben better than this.

Funny, I've been thinking exactly the same thing
about you, Lawson. Your, um, misstep above is a good
example.

[FairfieldLife] Morphing Paul and Sanders -- Re: Billions for Bailouts! Who Pays?

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> 
> Its noteworthy that a socialist (Sanders) and a extreme libertarian
> (Paul) have some of the more productive views views on this massive
> financial unwinding 


> Sanders: In my view, we need to go forward in addressing this
financial crisis by
> insisting on four basic principles:
> 

> 
> Specifically, to pay for the bailout, which is estimated to cost up
to $1
> trillion, 

I disagree with the focus on bailouts. Buying toxic mortgages will be
boosting and supporting the current extensive overvaluation of housing
-- and locking many people out of the housing market.  Many have been
waiting patiently for prices to come down to level supported by the
fundamentals. The Treasury Department and Congress are seeking to prop
up artificially high prices and lock a majority of non-homeowners out
of the housing market.  

This is a bailout of i) bad practices on Wall Street, ii) aggressive
-- bordering on fraudulent -- lending practices, and iii) new or
trading-up homeowners who made a risky big bet, trying to make a
bundle in the real estate market. They bet wrong. (I bet wrong in the
dot.com bubble but didn't and don't expect a bailout). 

While there is a lot of talk of the destruction of wealth -- wealth is
not real if its based on bubble psychology and complex financial
instruments that hide the lack of value. This puffed up "false" wealth
needs to be wrung out of the economy. A bailout will only prolong it. 

Prices of all assets need to adjust.  No one in congress, and
certainly not the White House, has the knowledge to direct this. Only
the market can unwind this huge bubble of false wealth.   Its hubris
to think congress can direct this unwinding. huge bailouts will
distort, and slow the complex unwinding that ultimately must take place.

However, there will be large disruptions, relocations  and adjustment
as the economy unwinds the huge mistakes and bad bets of both common
folk and "players". I favor letting the necessary undwinding and asset
value correction take place. And use the t rillon dollars earmarked
for wall-street to provide massive retrainng and educational grants
and loans to those whose lose careers and jobs as things unwind. 

>the government should: 
> a) Impose a five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a
year
> for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers. That would raise
more
> than $300 billion in revenue; 

I think this is fair. Normally, I am in favor of low marginal tax
rates as a key to rapid economic growth.   But a 300 billion / year,
1.5 trillion over five years, seems an appropriate price for the
winners of the shake-out to pay as an entrance fee. They will hardly
starve. And restructuring, not growth is the key theme for the next
five years. 
 
> b) Ensure that assets purchased from banks are realistically
discounted so
> companies are not rewarded for their risky behavior and taxpayers can
> recover the amount they paid for them; and 
 
This is part of the bail out -- but I advocate no bailout of bad
investments and loads. The phantom wealth and vacuousness of the
economy unwind.  (The Ron side)

And similtaneously provide a large safety net -- in educational and
re-training grants (including living expenses) for those squeezed out
of the job market during the transition. (The Bernie Side)

But if any bail out occurs, Bernie is correct. Purchase assets only at
steep discounts.   
 
> c) Require that taxpayers receive equity stakes in the bailed-out
companies
> so that the assumption of risk is rewarded when companies' stock
goes up.
 
Making the government a speculator doses not solve the fundamental
problem.
  
 
> (2) There must be a major economic recovery package which puts
Americans to
> work at decent wages. Among many other areas, we can create millions
of jobs
> rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and moving our country from
fossil
> fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. 

On top of the 1.5 trillion education / retraining fund / safety net
during the shakeout, an aggressive "revenue neutral" carbon tax,
starting today. All carbon taxes re-invested in "New-Energy" -- 
transforming the way we produce and use energy to the core. 

Fund the transfomation of solar, wind and biofuel (algae, switchgrass,
not-corn etc))industries.  50% reduction in greenhouse emissions in 20
years. 40% increase in vehicle, appliance and building
energy-efficiency. Aggressive loan programs to all new-energy
companies and start-ups. Eliminate capital gains taxes on all
New-Energy renewable / efficiency energy ventures over the next 10
years (investment funds from around the world will flood in). No more
transfers of wealth to oil producing religious fanatics and
authoratarian regimes (Defense and homeland security costs can then be
cut in half, or quartered).

Let the  real-estate asset bubble and the massivel

Re: [FairfieldLife] Elitist, was: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[Jonathan Chadwick]

Try to imagine them together in college (do we ever really get over that?).  
McCain was a half-drunken, fratboy-type who took more pride in getting laid 
than getting good grades.  Barry graduated from Columbia then sold himself as 
the best student at Harvard Law.  John still sees the two of them that way.

--- On Sat, 9/20/08, Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

From: Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Elitist, was: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN 
stopped by host
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, September 20, 2008, 5:25 PM








As I heard someone point out today, isn’t it ironic that a guy worth $100 
million with 9 houses in three time zones is accusing a guy raised by a single 
mother on food stamps of being elitist.  














  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > > The point of this clip is that the host wouldn't
> > > let the woman explain why she was supporting 
> > > McCain over Obama.
> > 
> > That's not how I saw it.
> 
> Watch it again.
>  
> > > Everybody knows Fox News has a strongly
> > > conservative slant, but CNN pretends to be
> > > objective politically.
> > > 
> > > > I don't think the written commentary was that good.  Most of
> > > > the interview was journalism 101 where the person was asked
> > > > for specifics.
> > > 
> > > She wasn't allowed to *give* the specifics.
> > 
> > That's not how I saw it.
> 
> Read the transcript.
> 
> > > >  I don't see how it would advance our understanding to give
> > > > this woman an unchallenged voice on TV.
> > > 
> > > She should be allowed to make her points,
> > > *then* challenged.
> > 
> > My own take: she was going through a list of talkign points
> > that was meant to be long enough that there would have been
> > no time to ask questions at the end.
> 
> Nonsense. It was almost a seven-minute interview.
> Let her run on for two minutes, *then* interrupt
> if needed.
> 

Shrug. Her interview. 

