[FairfieldLife] Why Shemp hates India.?
Opinion - Just how similar are humans to rats? Aditya Chakrabortty Overcrowded rat colonies lead to social breakdown and degeneracy. But are humans the same? Individuals can be heroic, even God-like, but crowds are animals. Put us in the plural and we become a herd, a rat race, a swarm of worker bees. Groups apparently behave worse, too: at the end of last year, the London Assembly published a report describing how commuters on the packed (sardine-like, if you will) subway system adopted a “dog-eat-dog” attitude. One passenger told researchers, “I'm a different animal on the tube to normal life. I'm not me.” The history of how crowds got such a bad name is a long one. We could point to the coming of urbanisation and mass democracy, or the damning theories of groupthink laid out by Freud, and Mussolini's favourite psychologist Gustave Le Bon. The most intriguing contribution of all, however, comes from John Calhoun and his experiments on rats. As a scientist for the U.S. government from the 1950s to the 1980s, Calhoun was obsessed with testing the psychological effects of crowding. Out in the Maryland countryside, he created a “rodent universe“: room-sized pens amply stocked with food, water and bedding. The only restriction Calhoun put on his rats and mice was space — and as they rapidly bred, the “rat utopias” turned into lab versions of Sodom and Gomorrah. Young male rats formed gangs that preyed on females. Mothers abandoned their babies, then attacked them. Some rats mounted any animal they could. Cleaning the pens, Calhoun's assistants would find discarded rodent skins turned inside out — the creature within had been eaten whole. All those who saw urban overcrowding as leading to degeneracy could now claim science was on their side. Calhoun would himself begin papers by quoting Malthus's view that “vice and misery impose the ultimate natural limit on the growth of populations.” Plenty had been written about how too many people led to the misery of food shortages and disease — but the psychologist had found proof of how it also created a “behavioural sink” of vice. As a result, he'd also found international renown. In a recent paper titled “Escaping the Laboratory: the Rodent Experiments of John B Calhoun and their Cultural Influence,” historians Ed Ramsden and Jon Adams chart how their subject's reputation took off, with his arguments reported in newspapers and quoted frequently by politicians, architects and urban planners. Those rat cities and rodent tower blocks also entered the popular culture with almost viral ease. J.G. Ballard set a novel, High Rise, in a 40-storey development in London's Docklands where the residents descend into barbarism. The creators of the Judge Dredd comic strip acknowledge Calhoun's influence in the depiction of their lawless “megalopolis,” Mega City One. Yet the argument that simply putting lots of humans in close proximity to each other leads to social breakdown has never stacked up. The well-heeled inhabitants of Park Avenue's apartment blocks don't live in the scientist's dystopia; in South Central LA, on the other hand, lack of space isn't a problem, but lack of money is. Still, the rat experiments have a symbolic power that far outstrips their usefulness. Ramsden and Adams were approached recently by TV producers about a programme on Calhoun. At one point, the proposal was for a human re-enactment of the rat experiments, to pack lots of them in a mini-city. But what, asked the academics, if the subjects began killing each other? The idea swiftly died, but the producers were on to something; Calhoun's experiments are about as close as mainstream science comes to reality television. — © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2010 CROWDS ARE ANIMALS: The history of how crowds got such a bad name is a long one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Alex prove Ron Paul is a liar.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: So what have you proven big guy? That Ron Paul is a jerk and idiot on some issues?? What I have demonstrated is that you are not to be trusted when you write something here on this forum. You are right, he is an idiot on some issues as I have said many times, just like his pretense of being anti-abortion, he is an obvious flake, and a flip=flopper, and you have proven that. What took me an inordinate amount of energy to demonstrate to you that you had it wrong shouldn't have. Here you are finally admitting you had it wrong when you could have done it after the first, obvious instance of pointing it out to you. You've wasted my time, Alex's time, and everyone else on this forum who have bothered to read these posts (and I suspect that many didn't bother, thankfully). He makes John Kerry look like a solid stalwart King of the ImmovableStupa. ( I threw that in for Cardemeister to go to work and figure some stuff out, instead of sitting around doing squat.) You are finally waking up to the fact that Ron Paul is a chancer and a player. But the fact is, that Ron Paul is still the best YOU Republicans have for a leader. I am not now nor have I ever been a Republican. You'd know that if you read my posts. However, Obama is far more of a world leader, modern man, and an usher of the future, than any Republican will ever be. Thank god we have Obama and not Ron Paul. That's a reflection on those that, fanatically, supported and endorsed Ron Paul. Gee, I wonder who on this forum fits such a description? I REALLY hope that RP will be the next Republican candidate. He'll be awesome, but he will be too busy agreeing with Obama on everything, to be able to win. OFF-WORLD PREDICTION: YOU will hear Ron Paul in an interview in the next 6 months saying that something needs to be done about the danger of Climate Change. Make a date. Put it in your diary. You WILL hear it right here, within 6 months. Are you a betting man? We could send the money to Rick Archer to hold. Let me know... Name your price? My lawyer will issue you some papers to sign to make sure you don't try to get out of it, since I don't trust you. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Alex prove Ron Paul is a liar.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: So what have you proven big guy? That Ron Paul is a jerk and idiot on some issues?? What I have demonstrated is that you are not to be trusted when you write something here on this forum. You are right, he is an idiot on some issues as I have said many times, just like his pretense of being anti-abortion, he is an obvious flake, and a flip=flopper, and you have proven that. What took me an inordinate amount of energy to demonstrate to you that you had it wrong shouldn't have. Here you are finally admitting you had it wrong when you could have done it after the first, obvious instance of pointing it out to you. You've wasted my time, Alex's time, and everyone else on this forum who have bothered to read these posts (and I suspect that many didn't bother, thankfully). He makes John Kerry look like a solid stalwart King of the ImmovableStupa. ( I threw that in for Cardemeister to go to work and figure some stuff out, instead of sitting around doing squat.) You are finally waking up to the fact that Ron Paul is a chancer and a player. But the fact is, that Ron Paul is still the best YOU Republicans have for a leader. I am not now nor have I ever been a Republican. You'd know that if you read my posts. However, Obama is far more of a world leader, modern man, and an usher of the future, than any Republican will ever be. Thank god we have Obama and not Ron Paul. That's a reflection on those that, fanatically, supported and endorsed Ron Paul. Gee, I wonder who on this forum fits such a description? I REALLY hope that RP will be the next Republican candidate. He'll be awesome, but he will be too busy agreeing with Obama on everything, to be able to win. OFF-WORLD PREDICTION: YOU will hear Ron Paul in an interview in the next 6 months saying that something needs to be done about the danger of Climate Change. Make a date. Put it in your diary. You WILL hear it right here, within 6 months. Are you a betting man? We could send the money to Rick Archer to hold. Let me know... OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Thank you, Alex, for taking the time to find this. However, I don't hold out much hope that it will do any good vis a vis convincing Off_World that Paul's position is the opposite of Obama's. On many of the key, important issues I have, through quotes and citations, tried to show Off that the two gentlemen are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. I have been reading Ron Paul for years and admire him on many points he makes. I am almost completely opposed to what Barack Obama stands for. Yes, Paul and Obama agree on a few things, such as their opposition to the Iraq War (although they come to it from the opposite reasons). But on practically everything else, they disagree. So it was with great irritation that I have to continually read Off say that they are the same. Perhaps I am being too sensitive and should realize that most if not all of the readers on this forum don't give him any credibility any way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Yawn. All of the quotes below undated or from 2007. Ron Paul's latest declarations on Global Warming? As Off already knows, Paul calls it a hoax: The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming. Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009 Where's the transcript? This is not credible. OffWorld http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-11-04/ron-paul-on-fox-business-its-business-\ as-usual-in-washington/ http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-11-04/ron-paul-on-fox-business-its-business\ -as-usual-in-washington/ http://is.gd/aNcXa http://is.gd/aNcXa
[FairfieldLife] For shemp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Qu4a_dJO0feature=related
[FairfieldLife] Hey Shemp - Here's something we'll both like
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07friedman.html?emc=eta1