> > >   The truth is that her claim about
> > > > Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle.
> > > 
> > > Uh, no. "Elitism" doesn't have anything to do
> > > with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle;
> > > it's an attitude of superiority. One can be
> > > an elitist without being wealthy; and not all
> > > wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism
> > > has much more to do with class and education.
> > 
> > Heh. She's the LADY Rothschilde, with a PhD, homes all
> > over the world, and a distain for someone who wants to
> > boost her taxes (and his own) by a significant amount.
> > 
> > I've done the math, Judy. She's elitist.
> 
> Non sequitur. As I just said, wealth isn't a
> measure of elitism.
> 
> And in any case, she isn't running for president.
> 

So why didn't you say that before rather than pontificate about
elitism if its all irrelevant because she isn't running for president.

> > > > The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain
> > > > out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I
> > > > guess.  But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get
> > > > nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal
> > > > go for McCain/Palin.
> > > 
> > > The liberals who are supporting McCain are
> > > doing so because they believe the Democratic
> > > Party has failed them and needs to be brought
> > > down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see
> > > the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court
> > > nominations as a kind of blackmail.
> > 
> > So, you're going to stand on princile because blackmailers
> > should never be dealt with, even if you have good reason to
> > assume they ARE going to ruin your life if you don't comply.
> 
> I don't have *enough* reason to make that assumption
> in this case.

So you don't think that the Republican platform, which is entirely 
in-tune with Sarah Palin's beliefs, isn't reason to assume that 
REpublicans will work very hard to overturn Roe v Wade via 
SCOTUS nominations?


> 
> I don't think it's that likely that Roe v. Wade
> will be overturned. And on the other hand, I
> don't trust Obama to nominate and fight for justices
> that will uphold Roe v. Wade, or other progressive
> measures, for that matter.

Because he's made statements concerning this? Why do you doubt
him on this specific matter?

> 
> Bottom line, Supreme Court nominations by themselves
> are nowhere near a sufficient threat to get me to
> vote for Obama.

What aspect of Obama's voting record makes you feel that he isn't
a better choice than McCain? 



> 
> > > I'm not supporting McCain, but the above is
> > > the reason I'm not supporting Obama either.
> > 
> > Eh, good luck with that, Judy.
> 
> You think I'm going to have some kind of problem
> voting for McKinney?
>

If the choice is voting third party and thereby helping someone you 
are uncomfortable with become president, I gotta asK why vote
3rd party? DO you believe that the difference between McCain and
Obama on issues important to you is insufficient to support him?

WHich issues do you believe are the most important here?

Why did CLinton have your vote during the primary while Obama 
does NOT have your vote during the November election?


lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Comic potential

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://www.churchsigngenerator.com/
> 
> This really cracked me up.
> 
> How do we post pictures if we use Web access?  I know Shemp has been
> able to do it.  If I use the rich text editor, I could link to a pic
> online but what if I want to add one that is not online?
>

**

Click on richtext editor. Right click on the picture (doesn't matter 
where it is, online, or you have scanned it as a jpeg or other type to 
your desktop or my pictures), then select copy. Paste it to the FFL 
richtext message space.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Look Who's Irrational Now

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> [Lawson wrote:]
> > ALl the study really showed is that people who are members of
> > a conservative group tend to believe only in the beliefs of
> > that conservative group while members of more liberal gorups
> > tend to be more ecclective in their belief systems.
> 
> As I said:
> 
> > The point is that atheists and the
> > "irreligious," rather than being all scientifically
> > minded, believe more in New Age-type stuff.
> 
> In other words, the militant atheists' notion that
> if we get rid of religion everyone will come to their
> senses and not believe anything weird is bunk.
> 

So, New Age beliefs aren't religious because they aren't
organized?

But in fact, people will invent or find things to believe in
even if they haven't been taught to believe in them. PErsonally,
I find extreme forms of atheism to be irrational also.


> > The questionaire also found that not only did most people
> > believe in Angels, but that they had been *helped* those
> > angels and that they had been spoken to by God. How is
> > this any different than believing in palmreading or
> > speaking to the dead via a medium, save that the church
> > they belong to only recognizes chruch-snacitoned supernatural
> > phenomena as real?
> 
> The point is that the militant atheists' notion that
> if we get rid of religion everyone will come to their
> senses and not believe anything weird is bunk.
> 

WEll, the rigidity of some of their beliefs is bunk as well, so its
not exactly surprisign. Howeer, this particular study was designed to
ask questions in a way to support the sponsors' own beliefs, so to 
point to it as proving something is also bunk.


> > > > Perhaps the study found that lerberal religious people are more
> > > > likely to *indulge* in their beliefs but to suggest that
> > > > orthodox Christians don't believe in suchthigns is, well, 
> > > > deceptive, at best.
> > > 
> > > They didn't "suggest," they have data to prove it.
> > > 
> > > But the key is the phrase "such things." What 
> > > evangelicals believe in is the traditional Christian
> > > stuff (see above). The point is that atheists and the
> > > "irreligious," rather than being all scientifically
> > > minded, believe more in New Age-type stuff.
> > 
> > That is, non-Conservative Christian stuff.
> > 
> > > Evangelicals, basically, are limited to traditional
> > > Christian beliefs as a matter of dogma, whereas the
> > > "irreligious" can believe in a whole range of nutty
> > > stuff, with no limitations; their beliefs aren't
> > > prescribed by or constrained by Scripture as the
> > > evangelicals' beliefs are.
> > 
> > Well, gee, and this means what, exactly? That conservative
> > people tend to accept a much more narrow set of beliefs
> > as valid than liberals?
> 
> The point is that the militant atheists' notion that
> if we get rid of religion everyone will come to their
> senses and not believe anything weird is bunk.
> 

And again, militant atheists are obviously as irrational as everyone else...