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: nablusoss1008 wrote: If you couldn't stand some noise during meditation, plain food or a leaking sink you are not fit to become a TM-teacher. There was a guy on a CCP back in the early seventies that got kicked off the course because he couldn't resist going across the street to get chocolate ice cream before he went to sleep, Can you believe that, nabby? He had to have ice some cream! Don't you just *hate* those ice cream eating sidhas?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , WillyTex willytex@ wrote: Can you believe that, nabby? He had to have ice some cream! And he probably slept right through the next morning programme. Teachers that can't control cravings are useless. The fools that recommended him back home did a poor job and should have been kicked out also. Did you ever see Bevan consume ice cream and other food? Have you noticed the results of his apparent inability to control cravings? Would you agree that the fools who recommended him should be kicked out also? Some people just simply are above all rules, get used to the idea. One thing you've gotta admit about Nabby is that he's entertaining, in a drag queen kinda way. Gay for Maharishi, gay for Maitreya, and now so gay for Bevan that he believes he's above all rules. Sometimes I think Nabby believes in UFOs primarily because he secretly wants to suck the space brothers' dicks. :-) :-) :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , WillyTex willytex@ wrote: Can you believe that, nabby? He had to have ice some cream! And he probably slept right through the next morning programme. Teachers that can't control cravings are useless. The fools that recommended him back home did a poor job and should have been kicked out also. Did you ever see Bevan consume ice cream and other food? Have you noticed the results of his apparent inability to control cravings? Would you agree that the fools who recommended him should be kicked out also? Some people just simply are above all rules, get used to the idea. One thing you've gotta admit about Nabby is that he's entertaining, in a drag queen kinda way. Gay for Maharishi, gay for Maitreya, and now so gay for Bevan that he believes he's above all rules. Sometimes I think Nabby believes in UFOs primarily because he secretly wants to suck the space brothers' dicks. :-) :-) :-) You're probably the most sex-fixated person I've ever heard of. Must be hard not getting anything anymore, uh ?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
On Dec 18, 2009, at 6:47 PM, It's just a ride wrote: On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote: Mahesh was snip the only yogi I know of that wore makeup! LOL! Do tell. Gory details, please. If you don't have any make up some juicy ones. This sounds really interesting. __._,_.__ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/34811 Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Where's King Tony? on 10/8/04 5:15 PM, Bob Brigante at bbriga...@... wrote: Tony Nader is not some rational scientist swept up in TMO goofiness -- he got himself a nose job (compare the old photo of him in his physiology book [ http://www.maharishi.org/books/tonybook.html ] with the current version) and other work on his face. This is not the act of a rational human being (unless somebody is a burn victim or similar disfiguring), it's something that a vain and emotionally- challenged starlet does, not a supposedly rational scientist. Just because somebody gets a degree in something really has little to do with their mental health, anyway I know for a fact that Maharishi gets very involved in the appearance of those close to him. With the Mother Divine board ladies, he has directed how they dress, what jewelry they wear (often buys it for them), whether they die their hair, what color they die it, make-up details, etc. Maharishi himself has worn light makeup to improve his appearance on camera and to mask fatigue. For years, Tony Nader has been the only one living in Maharishi's house in Vlodrop. I'm quite certain that if he got a nose job or other cosmetic surgery, it was on Maharishi's orders. I'm also quite certain that Maharishi orchestrated every last little detail of his coronation. He loves that kind of stuff. I've seen him do it many times for smaller celebrations and events.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
On Dec 19, 2009, at 3:18 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , WillyTex willytex@ wrote: Can you believe that, nabby? He had to have ice some cream! And he probably slept right through the next morning programme. Teachers that can't control cravings are useless. The fools that recommended him back home did a poor job and should have been kicked out also. Did you ever see Bevan consume ice cream and other food? Have you noticed the results of his apparent inability to control cravings? Would you agree that the fools who recommended him should be kicked out also? Some people just simply are above all rules, get used to the idea. One thing you've gotta admit about Nabby is that he's entertaining, in a drag queen kinda way. Gay for Maharishi, gay for Maitreya, and now so gay for Bevan that he believes he's above all rules. Sometimes I think Nabby believes in UFOs primarily because he secretly wants to suck the space brothers' dicks. :-) :-) :-) I'm pretty sure it's the anal probe he's looking for. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
On Dec 18, 2009, at 11:38 PM, Rick Archer wrote: On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote: Mahesh was snip the only yogi I know of that wore makeup! LOL! He just wore enough to hide dark circles under his eyes, etc. - i.e. to look good on camera. Hey I do the same thing! Anybody want to pay me a million bucks? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Sometimes I think Nabby believes in UFOs primarily because he secretly wants to suck the space brothers' dicks. :-) :-) :-) I'm pretty sure it's the anal probe he's looking for. :-) How low can FFL really become ? It's interesting to notice that it is the two Buddhists on this forum who are most focussed on sex. One wonders what goes on in their monestaries Regarding anal probe: From studying my own life I think I know others. -Vaj
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
nablusoss1008 wrote: If you couldn't stand some noise during meditation, plain food or a leaking sink you are not fit to become a TM-teacher. There was a guy on a CCP back in the early seventies that got kicked off the course because he couldn't resist going across the street to get chocolate ice cream before he went to sleep, Can you believe that, nabby? He had to have ice some cream!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: You could be right. There could be another reason he said: I will always contend from the few encounters I had with Bevan on my six-month course in 1977 that he was the most inspiring leader of the TMO I've ever come across. I'd follow him anywhere. Have you had any personal contact with Bevan, Vaj, and if so, what was it and why did it form what I assume form the above is a negative impression? I'll provide a personal moment, Shemp, from the same course during which you stupidly fell in love with him. Several guys on the course had medical or other issues while there *that were being ignored* by the nominal course leaders. For example, they were not allowed to go into town to see a doctor for a medical condition or get necessary medications. Because my buddy and I worked for the Regional Office, they asked us to talk to Bevan about it when he came, to see if something could be done. We talked to him, and presented these guys' requests, to be passed along to Maharishi. And as we sat there both of us knew as we spoke that he would never in a million years actually pass along these requests. (And he didn't. No one ever did, during the entire course.) His priority was being able to go back to Seelisberg and say, Everything is perfect, Maharishi, just as it should be. There was never the slightest chance that he would ever have reported any of the numerous problems with food, lack of heat, tainted water coming out of the faucets, etc. that were given to him. In other words, he was yer classic self-serving toady. He went on to establish himself as one in many other situations over the years, but that was my first exposure to his toadiness. The welfare of the people on the course never once crossed his mind; all he cared about was how *he* appeared to Maharishi. Sorry you had such a bad experience with him...and if people on this forum are to be believed, you are in the majority. My experience was that he was the only person I ever ran across in the Movement that was of leadership quality. And by the way, I had a personal question that I needed dealt with so I sent Bevan a letter about it while on the course along with a self-addressed stamped envelope and he wrote back the response.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand premanandpaul@ wrote: Turquoise, your recollections of Bevan's attitude to passing on negative information to Maharishi actually puts the spotlight on Maharishi, for if Bevan was only trying to please Maharishi, how was it that Maharishi didn't want to be told the truth? Paul, I can't speak for anything that happened after 1977, but I saw quite a few interactions between Maharishi and underlings in the years before that. The reason no one wanted to be the one to tell Maharishi any bad news, or even that things weren't going as perfectly as he'd pre- dicted or expected was that Maharishi used to take his disappointment out on the person who told him. It was very much a kill the messenger scenario, often ending with the person who had told him the less-than-positive news being banished from his sight for days to weeks. Bottom line was that in all such interactions I saw, I never got the feeling that Maharishi cared very much about reality. He wanted to be told that things were happening exactly as he'd imagined they would happen and had said they would happen. And woe be unto him who told him otherwise. Kinda like imagining you've witnessed someone levitating, huh, and then spending the rest of your brainwashed life actually believing it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
ShempMcGurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: You could be right. There could be another reason he said: I will always contend from the few encounters I had with Bevan on my six-month course in 1977 that he was the most inspiring leader of the TMO I've ever come across. I'd follow him anywhere. Have you had any personal contact with Bevan, Vaj, and if so, what was it and why did it form what I assume form the above is a negative impression? I'll provide a personal moment, Shemp, from the same course during which you stupidly fell in love with him. Several guys on the course had medical or other issues while there *that were being ignored* by the nominal course leaders. For example, they were not allowed to go into town to see a doctor for a medical condition or get necessary medications. Because my buddy and I worked for the Regional Office, they asked us to talk to Bevan about it when he came, to see if something could be done. We talked to him, and presented these guys' requests, to be passed along to Maharishi. And as we sat there both of us knew as we spoke that he would never in a million years actually pass along these requests. (And he didn't. No one ever did, during the entire course.) His priority was being able to go back to Seelisberg and say, Everything is perfect, Maharishi, just as it should be. There was never the slightest chance that he would ever have reported any of the numerous problems with food, lack of heat, tainted water coming out of the faucets, etc. that were given to him. In other words, he was yer classic self-serving toady. He went on to establish himself as one in many other situations over the years, but that was my first exposure to his toadiness. The welfare of the people on the course never once crossed his mind; all he cared about was how *he* appeared to Maharishi. Sorry you had such a bad experience with him...and if people on this forum are to be believed, you are in the majority. My experience was that he was the only person I ever ran across in the Movement that was of leadership quality. What Turq describes is the behavior of a psychopath. It seems a lot of leadership types are psychopaths, not the kind that run around committing murders (other than indirectly) but have no empathy for others. That I believe makes them appear stable so of like a rock of Gibraltar and why people put them into leadership positions. They tend to remain calm (and cold) in times of emergency.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: nablusoss1008 wrote: If you couldn't stand some noise during meditation, plain food or a leaking sink you are not fit to become a TM-teacher. There was a guy on a CCP back in the early seventies that got kicked off the course because he couldn't resist going across the street to get chocolate ice cream before he went to sleep, Can you believe that, nabby? He had to have ice some cream! And he probably slept right through the next morning programme. Teachers that can't control cravings are useless. The fools that recommended him back home did a poor job and should have been kicked out also.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
On Dec 18, 2009, at 5:41 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: Teachers that can't control cravings are useless. For once, something we agree on! Mahesh was an infamous sugar junkie: ice cream, swiss chocolates, honey, jaggery-based rasayanas, etc. It's also said he was quite vain. In fact he's the only yogi I know of that wore makeup! LOL!
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 4:41 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , WillyTex willy...@... wrote: nablusoss1008 wrote: If you couldn't stand some noise during meditation, plain food or a leaking sink you are not fit to become a TM-teacher. There was a guy on a CCP back in the early seventies that got kicked off the course because he couldn't resist going across the street to get chocolate ice cream before he went to sleep, Can you believe that, nabby? He had to have ice some cream! And he probably slept right through the next morning programme. Teachers that can't control cravings are useless. The fools that recommended him back home did a poor job and should have been kicked out also. Did you ever see Bevan consume ice cream and other food? Have you noticed the results of his apparent inability to control cravings? Would you agree that the fools who recommended him should be kicked out also?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote: Mahesh was snip the only yogi I know of that wore makeup! LOL! Do tell. Gory details, please. If you don't have any make up some juicy ones. This sounds really interesting.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of It's just a ride Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 5:47 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house! On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote: Mahesh was snip the only yogi I know of that wore makeup! LOL! He just wore enough to hide dark circles under his eyes, etc. - i.e. to look good on camera.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 4:41 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , WillyTex willytex@ wrote: nablusoss1008 wrote: If you couldn't stand some noise during meditation, plain food or a leaking sink you are not fit to become a TM-teacher. There was a guy on a CCP back in the early seventies that got kicked off the course because he couldn't resist going across the street to get chocolate ice cream before he went to sleep, Can you believe that, nabby? He had to have ice some cream! And he probably slept right through the next morning programme. Teachers that can't control cravings are useless. The fools that recommended him back home did a poor job and should have been kicked out also. Did you ever see Bevan consume ice cream and other food? Have you noticed the results of his apparent inability to control cravings? Would you agree that the fools who recommended him should be kicked out also? Some people just simply are above all rules, get used to the idea.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, It's just a ride bill.hicks.all.a.r...@... wrote: On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Mahesh was snip the only yogi I know of that wore makeup! LOL! Do tell. Gory details, please. If you don't have any make up some juicy ones. This sounds really interesting. Vaj is, if possible an even greater lier than Rick Archer.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: You could be right. There could be another reason he said: I will always contend from the few encounters I had with Bevan on my six-month course in 1977 that he was the most inspiring leader of the TMO I've ever come across. I'd follow him anywhere. Have you had any personal contact with Bevan, Vaj, and if so, what was it and why did it form what I assume form the above is a negative impression? I'll provide a personal moment, Shemp, from the same course during which you stupidly fell in love with him. Several guys on the course had medical or other issues while there *that were being ignored* by the nominal course leaders. For example, they were not allowed to go into town to see a doctor for a medical condition or get necessary medications. Because my buddy and I worked for the Regional Office, they asked us to talk to Bevan about it when he came, to see if something could be done. We talked to him, and presented these guys' requests, to be passed along to Maharishi. And as we sat there both of us knew as we spoke that he would never in a million years actually pass along these requests. (And he didn't. No one ever did, during the entire course.) His priority was being able to go back to Seelisberg and say, Everything is perfect, Maharishi, just as it should be. There was never the slightest chance that he would ever have reported any of the numerous problems with food, lack of heat, tainted water coming out of the faucets, etc. that were given to him. In other words, he was yer classic self-serving toady. He went on to establish himself as one in many other situations over the years, but that was my first exposure to his toadiness. The welfare of the people on the course never once crossed his mind; all he cared about was how *he* appeared to Maharishi.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
Turquoise, your recollections of Bevan's attitude to passing on negative information to Maharishi actually puts the spotlight on Maharishi, for if Bevan was only trying to please Maharishi, how was it that Maharishi didn't want to be told the truth? Seriously, the issue of whether or not Bevan is to be described as a toady is really unimportant, but the issue of Maharishi's veracity is of paramount interest. It would be extremely useful if a list were made of specific examples where Maharishi's veracity is proven. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: You could be right. There could be another reason he said: I will always contend from the few encounters I had with Bevan on my six-month course in 1977 that he was the most inspiring leader of the TMO I've ever come across. I'd follow him anywhere. Have you had any personal contact with Bevan, Vaj, and if so, what was it and why did it form what I assume form the above is a negative impression? I'll provide a personal moment, Shemp, from the same course during which you stupidly fell in love with him. Several guys on the course had medical or other issues while there *that were being ignored* by the nominal course leaders. For example, they were not allowed to go into town to see a doctor for a medical condition or get necessary medications. Because my buddy and I worked for the Regional Office, they asked us to talk to Bevan about it when he came, to see if something could be done. We talked to him, and presented these guys' requests, to be passed along to Maharishi. And as we sat there both of us knew as we spoke that he would never in a million years actually pass along these requests. (And he didn't. No one ever did, during the entire course.) His priority was being able to go back to Seelisberg and say, Everything is perfect, Maharishi, just as it should be. There was never the slightest chance that he would ever have reported any of the numerous problems with food, lack of heat, tainted water coming out of the faucets, etc. that were given to him. In other words, he was yer classic self-serving toady. He went on to establish himself as one in many other situations over the years, but that was my first exposure to his toadiness. The welfare of the people on the course never once crossed his mind; all he cared about was how *he* appeared to Maharishi.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand premanandp...@... wrote: Turquoise, your recollections of Bevan's attitude to passing on negative information to Maharishi actually puts the spotlight on Maharishi, for if Bevan was only trying to please Maharishi, how was it that Maharishi didn't want to be told the truth? Paul, I can't speak for anything that happened after 1977, but I saw quite a few interactions between Maharishi and underlings in the years before that. The reason no one wanted to be the one to tell Maharishi any bad news, or even that things weren't going as perfectly as he'd pre- dicted or expected was that Maharishi used to take his disappointment out on the person who told him. It was very much a kill the messenger scenario, often ending with the person who had told him the less-than-positive news being banished from his sight for days to weeks. Bottom line was that in all such interactions I saw, I never got the feeling that Maharishi cared very much about reality. He wanted to be told that things were happening exactly as he'd imagined they would happen and had said they would happen. And woe be unto him who told him otherwise.