> > BTW, I can see why you didn't want me to read the original
> > study, but merely the article
> 
> I'm sorry, where did you see me say I didn't want
> you to read the original study? I left the whole
> thing in above so you can point it out to me.
> 

And said don't bother to read the study, just the article, which was
written by someone with an agenda similar to that of the sponsors of the
survey in the first place.

> As Barry would say, I'll wait.
> 
> , by someone who is herself a 
> > published writer whose religion and writings favor the study's 
> > findings.
> > 
> > http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=52815
> > 
> > > > Andf of course, I recall Skip Alexander's PhD thesis which found
> > > > that prison inmates who converted to the most strict religious 
> > > > sects became worse on every personality measure.
> > > 
> > > Speaking of folks with an agenda, you mean?
> > 
> > yes indeedy. Speaking of someone with a rather obvious agenda...
> > 
> > Judy...
> 
> HAW!! And my agenda is...?
>

To win arguments, at any cost.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Morphing Paul and Sanders -- Re: Billions for Bailouts! Who Pays?

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


[snip]

> 
> On top of the 1.5 trillion education / retraining fund / safety net
> during the shakeout, an aggressive "revenue neutral" carbon tax,
> starting today.

[snip]

Does any sane person still believe in catastrophic man-made global 
warming?

How many more of the world's poor do you want to kill with your insane 
policies?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > >   The truth is that her claim about
> > > > Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle.
> > > 
> > > Uh, no. "Elitism" doesn't have anything to do
> > > with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle;
> > > it's an attitude of superiority. One can be
> > > an elitist without being wealthy; and not all
> > > wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism
> > > has much more to do with class and education.
> > 
> > I appreciate an opportunity to focus on what the word
> > really means.  I just spent a few minutes searching.
> > I think the conclusion I draw is that it is a stupid
> > term when used in elections between people who obviously
> > fit the definition in most ways.  I know some really
> > poor uneducated people who carry an attitude of
> > superiority over more educated richer people because of
> > their street smarts.  So the definitions become vague
> > enough that people can use it as a weapon in politics
> > like the word "liberal" to demonize the other person.  I
> > don't find it very useful since it is so subjective.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what do you think it is
> about Obama that some folks are calling "elitist"?
> 

I'm curious as to what YOU think is elitist. The sound bites that
people point to, like "clinging to guns and religion" were hardly
elitist in the context they were made in.

>  I know highly
> > educated poor people, rich uneducated people, and each of them
> > can use their situation to be elitist if that is how they roll.
> > I don't believe it is the most important thing to focus on in
> > a candidate.  I still think it was a legitimate challenge in
> > this interview.
> 
> But not in terms of its being hypocritical for her
> to call Obama an elitist because she's rich. It's
> fine to challenge her on whether Obama is an elitist.
> 

I would say its hypocritical for her to call him elistist while citing 
erroneous,
even outright false claims to explain it.


> > > > The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain
> > > > out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I
> > > > guess.  But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get
> > > > nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal
> > > > go for McCain/Palin.
> > > 
> > > The liberals who are supporting McCain are
> > > doing so because they believe the Democratic
> > > Party has failed them and needs to be brought
> > > down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see
> > > the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court
> > > nominations as a kind of blackmail.
> > 
> > How can it be blackmail when it is just a fact?
> 
> How can it be a fact when it hasn't happened yet?
> 
> (And even if it were a fact, why would that mean
> it couldn't be blackmail??)
> 
>   The
> > liberal/conservative choice for the next judges will effect the
> > rest of our lives.  No one is blackmailing anybody.
> 
> Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all
> the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president,
> they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict
> McCain will do that we won't like.
> 

The *one* thing? So, on every other issue, you believe that McCain
will "do the right thing?" OR, do you mean women's issues in general?


> > I also feel betrayed by the democratic party for cowering to
> > Bush's Iraq war.  But after 8 years of republicans I don't
> > believe it can be brought down any more.
> 
> It wasn't "the party," strictly speaking, that caved
> to Bush on the war; it was the Democrats in Congress.
> 
>   I believe that it can rebuild a lot better
> > with a democrat in the White House.  I don't see how four
> > years of McCain/Palin is going to help re-build the party.
> 
> The party leadership--Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, et
> al.--will be discredited if McCain wins; that
> will mean it will *have* to be rebuilt, with 
> different people in the leadership. If Obama wins,
> it'll just be more of the same; they'll have been
> proved "right."
> 

So, the party needs to be torn down and rebuilt...?


> > I fear that this crazy logic that electing McCain will HELP the
> > democratic party will sentence us to four more years of
> > republicans,and yes, more ultra conservative Supreme Court judges.
> 
> Again, it's a matter of destroying the current
> party and putting together a new one, not helping
> the current party.
> 

OK, that's exactly what you mean.