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand premanandpaul@ wrote: Turquoise, your recollections of Bevan's attitude to passing on negative information to Maharishi actually puts the spotlight on Maharishi, for if Bevan was only trying to please Maharishi, how was it that Maharishi didn't want to be told the truth? So you imagime Maharishi didn't know the truth without having it presented by a messenger-boy ? How naive. If you couldn't stand some noise during meditation, plain food or a leaking sink you are not fit to become a TM-teacher.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Shemp mentions occasionally that efforts to combat global warming will result in the loss of millions of lives. GW is already causing loss of life due to storms, more severe flooding in places like Bangladesh, etc., and we ain't seen nothin' yet. Sorry to burst your bubble, Rick, but floods and storms have happened to this planet since recorded history started. A interesting parallele to this is the phenomenon of beached whales. Now, when whales beach themselves environmentalists automatically assume it is due to some human cause or pollutant they are putting in the seas. And it very well may be. BUT: whales have been beaching themselves since recorded history started and there were no PCPs to dump into the ocean until about 75 years ago. Same thing with floods and storms, Rick. Wait until millions of climate refugees start fleeing their home areas. There have been climate refugees on tis planet because of various types of climate change since time immemorial. Remember Mount St. Helen's? Wait until water wars begin to break out. Uh, water wars have ALSO been breaking out since time immemorial. Again, I don't think global warming will have anything to do with it! If anything if there is a greenhouse effect it will cause MORE rain! Wait until much of India is waterless due to loss of Himalayan glaciers. And the American West, which is already in a prolonged drought, will be increasingly unlivable if insufficient snow falls in the mountains each winter. They had a native people who lived in these areas called the Anastazi who inexplicably disappeared about 500 years ago. Why did they leave the area? Draught, it is believedLONG before the white man started burning fossil fuel. If I were Shemp, I'd cash in and leave Phoenix while he has a chance. For all the reasons you mention above, I very well may leave but the cause won't be global warming...it will more likely be because of gambling. You see, if more water and power gets diverted to Las Vegas, then there will be less for us! Don't be so eager for millions of your fellow man to die horrible deaths, Rick, you should be secretly praying that I am right on this global warming thing so that less of your fellow man suffers (assuming you actually, genuinely care).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Shemp mentions occasionally that efforts to combat global warming will result in the loss of millions of lives. GW is already causing loss of life due to storms, more severe flooding in places like Bangladesh, etc., and we ain't seen nothin' yet. Wait until millions of climate refugees start fleeing their home areas. Wait until water wars begin to break out. Wait until much of India is waterless due to loss of Himalayan glaciers. And the American West, which is already in a prolonged drought, will be increasingly unlivable if insufficient snow falls in the mountains each winter. If I were Shemp, I'd cash in and leave Phoenix while he has a chance. The only insight I can offer to the idea of waterless is that one of the biggest users of the optimization software I work on is the department of the Spanish government that is in charge of its water supplies. Their nominal job is to plan and implement the shifting of water resources from one area of the country to another in times of drought. Their real job -- as expressed by the department members we've interviewed and as evidenced by a government agency's ability to purchase software that goes for half a million to a million a pop -- is survival. Spain has *always* been subject to droughts. Its climate most reminds me of Arizona or New Mexico. But these guys are in charge of the total fresh water resources of Spain, and they've been watch- ing them dwindle for a number of years now. What they are using our optimization software for is to map out strategies for what to do when Spain starts to *run out* of fresh water.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
Shemp, GW is not going to cause anything new to happen. All sorts of unavoidable environmental changes have happen throughout history due to volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, asteroid collisions, pole shifts, etc. And many of the life forms which inhabited the earth when those things happened died. But the current situation is unprecedented: a population of 7 billion subjected to climate change that we are causing and could choose not to cause. Climate change that is happening too quickly to adapt to. Maybe it's in the natural order of things that several billion of those people should die or suffer tremendous hardship, and we are just doing God's bidding by screwing up the planet, but I'd prefer to think that we have free will and can muster the wisdom to turn things around. But greed and stupidity are quite effective in overshadowing wisdom, as you so amply demonstrate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
Rick, The problem is that you are starting from the premise that if man is putting anything unnatural into the atmosphere that it automatically must be wrong and bad. Think of carbon as being unfairly trapped in the soil, coal, and liquids of the Earth for many millions of years and it is the energy businesses such as the oil companies that are liberating these solids and liquids so that they can roam around the atmophere and fertilize the agriculture needed to feed those 7 billion people. Rick, there is ZERO evidence that there is catastrophic man-made global warming and your saying there is does not make it a reality. This is a religion based upon non-facts and non cause-effect relationships made out of thin air. The policies that you and your religion advocate have caused and will continue to cause many, many deaths and suffering. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Shemp, GW is not going to cause anything new to happen. All sorts of unavoidable environmental changes have happen throughout history due to volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, asteroid collisions, pole shifts, etc. And many of the life forms which inhabited the earth when those things happened died. But the current situation is unprecedented: a population of 7 billion subjected to climate change that we are causing and could choose not to cause. Climate change that is happening too quickly to adapt to. Maybe it's in the natural order of things that several billion of those people should die or suffer tremendous hardship, and we are just doing God's bidding by screwing up the planet, but I'd prefer to think that we have free will and can muster the wisdom to turn things around. But greed and stupidity are quite effective in overshadowing wisdom, as you so amply demonstrate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
First of all, the megafires of recent years are 100% the result of the failed policies of environmentalists, the same people who will have us believe in the religion of Global Warming. And, secondly, your portrayal and stereotyping of me as a Vedic Fundy of course is completely off the mark and I will not address why because I've done that numerous times on this forum, to no avail. So why do it again. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Dec 16, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Shemp mentions occasionally that efforts to combat global warming will result in the loss of millions of lives. GW is already causing loss of life due to storms, more severe flooding in places like Bangladesh, etc., and we ain't seen nothin' yet. Wait until millions of climate refugees start fleeing their home areas. Wait until water wars begin to break out. Wait until much of India is waterless due to loss of Himalayan glaciers. And the American West, which is already in a prolonged drought, will be increasingly unlivable if insufficient snow falls in the mountains each winter. If I were Shemp, I'd cash in and leave Phoenix while he has a chance. Desertification of the American West is a well-known phenomenon. Many of the western wildfires we've heard of in recent years, that have ravaged hundreds of thousands of acres of previously arable land and forest, have essentially rendered these previous areas as deserts. Many of them will not return to their original state in our great grandchildren's lifetimes. In fact, if this continues, we'll lose HALF THE FORESTS of the American West. See the link below (video) for graphic examples. It is definitely worth a watch, esp. for Shemp (who I doubt will watch it; Vedic fundies are often like their Christian counterparts): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/60minutes/main3380176.shtml The Age Of Megafires Expert: Warming Climate Fueling Megafires (CBS) This story was first published on Oct. 21, 2007. It was updated on Sept. 3, 2009. The wild fire that threatened Los Angeles this past week is not a typical fire: it's what is being called a megafire, and scientists now say we should brace ourselves for more and more of these fires in the coming years. In truth, we have never seen anything like them before - forest infernos ten times bigger than the fires we're used to seeing. Two years ago, during one of the worst fire seasons in recorded history, Scott Pelley went out on the fire line to see why so much of the American West is burning. The men and women facing the flames are elite federal firefighters called Hotshots. Nationwide there are 92 hotshot crews of 20 members each. 60 Minutes found a group of New Mexico hotshots in the Salmon River Mountains of Idaho. They had set up camp in a burned-out patch of forest with fire raging all around. They were hitting the day, exhausted, halfway through a 14-day shift. Leaving camp to scout out the situation, the firefighters anticipated a mess and they found it: the valley was engulfed in smoke. The flames blew through the firebreak lines they dug the day before. We were trying to turn the corner yesterday, and that's when it kind of blew out. I think we got more ground over here that's been taken. Any questions? a firefighter said. No question, this day the fire won. It surged across the mountain, forcing the hotshots to evacuate. All across the West, crews are playing defense, often pulling back to let acres burn, but standing firm to save communities. One stand this season (2007) came in August at Ketchum, Idaho. Forecasters said it was 99 percent certain Ketchum would be lost if nothing was done. Some 1,700 local, state, and federal firefighters came from across the nation, working around the clock from a mountainside camp. Residents were evacuated, as 300-foot flames headed for homes. 60 Minutes joined up with Tom Boatner, who after 30 years on the fire line, became chief of fire operations for the federal government. A fire of this size and this intensity in this country would have been extremely rare 15, 20 years they're commonplace these days, Boatner says. Ten years ago, if you had a 100,000 acre fire, you were talking about a huge fire. And if we had one or two of those a year, that was probably unusual. Now we talk about 200,000 acre fires like it's just another day at the office. It's been a huge change, he adds. Asked what the biggest fires now are, Boatner says, We've had, I believe, two fires this summer that have been over 500,000 acres, half a million acres, and one of those was over 600,000 acres. You wouldn't have expected to see this how recently? Pelley asks. We got records going back to 1960 of the acres burned in America. So, that's 47 fire seasons. Seven of
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
On Dec 16, 2009, at 2:50 PM, ShempMcGurk wrote: First of all, the megafires of recent years are 100% the result of the failed policies of environmentalists, the same people who will have us believe in the religion of Global Warming. And, secondly, your portrayal and stereotyping of me as a Vedic Fundy of course is completely off the mark and I will not address why because I've done that numerous times on this forum, to no avail. So why do it again. My apologies, I do remember you claiming to be a TM purist of sorts. I'll try to use Right Wing Fundie from now on. Unless you prefer Right Wing Consciousness-based Fundie. Your choice. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Dec 16, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:51 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Shemp, sell your house! On Dec 16, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Shemp mentions occasionally that efforts to combat global warming will result in the loss of millions of lives. GW is already causing loss of life due to storms, more severe flooding in places like Bangladesh, etc., and we ain't seen nothin' yet. Wait until millions of climate refugees start fleeing their home areas. Wait until water wars begin to break out. Wait until much of India is waterless due to loss of Himalayan glaciers. And the American West, which is already in a prolonged drought, will be increasingly unlivable if insufficient snow falls in the mountains each winter. If I were Shemp, I'd cash in and leave Phoenix while he has a chance. Desertification of the American West is a well-known phenomenon. Many of the western wildfires we've heard of in recent years, that have ravaged hundreds of thousands of acres of previously arable land and forest, have essentially rendered these previous areas as deserts. Many of them will not return to their original state in our great grandchildren's lifetimes. In fact, if this continues, we'll lose HALF THE FORESTS of the American West. See the link below (video) for graphic examples. It is definitely worth a watch, esp. for Shemp (who I doubt will watch it; Vedic fundies are often like their Christian counterparts): I don't think there's anything Vedic about Shemp's perspective. He just suffers from Fixed News-fed conservative brain rot. You could be right. There could be another reason he said: I will always contend from the few encounters I had with Bevan on my six-month course in 1977 that he was the most inspiring leader of the TMO I've ever come across. I'd follow him anywhere. LOL!
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 2:16 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house! On Dec 16, 2009, at 2:50 PM, ShempMcGurk wrote: First of all, the megafires of recent years are 100% the result of the failed policies of environmentalists, the same people who will have us believe in the religion of Global Warming. Those who fill your head with this nonsense thrive on sheeple like you. They're of the same ilk as those who killed millions by lying to them about the effects of tobacco. And there's a certain mindset, of which you are a card-carrying member, who eagerly lap it up.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
On Dec 16, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Rick Archer wrote: First of all, the megafires of recent years are 100% the result of the failed policies of environmentalists, the same people who will have us believe in the religion of Global Warming. Those who fill your head with this nonsense thrive on sheeple like you. They're of the same ilk as those who killed millions by lying to them about the effects of tobacco. And there's a certain mindset, of which you are a card-carrying member, who eagerly lap it up. That's why it's important for intelligent folks like Shemp to put aside any preconceptions they might have, and watch video, like the segment I just posted a link to, so they can see what's really happening. At about 10 minutes into the clip you see exactly what's happening to these old western forests: they're literally being burnt to the ground--and not reestablishing themselves. And one of the areas mentioned, is right where Shemp lives.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Dec 16, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:51 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Shemp, sell your house! On Dec 16, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Shemp mentions occasionally that efforts to combat global warming will result in the loss of millions of lives. GW is already causing loss of life due to storms, more severe flooding in places like Bangladesh, etc., and we ain't seen nothin' yet. Wait until millions of climate refugees start fleeing their home areas. Wait until water wars begin to break out. Wait until much of India is waterless due to loss of Himalayan glaciers. And the American West, which is already in a prolonged drought, will be increasingly unlivable if insufficient snow falls in the mountains each winter. If I were Shemp, I'd cash in and leave Phoenix while he has a chance. Desertification of the American West is a well-known phenomenon. Many of the western wildfires we've heard of in recent years, that have ravaged hundreds of thousands of acres of previously arable land and forest, have essentially rendered these previous areas as deserts. Many of them will not return to their original state in our great grandchildren's lifetimes. In fact, if this continues, we'll lose HALF THE FORESTS of the American West. See the link below (video) for graphic examples. It is definitely worth a watch, esp. for Shemp (who I doubt will watch it; Vedic fundies are often like their Christian counterparts): I don't think there's anything Vedic about Shemp's perspective. He just suffers from Fixed News-fed conservative brain rot. You could be right. There could be another reason he said: I will always contend from the few encounters I had with Bevan on my six-month course in 1977 that he was the most inspiring leader of the TMO I've ever come across. I'd follow him anywhere. Have you had any personal contact with Bevan, Vaj, and if so, what was it and why did it form what I assume form the above is a negative impression?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Dec 16, 2009, at 2:50 PM, ShempMcGurk wrote: First of all, the megafires of recent years are 100% the result of the failed policies of environmentalists, the same people who will have us believe in the religion of Global Warming. And, secondly, your portrayal and stereotyping of me as a Vedic Fundy of course is completely off the mark and I will not address why because I've done that numerous times on this forum, to no avail. So why do it again. My apologies, I do remember you claiming to be a TM purist of sorts. I'll try to use Right Wing Fundie from now on. Unless you prefer Right Wing Consciousness-based Fundie. Your choice. ;-) I prefer Anarcho-Capitalist, Social-Darwinist, anti-abortion-but-pro-infanticide TM fundamentalist who hates the TMO. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 2:16 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house! On Dec 16, 2009, at 2:50 PM, ShempMcGurk wrote: First of all, the megafires of recent years are 100% the result of the failed policies of environmentalists, the same people who will have us believe in the religion of Global Warming. Those who fill your head with this nonsense thrive on sheeple like you. They're of the same ilk as those who killed millions by lying to them about the effects of tobacco. And there's a certain mindset, of which you are a card-carrying member, who eagerly lap it up. Unlike Global Warming, the debate is over on this issue, Rick. Read it and weep: http://www.perc.org/pdf/Forest%20Policy%20Up%20in%20Smoke.pdf
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
ShempMcGurk wrote: For all the reasons you mention above, I very well may leave but the cause won't be global warming...it will more likely be because of gambling. You see, if more water and power gets diverted to Las Vegas, then there will be less for us! Don't be so eager for millions of your fellow man to die horrible deaths, Rick, you should be secretly praying that I am right on this global warming thing so that less of your fellow man suffers (assuming you actually, genuinely care). Here Shemp, go pick out your new home: http://www.ecuadorcentral.com/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
On Dec 16, 2009, at 7:05 PM, ShempMcGurk wrote: You could be right. There could be another reason he said: I will always contend from the few encounters I had with Bevan on my six-month course in 1977 that he was the most inspiring leader of the TMO I've ever come across. I'd follow him anywhere. Have you had any personal contact with Bevan, Vaj, and if so, what was it and why did it form what I assume form the above is a negative impression? First of all, I haven't expressed any negative impression of Bevan. I haven't seen him since the early 80's. I respect your right to hold a man-crush, appreciation or charismatic impressions, irregardless of the exact circumstances. Hearing a guru-bhai express and share similar feelings can often be a very magnetizing experience, bonding one to the other. You probably share a lot on some deep level, so I can respect that shared sincerity and the appreciation you share with a spiritual brother.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, sell your house!