>   If
> > the Bush/Gore fiasco didn't convince you of the wide
> > reaching implications for the democratic party didn't
> > convince you, I don't know what will.
> 
> Want to try this again? Your syntax got garbled. Didn't
> convince me of what, exactly?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > > > > Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all
> > > > > the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president,
> > > > > they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict
> > > > > McCain will do that we won't like.
> > > > 
> > > > The *one* thing? So, on every other issue, you believe that
> > > > McCain will "do the right thing?" OR, do you mean women's 
> > > > issues in general?
> > > 
> > > I didn't say "the one thing." Read it again, please.
> > 
> > You said 'with "one" thing' implying that no other thing was
> > being argued. That's "the one thing," by definition, Judy.
> 
> The one thing being argued, yes. But that wasn't
> how you interpreted it the first time. You thought
> I meant the one thing McCain would do that I
> wouldn't like.

The topic was the "threat" of "one thing" Judy. The argument, in this case,
is what you are being threatened with.

> 
> > Sheesh. Where has your mind and mental equilibrium gone, Judy? 
> > 
> > Your ability to argue has always ben better than this.
> 
> Funny, I've been thinking exactly the same thing
> about you, Lawson. Your, um, misstep above is a good
> example.
>

No doubt.



lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> > > > She should be allowed to make her points,
> > > > *then* challenged.
> > > 
> > > My own take: she was going through a list of talkign points
> > > that was meant to be long enough that there would have been
> > > no time to ask questions at the end.
> > 
> > Nonsense. It was almost a seven-minute interview.
> > Let her run on for two minutes, *then* interrupt
> > if needed.
> 
> Shrug. Her interview.

Point is, it showed her bias.


> > > I've done the math, Judy. She's elitist.
> > 
> > Non sequitur. As I just said, wealth isn't a
> > measure of elitism.
> > 
> > And in any case, she isn't running for president.
> 
> So why didn't you say that before rather than pontificate
> about elitism if its all irrelevant because she isn't
> running for president.

Because the point I wanted to get across was that
people misinterpret the term "elitism" (as it's
used against Obama) to mean wealth. The other was
an afterthought, not the main event.


> > > So, you're going to stand on princile because blackmailers
> > > should never be dealt with, even if you have good reason to
> > > assume they ARE going to ruin your life if you don't comply.
> > 
> > I don't have *enough* reason to make that assumption
> > in this case.
> 
> So you don't think that the Republican platform, which is entirely 
> in-tune with Sarah Palin's beliefs, isn't reason to assume that 
> REpublicans will work very hard to overturn Roe v Wade via 
> SCOTUS nominations?

Did I say that? Or did you make it up?

> > I don't think it's that likely that Roe v. Wade
> > will be overturned. And on the other hand, I
> > don't trust Obama to nominate and fight for justices
> > that will uphold Roe v. Wade, or other progressive
> > measures, for that matter.
> 
> Because he's made statements concerning this? Why do you doubt
> him on this specific matter?

Because he's been a crushing disappointment with
regard to his support for progressive causes
generally; and because he was going to vote for
Roberts's confirmation before he was talked out
of it by somebody who told him he'd have a hard
time explaining such a vote if he ever wanted to
run for higher office.


> What aspect of Obama's voting record makes you feel that
> he isn't a better choice than McCain?

It's not just voting record; it's a whole long list
of things I don't have time to go into (although
I've mentioned many of them here before).


> If the choice is voting third party and thereby helping someone
> you are uncomfortable with become president, I gotta asK why
> vote 3rd party? DO you believe that the difference between
> McCain and Obama on issues important to you is insufficient to 
> support him?

Again, it's not just issues. He pays better lip
service than McCain to issues that are important to
me, but I'm not convinced it goes beyond lip service.
He's backed down on too many things already (FISA,
e.g.). I don't trust him generally; and I don't think
he's going to be competent in office.

> WHich issues do you believe are the most important here?
> 
> Why did CLinton have your vote during the primary while Obama 
> does NOT have your vote during the November election?

Uh, because they're very different. She's a real
partisan, a real fighter for progressive causes,
a real wonk on policy. He's none of the above. Plus
which, I'm not at all sure he won the primary
honestly.

And it's not all just Obama, either (see other posts
about rebuilding the Democratic Party).

[FairfieldLife] World's tallest building now moves to S Africa

[bob_brigante]

"The Maharishi Development Project plans to erect a R20-billion,
108-storey building on a 270-hectare vacant piece of land in
Frankenwald, adjacent to Alexandra in Gauteng.

The complex, which will house 50 000 people and provide 15 000 jobs,
will be the tallest in the world, says director Peter Swan.

The architects who designed the Manhattan Twin Towers World Conference
Centre will design the building.

http://tinyurl.com/5xj9tj 

[FairfieldLife] Feminist Majority PAC Endorses Barack Obama

[do.rflex]

The Feminist Majority Political Action Committee endorses and strongly
supports the election of Barack Obama and Joseph Biden. Obama and
Biden are strong supporters of women's rights including the right to
equal pay for equal work, programs to reduce violence against women, a
woman's right to choose legal and safe abortion as well as have access
to affordable birth control, work/family balance issues, and end to
the Iraq war.

"Obama/Biden are running on the strongest platform for women's rights
of any major party in USA history," said Eleanor Smeal, President of
the Feminist Majority. "But it's not just platforms. Voting records
show the stark difference between the Obama and McCain tickets."

Feminist Majority is proud to stand with our allied organizations the
National Organization for Women, Business and Professional Women,
National Association of Social Workers, National Congress of Black
Women, and the Women's Information Network as well as those who have
endorsed separately including the National Association of Nurses,
American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association,
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, NARAL, and literally
hundreds of women leaders from many different sectors who have broken
down barriers for women.