On Dec 16, 2009, at 7:39 PM, Vaj wrote: On Dec 16, 2009, at 7:05 PM, ShempMcGurk wrote: You could be right. There could be another reason he said: I will always contend from the few encounters I had with Bevan on my six-month course in 1977 that he was the most inspiring leader of the TMO I've ever come across. I'd follow him anywhere. Have you had any personal contact with Bevan, Vaj, and if so, what was it and why did it form what I assume form the above is a negative impression? First of all, I haven't expressed any negative impression of Bevan. I haven't seen him since the early 80's. I respect your right to hold a man-crush, appreciation or charismatic impressions, irregardless of the exact circumstances. Hearing a guru-bhai express and share similar feelings can often be a very magnetizing experience, bonding one to the other. You probably share a lot on some deep level, so I can respect that shared sincerity and the appreciation you share with a spiritual brother. This is especially amusing in light of the fact that Shemp consistently decries the same worshipful attitude towards MMY. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
How does one conclude that if you are in favor of a strong military that you must also be in favor of a military coup running the country? From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 13, 2009 9:25:49 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes. WillyTex wrote: So, if I had to pay a federal income tax, I'd prefer to pay a flat tax, but it should be very low, because the federal government should be very small... Bhairitu wrote: And of course not be running wars in the Middle East or anywhere else... It's in the interest of the U.S, to have a large military budget for self-defense, so I'm not opposed to defense spending. A flat federal income tax would cover that. Maintaining a militia and army IS in the U.S. Constitution. And one of the smartest things the U.S. has done in years is to win the war in the Middle East and everywhere else. The small government I'm in favor of would not include large federal government spending on public welfare programs and federal agencies. Individual states would decide their own payroll and local sales tax. What I am in favor of, is improving the U.S. economy, so that everyone has a good job, paying good money. That way, people could support themselves or buy whatever they wanted to. And also help improve the global economy and bring up the standard of living everywhere. The above seems logical and reasonable to me: strong military for self-defense, small federal government; and a good economy. But the solutions you advocate seem dangerous and unrealistic: a defenseless, violent anarchic socialism, filled with poor people and world-wide famine, with enormous U.S. federal taxation to pay trillions of dollars in social welfare programs. So you favor a military coupe running the country? The military is a part of the government, Willy. If you have a big military then you will wind up with a big government. You're very confused and a fitting tool for fascism.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
Mike Dixon wrote: How does one conclude that if you are in favor of a strong military that you must also be in favor of a military coup running the country? Extremists want to scare you, Mike. But it's obvious to most reasonable people that improving the economy is the answer to the problem of poverty. That way, everyone would have a job, making good money, so they could support themselves. And it's reasonable to most people that having a strong military is the answer to the problem of maintaining peace in the world. Only a very tiny minority of radicals advocate changing the U.S. Constitution to eliminate the militia. But it's unreasonable to advocate a 'new world order' based on socialism and a nation without any defenses. It doesn't even make any sense. How could being poor and unable to defend yourself be a solution to anything? After eliminating the national debt, and a reduction in welfare, there would be trillions of dollars left for national defense.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
You guys are truly the Three Stooges of FFL. :-D Mike Dixon wrote: How does one conclude that if you are in favor of a strong military that you must also be in favor of a military coup running the country? From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 13, 2009 9:25:49 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes. WillyTex wrote: So, if I had to pay a federal income tax, I'd prefer to pay a flat tax, but it should be very low, because the federal government should be very small... Bhairitu wrote: And of course not be running wars in the Middle East or anywhere else... It's in the interest of the U.S, to have a large military budget for self-defense, so I'm not opposed to defense spending. A flat federal income tax would cover that. Maintaining a militia and army IS in the U.S. Constitution. And one of the smartest things the U.S. has done in years is to win the war in the Middle East and everywhere else. The small government I'm in favor of would not include large federal government spending on public welfare programs and federal agencies. Individual states would decide their own payroll and local sales tax. What I am in favor of, is improving the U.S. economy, so that everyone has a good job, paying good money. That way, people could support themselves or buy whatever they wanted to. And also help improve the global economy and bring up the standard of living everywhere. The above seems logical and reasonable to me: strong military for self-defense, small federal government; and a good economy. But the solutions you advocate seem dangerous and unrealistic: a defenseless, violent anarchic socialism, filled with poor people and world-wide famine, with enormous U.S. federal taxation to pay trillions of dollars in social welfare programs. So you favor a military coupe running the country? The military is a part of the government, Willy. If you have a big military then you will wind up with a big government. You're very confused and a fitting tool for fascism.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
Bhairitu wrote: You guys are truly the Three Stooges of FFL. So, you're advocating a new world order of socialism where everyone is poor and defenseless, and the federal government is run by the military, but me and Mike are 'the Three Stooges'?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
WillyTex wrote: Bhairitu wrote: You guys are truly the Three Stooges of FFL. So, you're advocating a new world order of socialism where everyone is poor and defenseless, and the federal government is run by the military, but me and Mike are 'the Three Stooges'? Nothing is more exemplary of you being one of the Three Stooges, Moe perhaps, than this stupid statement you just made. You guys want a small government and a big military but you don't want to pay for it. Now what is that big military? Private corporate run? Who is going to pay for that? To say you want a big military and small government is about like trying to park your SUV in a shoebox.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
So, you're advocating a new world order of socialism where everyone is poor and defenseless, and the federal government is run by the military, but me and Mike are 'the Three Stooges'? Bhairitu wrote: You guys want a small government and a big military but you don't want to pay for it... I already said I'd be in favor of a flat tax to pay for a military. What I'm not in favor of is spending trillions of dollars on social welfare programs and running up the federal deficit. Over 50% of Americans seem to agree with me. But only a small, tiny fraction of Americans are in favor of being poor, defenseless and trillions of dollars in debt.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
WillyTex wrote: So, you're advocating a new world order of socialism where everyone is poor and defenseless, and the federal government is run by the military, but me and Mike are 'the Three Stooges'? Bhairitu wrote: You guys want a small government and a big military but you don't want to pay for it... I already said I'd be in favor of a flat tax to pay for a military. What I'm not in favor of is spending trillions of dollars on social welfare programs and running up the federal deficit. Over 50% of Americans seem to agree with me. But only a small, tiny fraction of Americans are in favor of being poor, defenseless and trillions of dollars in debt. The US doesn't need a big military to find the terrorists under your bed. I would not give the American public much credit for their intelligence. They says agree with you because like you they don't understand economics and social systems. Nobody is saying we need to be poor, defenseless and trillions of dollars in debt. BTW, why ARE we trillions of dollars in debt? It wasn't Obama who did that but your buddy George W Bush and his corporatist Republicans. However Americans have been living high on the hog with credit for years. Now many are in debt. Why couldn't they see that coming. And many were sold homes at inflated prices and given loans for them they really couldn't afford. All so the robber barons could rise again and steal from the public.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
I already said I'd be in favor of a flat tax to pay for a military. What I'm not in favor of is spending trillions of dollars on social welfare programs and running up the federal deficit. Over 50% of Americans seem to agree with me. But only a small, tiny fraction of Americans are in favor of being poor, defenseless and trillions of dollars in debt. Bhairitu wrote: The US doesn't need a big military to find the terrorists under your bed. There's no terrorists under my bed - you're just trying to scare me. But even the United States couldn't kill all the terrorists in the world without help from our allies. So, yes, we are going to need a large military for a long time. I would not give the American public much credit for their intelligence. You must think you're part of the elite intelligentsia! They says agree with you because like you they don't understand economics and social systems. Most Americans understand having a job or not, and they know what making money means - they also know what being poor and defenseless means. Anyone can understand the idea of being able to support yourself. And almost anyone would vote not to be trillions of dollars in debt. That's why when the next elections comes in 2010, the tea party and the rest of the independents are going to kick out the bums. Average Americans want to work and make a living and enjoy, they don't want to support you and pay your health care and your debts.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
Not my hegemony, Obama's hegemony. I don't run the war, he does. From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, December 12, 2009 1:08:08 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes. WillyTex wrote: What should be the tax rate: Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say anything about me havi8ng to pay a federal income tax. (we don't have an income tax here in Texas). So, I am opposed to payroll income taxes. So, if I had to pay a federal income tax, I'd prefer to pay a flat tax, but it should be very low, because the federal government should be very small. And of course not be running wars in the Middle East or anywhere else. Glad to see you opposing Dixon's hegemony.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
So, if I had to pay a federal income tax, I'd prefer to pay a flat tax, but it should be very low, because the federal government should be very small... Bhairitu wrote: And of course not be running wars in the Middle East or anywhere else... It's in the interest of the U.S, to have a large military budget for self-defense, so I'm not opposed to defense spending. A flat federal income tax would cover that. Maintaining a militia and army IS in the U.S. Constitution. And one of the smartest things the U.S. has done in years is to win the war in the Middle East and everywhere else. The small government I'm in favor of would not include large federal government spending on public welfare programs and federal agencies. Individual states would decide their own payroll and local sales tax. What I am in favor of, is improving the U.S. economy, so that everyone has a good job, paying good money. That way, people could support themselves or buy whatever they wanted to. And also help improve the global economy and bring up the standard of living everywhere. The above seems logical and reasonable to me: strong military for self-defense, small federal government; and a good economy. But the solutions you advocate seem dangerous and unrealistic: a defenseless, violent anarchic socialism, filled with poor people and world-wide famine, with enormous U.S. federal taxation to pay trillions of dollars in social welfare programs.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
WillyTex wrote: So, if I had to pay a federal income tax, I'd prefer to pay a flat tax, but it should be very low, because the federal government should be very small... Bhairitu wrote: And of course not be running wars in the Middle East or anywhere else... It's in the interest of the U.S, to have a large military budget for self-defense, so I'm not opposed to defense spending. A flat federal income tax would cover that. Maintaining a militia and army IS in the U.S. Constitution. And one of the smartest things the U.S. has done in years is to win the war in the Middle East and everywhere else. The small government I'm in favor of would not include large federal government spending on public welfare programs and federal agencies. Individual states would decide their own payroll and local sales tax. What I am in favor of, is improving the U.S. economy, so that everyone has a good job, paying good money. That way, people could support themselves or buy whatever they wanted to. And also help improve the global economy and bring up the standard of living everywhere. The above seems logical and reasonable to me: strong military for self-defense, small federal government; and a good economy. But the solutions you advocate seem dangerous and unrealistic: a defenseless, violent anarchic socialism, filled with poor people and world-wide famine, with enormous U.S. federal taxation to pay trillions of dollars in social welfare programs. So you favor a military coupe running the country? The military is a part of the government, Willy. If you have a big military then you will wind up with a big government. You're very confused and a fitting tool for fascism.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@... wrote: If we can tax people out of tobacco, alchohol, soda or junk foods, lets tax the able bodied out of poverty. The less money you earn, the higher your taxes. Either get with it and pull your own weight or pay the price. What a GREAT idea! A REgressive tax! Of course, for all those bleeding hearts that will call this a Nazi plan I would remind them that a millionaire paying a top marginal rate of, say, 17% on $2 million will still be a hell of a lot more tax revenue than 35% on $10,000... From: off_world_beings no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 4:18:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Shemp and Willy on Taxes. Â Shemp and Willy : What should be the tax rate: 1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their total revenues. 2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. 3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - notice I said PROFITS, not income.) OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
What should be the tax rate: Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say anything about me havi8ng to pay a federal income tax. (we don't have an income tax here in Texas). So, I am opposed to payroll income taxes. So, if I had to pay a federal income tax, I'd prefer to pay a flat tax, but it should be very low, because the federal government should be very small.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: You are confusing the issue by bringing in the concept of profits for different class groups. NET PROFIT (revenue less expenses) for a individual taxpayer -- which under this discussion would be an individual doing business as a single proprietor or his share of a partnership -- is considered taxable income (that is, once deductions and exemptions are deducted from that net profit). That's called profit. No-one is technically taxed on anything but profit (unless they are not educated, or rich enough to have lawyers. Warren Buffet says he pays less taxes than his secretary. If you can deduct it against your income then that is a deduction. If after all deductions you apply, your income exceeds your expenditure, then the difference is called profit. But I guess you didn't know that and you are being ripped off for that enslaved mind of yours, and the rich and the corporations end up with YOUR money in their profit.. Now answer the questions: I already did in the last post, if you bothered looking below where you actually asked the questions. Pay attention. Ok, thanks: You said: 1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their total revenues.= 17% 2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. = 17% 3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - notice I said PROFITS, not income.) = 17% A couple of more questions: 4. If you got decide property taxes, what percentage of the value of the property per annum do you think it should be. For example, my house is worth about $215,000, and I pay about $3,000 a year (its actually slightly less, but technically that's what it should be), so that is about 1.4% of the property value, paid annually (about 14% over 10 years), and we have good schools close by, which is the biggest indicator of property values. ie. the better the schools, the better the property values rise statistically around the country. 5. Would you have a sales tax and what would it be? 6. Should there be an estate taxt and what should it be? 7. Should there be laws against pollution? And should there be fines for polluting. 8. Should there be international penalties (fines, or trading blocks) against countries that use cheap labor wth people who have no rights and are more like endentured slaves than workers to produce their food and manufacture their goods, which they then sell at a profit? The reason I ask these last questions is because it all ties into the cost of business and therefore is relevant to the tax question. In other words, if, for example, a country sells goods that poison, pollute, or damage others, should there be fines or penalties (since taxing ahead of time is not possible, but the pollution needs to be cleaned up. And since all companies pollute to some extent, should there be a (very) small pollution tax on a business that helps communities deal better with the local pollution, and nations bring better ways to deal with pollution (eg. poisoning of the seas, water table, soils, and air. 9. Should there be a war tax to support the war and the troops? - if so how mcuh, and what percentage of income could it be or how would you apply it for poor, middle class, and rich? 10. Should there be any tax to help keep roads and bridges in good condition? 11. Should government owned airports tax airlines for using their infrastructure including air traffic control 12. Should there be any extra tax to help develop technology and such institutions as NASA and the National Parks? 13. Any other taxes you think are essential for a local government and/or federal government to be able to function? and what percent of item should it be. I am just trying to get a clear picture of the system. I agree with you about the 17% on the first 3, although I think that is too high. I think it should be 10% and a basic food, rent, and clothing allowance for the poor, and some school clothing and equipment allowance etc. since school is compulsory/necessary especially for the poor because they cannot afford the time to home school for example. So for me so far, it is: 1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their total revenues.