~Much more here: http://fempac.org/press/ObamaEndorsement_091608.htm

[FairfieldLife] Re: Look Who's Irrational Now

[authfriend]

One comment at the end:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> > 
> > [Lawson wrote:]
> > > ALl the study really showed is that people who are members of
> > > a conservative group tend to believe only in the beliefs of
> > > that conservative group while members of more liberal gorups
> > > tend to be more ecclective in their belief systems.
> > 
> > As I said:
> > 
> > > The point is that atheists and the
> > > "irreligious," rather than being all scientifically
> > > minded, believe more in New Age-type stuff.
> > 
> > In other words, the militant atheists' notion that
> > if we get rid of religion everyone will come to their
> > senses and not believe anything weird is bunk.
> > 
> 
> So, New Age beliefs aren't religious because they aren't
> organized?
> 
> But in fact, people will invent or find things to believe in
> even if they haven't been taught to believe in them. PErsonally,
> I find extreme forms of atheism to be irrational also.
> 
> 
> > > The questionaire also found that not only did most people
> > > believe in Angels, but that they had been *helped* those
> > > angels and that they had been spoken to by God. How is
> > > this any different than believing in palmreading or
> > > speaking to the dead via a medium, save that the church
> > > they belong to only recognizes chruch-snacitoned supernatural
> > > phenomena as real?
> > 
> > The point is that the militant atheists' notion that
> > if we get rid of religion everyone will come to their
> > senses and not believe anything weird is bunk.
> > 
> 
> WEll, the rigidity of some of their beliefs is bunk as well, so its
> not exactly surprisign. Howeer, this particular study was designed 
to
> ask questions in a way to support the sponsors' own beliefs, so to 
> point to it as proving something is also bunk.
> 
> 
> > > > > Perhaps the study found that lerberal religious people are 
more
> > > > > likely to *indulge* in their beliefs but to suggest that
> > > > > orthodox Christians don't believe in suchthigns is, well, 
> > > > > deceptive, at best.
> > > > 
> > > > They didn't "suggest," they have data to prove it.
> > > > 
> > > > But the key is the phrase "such things." What 
> > > > evangelicals believe in is the traditional Christian
> > > > stuff (see above). The point is that atheists and the
> > > > "irreligious," rather than being all scientifically
> > > > minded, believe more in New Age-type stuff.
> > > 
> > > That is, non-Conservative Christian stuff.
> > > 
> > > > Evangelicals, basically, are limited to traditional
> > > > Christian beliefs as a matter of dogma, whereas the
> > > > "irreligious" can believe in a whole range of nutty
> > > > stuff, with no limitations; their beliefs aren't
> > > > prescribed by or constrained by Scripture as the
> > > > evangelicals' beliefs are.
> > > 
> > > Well, gee, and this means what, exactly? That conservative
> > > people tend to accept a much more narrow set of beliefs
> > > as valid than liberals?
> > 
> > The point is that the militant atheists' notion that
> > if we get rid of religion everyone will come to their
> > senses and not believe anything weird is bunk.
> > 
> 
> And again, militant atheists are obviously as irrational as 
everyone else...
> 
> 
> > > BTW, I can see why you didn't want me to read the original
> > > study, but merely the article
> > 
> > I'm sorry, where did you see me say I didn't want
> > you to read the original study? I left the whole
> > thing in above so you can point it out to me.

> 
> And said don't bother to read the study, just the article,

I'm sorry, where did you see me say don't bother
to read the study, just the article? Again, I've
left the whole thing in above so you can point it
out to me.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> > 
> > > > > > Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all
> > > > > > the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president,
> > > > > > they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict
> > > > > > McCain will do that we won't like.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The *one* thing? So, on every other issue, you believe that
> > > > > McCain will "do the right thing?" OR, do you mean women's 
> > > > > issues in general?
> > > > 
> > > > I didn't say "the one thing." Read it again, please.
> > > 
> > > You said 'with "one" thing' implying that no other thing was
> > > being argued. That's "the one thing," by definition, Judy.
> > 
> > The one thing being argued, yes. But that wasn't
> > how you interpreted it the first time. You thought
> > I meant the one thing McCain would do that I
> > wouldn't like.
> 
> The topic was the "threat" of "one thing" Judy. The argument,
> in this case, is what you are being threatened with.

Sorry, I'm finished talking to you. I've never
known you to be dishonest before, Lawson, but
you are now.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Elitist, was: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As I heard someone point out today, isn't it ironic that a guy worth 
$100
> million with 9 houses in three time zones is accusing a guy raised by 
a
> single mother on food stamps of being elitist.
>


Ironic, but true.

And further irony: the camp of the guy whose mother conceived him at 17 
and gave birth to him at 18 were the first to snottily look down their 
noses to Sarah Palin's daughter for conceiving at 17.

[FairfieldLife] Why it's dangerous to be a witch in a recession

[bob_brigante]

http://www.slate.com/id/2200227/ 

"People tend to lash out in tough times."

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Look Who's Irrational Now

[Jonathan Chadwick]

As a matter of fact Fairfield itself is full on mainline 
(nonevangelical) Christians who e.g. simply couldn't care less about what 
the gurus around here (the on the program ones or otherwise) are up to.  But 
the evangelicals in town are positively hostile.  On the really liberal 
end, the Fairfield UU's (who after all are not officially Christian) reflect 
many of the same tensions we go back and forth on right on this spot:  a few 
probably hate TM, some others are in the dome twice daily.

--- On Sat, 9/20/08, authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

From: authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Look Who's Irrational Now
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, September 20, 2008, 6:25 PM






One comment at the end:

--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ..> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "sparaig"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> > 
> > [Lawson wrote:]
> > > ALl the study really showed is that people who are members of
> > > a conservative group tend to believe only in the beliefs of
> > > that conservative group while members of more liberal gorups
> > > tend to be more ecclective in their belief systems.
> > 
> > As I said:
> > 
> > > The point is that atheists and the
> > > "irreligious, " rather than being all scientifically
> > > minded, believe more in New Age-type stuff.
> > 
> > In other words, the militant atheists' notion that
> > if we get rid of religion everyone will come to their
> > senses and not believe anything weird is bunk.
> > 
> 
> So, New Age beliefs aren't religious because they aren't
> organized?
> 
> But in fact, people will invent or find things to believe in
> even if they haven't been taught to believe in them. PErsonally,
> I find extreme forms of atheism to be irrational also.
> 
> 
> > > The questionaire also found that not only did most people
> > > believe in Angels, but that they had been *helped* those
> > > angels and that they had been spoken to by God. How is
> > > this any different than believing in palmreading or
> > > speaking to the dead via a medium, save that the church
> > > they belong to only recognizes chruch-snacitoned supernatural
> > > phenomena as real?
> > 
> > The point is that the militant atheists' notion that
> > if we get rid of religion everyone will come to their
> > senses and not believe anything weird is bunk.
> > 
> 
> WEll, the rigidity of some of their beliefs is bunk as well, so its
> not exactly surprisign. Howeer, this particular study was designed 
to
> ask questions in a way to support the sponsors' own beliefs, so to 
> point to it as proving something is also bunk.
> 
> 
> > > > > Perhaps the study found that lerberal religious people are 
more
> > > > > likely to *indulge* in their beliefs but to suggest that
> > > > > orthodox Christians don't believe in suchthigns is, well, 
> > > > > deceptive, at best.
> > > > 
> > > > They didn't "suggest," they have data to prove it.
> > > > 
> > > > But the key is the phrase "such things." What 
> > > > evangelicals believe in is the traditional Christian
> > > > stuff (see above). The point is that atheists and the
> > > > "irreligious, " rather than being all scientifically
> > > > minded, believe more in New Age-type stuff.
> > > 
> > > That is, non-Conservative Christian stuff.
> > > 
> > > > Evangelicals, basically, are limited to traditional
> > > > Christian beliefs as a matter of dogma, whereas the
> > > > "irreligious" can believe in a whole range of nutty
> > > > stuff, with no limitations; their beliefs aren't
> > > > prescribed by or constrained by Scripture as the
> > > > evangelicals' beliefs are.
> > > 
> > > Well, gee, and this means what, exactly? That conservative
> > > people tend to accept a much more narrow set of beliefs
> > > as valid than liberals?
> > 
> > The point is that the militant atheists' notion that
> > if we get rid of religion everyone will come to their
> > senses and not believe anything weird is bunk.
> > 
> 
> And again, militant atheists are obviously as irrational as 
everyone else...
> 
> 
> > > BTW, I can see why you didn't want me to read the original
> > > study, but merely the article
> > 
> > I'm sorry, where did you see me say I didn't want
> > you to read the original study? I left the whole
> > thing in above so you can point it out to me.

> 
> And said don't bother to read the study, just the article,

I'm sorry, where did you see me say don't bother
to read the study, just the article? Again, I've
left the whole thing in above so you can point it
out to me.

 














  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> > OTOH we are in a shitstorm so going with whoever you think has the
> > brainpower and perspective to lead us through it makes sense. 
> 
> Compare Solutions to Financial Crisis: Warm and Fuzzy Non-Specific
> Obama: http://preview.tinyurl.com/43dolg Strong and Specific Hillary:
> http://tinyurl.com/4ervw5 "Hillary took to the floor of the Senate
> today to lay out her plan for halting the economic meltdown, and her
> Senate staff has the video of her speech up online. She's speaking
> about what needs to be done NOW to address the economic meltdown
> taking place up on Wall Street this week. She talks in detail for over
> 20 minutes and dammit, it just breaks my heart that someone this
> capable and brilliant isn't headed to the White House this fall."
> Alegre http://tinyurl.com/4cy7ur on Hillary's statements.

Sorry, I don't get it. Clinton's proposals, while good intended,
simply put band-aids on gaping wounds. And actually support and fuel
the core problem -- phantom asset valuation. They don't solve it --
they simply delay an inevitable future, expanded, crisis, IMO.

Clinton's proposals:

*  Create a new entity to buy up and quarantine toxic mortgage
securities that are dragging down the markets which would allow the
markets to stabilize. Last spring Senator Clinton was among the first
to call for a new entity modeled after the successful Depression-era
Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) or the Resolution Trust
Corporation (RTC) created after the Savings and Loan crisis.

---
Buy them up with non-existent government funds, by a gov't already 10
trillion in debt. Popping another 2 trillion debt, the gov't may
actually sink. The dollar may go down the toilet. Strong inflation
leading to hyperinflation may follow as the government pumps more
phantom dollars into the market to pump up pahntom real estate prices. 

All to pump up housing prices, or sustain them at over-inflated,
speculative bubble values. This is not a solution, its a continuation
of the problem. 

Prices which by the way, lock 10's of millions of citizens and
families out of the housing market. Clinton's proposals perpetuate
housing at inflated prices for the elite "haves". Leading perhaps,
eventually, to real class-warfare.
 

* Place a temporary moratorium on the most abusive stock
transactions, many of which involve the "short-selling" of stocks. 
Yesterday, Senator Clinton wrote to the Securities and Exchange
Commission urging such a moratorium, saying it would provide breathing
room for the markets to recover, for investors to make accurate
assessments of companies and for regulators to assess what trading
practices should be permanently banned.

-
This is idiotic populism. Banning short-selling is the equivalent to
banning the sale of stocks. "Sorry, we can't let you sell that stock
in that poorly run, worthless asset swamped firm, because, hey it will
lower the price of their stock and put in more in line with the actual
value of the company." This is lunacy. And populist pandering. And
displays a shocking ignorance of financial markets.

However, if she only means full disclosure of short sales, limits on x
% of short sales by any one "fund", and elimination of naked shorts
9already illegal -- just enforce the law  -- then her proposal is one
of common sense.  
 

* Convene an emergency economic summit to show the American people
their government is working together. Bringing together leaders in the
administration and Congress with lenders, consumer advocates, non
profits, financial institutions, and all stakeholders will allow a
coordinated response to the crisis. 
---
Talk is good. To a point. But summits are often pandering and
positioning. Formation of a coherent strategy in abundant consultation
with all stakeholders is better.
 

* Aggressively pursue and encourage mortgage modifications.
Senator Clinton has introduced legislation to remove barriers to
mortgage modification and to encourage lenders to voluntarily work
with borrowers to keep them current on payments and in their homes.

What is "mortgage modification" code for? 

This sounds like a a bailout of Wall Street who foolishly bought
packages of sophisticated yet high risk loans, aggressive -- bordering
on fraudulent -- lending practices, and new or trading-up homeowners 
who made a risky big bet, trying to make a bundle in the real estate
market. They all bet wrong. Being a mommy and daddy to all the kids
who made foolish decisions -- or calculated ones motivated by quick
profits -- is not a solution.

The only sustainable solution is to let these complex financial
instruments, and housing valuations, to unwind and reach true value.
There will be disruptions. The 2 trillion of bailout funds would be
far better used as a direct safety net for those who go belly-up due
to bad decisions, or lose jobs as the economy unwinds. the safety net
in the

[FairfieldLife] Morphing Paul and Sanders -- Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning  wrote:
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > 
> > On top of the 1.5 trillion education / retraining fund / safety net
> > during the shakeout, an aggressive "revenue neutral" carbon tax,
> > starting today.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Does any sane person still believe in catastrophic man-made global 
> warming?
> 
> How many more of the world's poor do you want to kill with your insane 
> policies?

An aggressive "revenue neutral" carbon tax, starting today would be a
huge boon to the economy even if it was found that man-made carbon has
nothing to do with global warming ((which is as probable as pigs
flying out your ass- but stranger things have happened (emerged) I am
sure. ))

An aggressive revenue neutral carbon tax would allow for aggressive
tax reductions in other areas. Not quite sure where this kills anyone
-- other than in your fantasies.

I favor tax breaks for the renewable and energy-efficiency
technologies. The payback in the reduction of defense costs, homeland
security costs, strengthening the weak dollar (which is a hidden and
very toxic tax), reduction in more mainstream pollutants (Sox, Nox,
PM10 etc,  would be massive. The proceeds which could then actually
help substantially solve world hunger and poverty.

However, its reasonable to discuss other revenue neutral targets for
the carbon tax revenues: 

1) eliminate capital gains and dividend taxes  

and/or

2) eliminate / reduce the payroll tax 

and/or

3)lower marginal income tax rates

and/or

4) massive investment in education and retraining at all levels. In
the US and abroad.

and/or

5) reducing the root causes of world hunger.

and/or

6) even coherence techologies

and/or

7) hookers and drugs for everyone (I want to capture the Curtis wing
of the party)

[FairfieldLife] Re: World's tallest building now moves to S Africa

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> "The Maharishi Development Project plans to erect a R20-billion,
> 108-storey building on a 270-hectare vacant piece of land in
> Frankenwald, adjacent to Alexandra in Gauteng.
> 
> The complex, which will house 50 000 people and provide 15 000 jobs,
> will be the tallest in the world, says director Peter Swan.
> 
> The architects who designed the Manhattan Twin Towers World Conference
> Centre will design the building.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/5xj9tj 
>

A look back in time?

  Anna Cox  
August 02 2000 at 11:10PM


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Look Who's Irrational Now

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One comment at the end:
[...]
> > And said don't bother to read the study, just the article,
> 
> I'm sorry, where did you see me say don't bother
> to read the study, just the article? Again, I've
> left the whole thing in above so you can point it
> out to me.
>
My bad, you said:

>>I suggest you read the article, if not the study
>>itself (it was performed by Gallup).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all
> > > > > > > the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president,
> > > > > > > they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict
> > > > > > > McCain will do that we won't like.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The *one* thing? So, on every other issue, you believe that
> > > > > > McCain will "do the right thing?" OR, do you mean women's 
> > > > > > issues in general?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I didn't say "the one thing." Read it again, please.
> > > > 
> > > > You said 'with "one" thing' implying that no other thing was
> > > > being argued. That's "the one thing," by definition, Judy.
> > > 
> > > The one thing being argued, yes. But that wasn't
> > > how you interpreted it the first time. You thought
> > > I meant the one thing McCain would do that I
> > > wouldn't like.
> > 
> > The topic was the "threat" of "one thing" Judy. The argument,
> > in this case, is what you are being threatened with.
> 
> Sorry, I'm finished talking to you. I've never
> known you to be dishonest before, Lawson, but
> you are now.
>

OK.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Elitist, was: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > As I heard someone point out today, isn't it ironic that a guy worth 
> $100
> > million with 9 houses in three time zones is accusing a guy raised by 
> a
> > single mother on food stamps of being elitist.
> >
> 
> 
> Ironic, but true.
> 
> And further irony: the camp of the guy whose mother conceived him at 17 
> and gave birth to him at 18 were the first to snottily look down their 
> noses to Sarah Palin's daughter for conceiving at 17.
>

While I'm sure that at least some Dems are taking potshots at Bristol Palin 
over 
being pregnant at 17, most Dems I've talked to were taking potshots at 
the hypocracy of Republicans for giving Bristol Palin a pass on being 
pregnant, while having a history of condemning non-whites or 
non-Republicans for the same behavior.

My take has never been about someone who is young or unmarried being 
pregnant (with 2 children boarn of of wedlock, how could I dare), but about 
the Repoublican's attempt to pretend the speculation about Bristol Palin was 
all about Bristol Palin rather than about her mother's bizarre behavior when 
she had Trig Paglin. It seemed easier to assume that Sarah was acting in a
 motherly way to rotect her and her daughter's reputation by pretending 
that SHE was Trig's mother, than to assume that Sarah Palin really behaved 
as strangely as she did, the day Trig was born.

Howeer, such charitable thoughts were obviously misguided because, in 
fact, Sarah Palin "outed" her daughter on national TV in order to prove 
she wasn't trying to protect her.

ANd THEN she goes around accusing people of being vicious for speculating 
that perhaps her daughter was pregnant back then rather than now.


Of course, your behavior is every bit as irrational and vicious as well, IMHO.



Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > > OTOH we are in a shitstorm so going with whoever you think has the
> > > brainpower and perspective to lead us through it makes sense. 
> > 
> > Compare Solutions to Financial Crisis: Warm and Fuzzy Non-Specific
> > Obama: http://preview.tinyurl.com/43dolg Strong and Specific Hillary:
> > http://tinyurl.com/4ervw5 "Hillary took to the floor of the Senate
> > today to lay out her plan for halting the economic meltdown, and her
> > Senate staff has the video of her speech up online. She's speaking
> > about what needs to be done NOW to address the economic meltdown
> > taking place up on Wall Street this week. She talks in detail for over
> > 20 minutes and dammit, it just breaks my heart that someone this
> > capable and brilliant isn't headed to the White House this fall."
> > Alegre http://tinyurl.com/4cy7ur on Hillary's statements.
> 
> Sorry, I don't get it. Clinton's proposals, while good intended,
> simply put band-aids on gaping wounds. And actually support and fuel
> the core problem -- phantom asset valuation. They don't solve it --
> they simply delay an inevitable future, expanded, crisis, IMO.
> 
> Clinton's proposals:
> 
> *  Create a new entity to buy up and quarantine toxic mortgage
> securities that are dragging down the markets which would allow the
> markets to stabilize. Last spring Senator Clinton was among the first
> to call for a new entity modeled after the successful Depression-era
> Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) or the Resolution Trust
> Corporation (RTC) created after the Savings and Loan crisis.
> 
> ---
> Buy them up with non-existent government funds, by a gov't already 10
> trillion in debt. Popping another 2 trillion debt, the gov't may
> actually sink. The dollar may go down the toilet. Strong inflation
> leading to hyperinflation may follow as the government pumps more
> phantom dollars into the market to pump up pahntom real estate prices. 
> 
> All to pump up housing prices, or sustain them at over-inflated,
> speculative bubble values. This is not a solution, its a continuation
> of the problem. 
> 
> Prices which by the way, lock 10's of millions of citizens and
> families out of the housing market. Clinton's proposals perpetuate
> housing at inflated prices for the elite "haves". Leading perhaps,
> eventually, to real class-warfare.
>  
> 
> * Place a temporary moratorium on the most abusive stock
> transactions, many of which involve the "short-selling" of stocks. 
> Yesterday, Senator Clinton wrote to the Securities and Exchange
> Commission urging such a moratorium, saying it would provide breathing
> room for the markets to recover, for investors to make accurate
> assessments of companies and for regulators to assess what trading
> practices should be permanently banned.
> 
> -
> This is idiotic populism. Banning short-selling is the equivalent to
> banning the sale of stocks. "Sorry, we can't let you sell that stock
> in that poorly run, worthless asset swamped firm, because, hey it will
> lower the price of their stock and put in more in line with the actual
> value of the company." This is lunacy. And populist pandering. And
> displays a shocking ignorance of financial markets.
> 
> However, if she only means full disclosure of short sales, limits on x
> % of short sales by any one "fund", and elimination of naked shorts
> 9already illegal -- just enforce the law  -- then her proposal is one
> of common sense.  
>  
> 
> * Convene an emergency economic summit to show the American people
> their government is working together. Bringing together leaders in the
> administration and Congress with lenders, consumer advocates, non
> profits, financial institutions, and all stakeholders will allow a
> coordinated response to the crisis. 
> ---
> Talk is good. To a point. But summits are often pandering and
> positioning. Formation of a coherent strategy in abundant consultation
> with all stakeholders is better.
>  
> 
> * Aggressively pursue and encourage mortgage modifications.
> Senator Clinton has introduced legislation to remove barriers to
> mortgage modification and to encourage lenders to voluntarily work
> with borrowers to keep them current on payments and in their homes.
> 
> What is "mortgage modification" code for? 
> 
> This sounds like a a bailout of Wall Street who foolishly bought
> packages of sophisticated yet high risk loans, aggressive -- bordering
> on fraudulent -- lending practices, and new or trading-up homeowners 
> who made a risky big bet, trying to make a bundle in the real estate
> market. They all bet wrong. Being a mommy and daddy to all the kids
> who made foolish decisions -- or calculated ones motivated by quick
> profits -- is not a solution.
> 
> The only sustainable solution is to let these complex financial
> instruments, and housing v