= 10% 2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. = 10% 3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - notice I said PROFITS, not income.) = 10% But I also believe the tax havens should be closed. Just because they can afford lawyers, corporations and rich cannot be given loopholes in paying that flat 10%, when everyone else has to pay. Loopholes should be closed and a 10% flat rate on profit enacted. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: You are confusing the issue by bringing in the concept of profits for different class groups. NET PROFIT (revenue less expenses) for a individual taxpayer -- which under this discussion would be an individual doing business as a single proprietor or his share of a partnership -- is considered taxable income (that is, once deductions and exemptions are deducted from that net profit). That's called profit. No, it's not. It's only called profit (and more exacting NET profit) when someone is conducting business where either goods or services are sold. Its just profit. There is income, there is expenditure, and there is profit. For everyone. That's all that exists. No-one is technically taxed on anything but profit (unless they are not educated, or rich enough to have lawyers. Warren Buffet says he pays less taxes than his secretary. No, Buffet never said that; he said that he pays a LOWER PERCENTAGE of his income as taxes than his secretary. Look it up. And Mr. Buffet is being a wee bit disingenuous because I know exactly what he is referring to: Under about $103,000 in Adjusted Gross Income, one pays 15.3 in payroll taxes IN ADDITION TO their marginal tax rate. Those earning ABOVE that amount don't pay any ADDITIONAL payroll taxes so, yes, for a certain comparison between Mr. Buffet and his secretary she would be paying a higher percentage of her income in taxes than Mr. Buffet. So Shemp is suggesting that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate. That is an eye-opener about your real rational. But it is disingenuous because although it is legitimate to call payroll taxes a tax it is more fair to call them contributions because contributions is, indeed, what they are: contributions to two insurance plans: Medicare and Social Security. But both of these programs do not ACT like other taxes because other taxes pay into the U.S. Treasury from which ALL government programs are funded except Medicare and SS which are funded from payroll taxes...PLUS you get benefits from these two programs completely differently than from all other government programs. As insurance programs the benefits are dependent upon whether you paid in and in the case of SS how much you get in benefits. This is completely different from all other government programs. So,yes, Medicare and SS contributions are taxes but not really. So you are saying that with the money that the government has to spend each year, that if you take out SS and MediCare, (which is not theirs to spend - it belongs to you as atrust fund) then you would have over 50% of the annual budget spent on the military, so you are saying that the US military is the biggest socialist program in the world. TheRepublicans under Nixon decided to add SS and MC to the budget as if it was theirs to spend, thus hiding the size of the military budget. If you can deduct it against your income then that is a deduction. If after all deductions you apply, your income exceeds your expenditure, then the difference is called profit. No, the difference is called TAXABLE INCOME. Which is called profit. And you have to make the distinction because self-employed people have net profit from their business activity (which is filled out on a separate schedule from the 1040 form) and then that net profit is brought on to the 1040 as income from which deductions and exemptions are then deducted. You are confusing two things that are NOT the same and must be considered separately. But I guess you didn't know that and you are being ripped off for that enslaved mind of yours, and the rich and the corporations end up with YOUR money in their profit.. Now answer the questions: What should be the tax rate: 1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their total revenues. 2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. 3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - notice I said PROFITS, not income.) OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Shemp and Willy : What should be the tax rate: 1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their total revenues. 17% 2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. 17% 3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - notice I said PROFITS, not income.) 17% OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , WillyTex willy...@... wrote: What should be the tax rate: Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say anything about me havi8ng to pay a federal income tax. (we don't have an income tax here in Texas). So, I am opposed to payroll income taxes. So, if I had to pay a federal income tax, I'd prefer to pay a flat tax, but it should be very low, because the federal government should be very small. What percentage should the flat rate be? OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, Willy, and MikeD on Taxes.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@... wrote: If we can tax people out of tobacco, alchohol, soda or junk foods, lets tax the able bodied out of poverty. The less money you earn, the higher your taxes. Either get with it and pull your own weight or pay the price. What should be the tax rate: 1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their total revenues. 2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. 3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - notice I said PROFITS, not income.) OffWorld From: off_world_beings no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 4:18:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Shemp and Willy on Taxes. Â Shemp and Willy : What should be the tax rate: 1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their total revenues. 2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. 3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - notice I said PROFITS, not income.) OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
WillyTex wrote: What should be the tax rate: Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say anything about me havi8ng to pay a federal income tax. (we don't have an income tax here in Texas). So, I am opposed to payroll income taxes. So, if I had to pay a federal income tax, I'd prefer to pay a flat tax, but it should be very low, because the federal government should be very small. And of course not be running wars in the Middle East or anywhere else. Glad to see you opposing Dixon's hegemony.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: You are confusing the issue by bringing in the concept of profits for different class groups. NET PROFIT (revenue less expenses) for a individual taxpayer -- which under this discussion would be an individual doing business as a single proprietor or his share of a partnership -- is considered taxable income (that is, once deductions and exemptions are deducted from that net profit). That's called profit. No-one is technically taxed on anything but profit (unless they are not educated, or rich enough to have lawyers. Warren Buffet says he pays less taxes than his secretary. If you can deduct it against your income then that is a deduction. If after all deductions you apply, your income exceeds your expenditure, then the difference is called profit. But I guess you didn't know that and you are being ripped off for that enslaved mind of yours, and the rich and the corporations end up with YOUR money in their profit.. Now answer the questions: I already did in the last post, if you bothered looking below where you actually asked the questions. Pay attention. Ok, thanks: You said: 1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their total revenues.= 17% 2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. = 17% 3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - notice I said PROFITS, not income.) = 17% A couple of more questions: 4. If you got decide property taxes, what percentage of the value of the property per annum do you think it should be. For example, my house is worth about $215,000, and I pay about $3,000 a year (its actually slightly less, but technically that's what it should be), so that is about 1.4% of the property value, paid annually (about 14% over 10 years), and we have good schools close by, which is the biggest indicator of property values. ie. the better the schools, the better the property values rise statistically around the country. I really don't know enough about property taxes to give a competent answer (ironic because I once had an article I wrote about property taxes published in a tax journal!). I always find it weird, though, when I hear that people pay $5-6,000 a year in property taxes in places like Long Island or New Jersey when I pay about $1,200 a year. So to my mind, anything over $1,500 seems like a lot. 5. Would you have a sales tax and what would it be? Are you talking about a national (federal) sales tax? That's what that Fair Tax is all about (ie, a value-added tax on goods and services). But if I understand it correctly, the Fair Tax would replace the income tax, the payroll tax, and I think corporate tax. 6. Should there be an estate taxt and what should it be? Normally, I'd say no there shouldn't be but the government is so much in debt that one for everyone -- no deductions on the value of an estate on death! -- should pay a flat 10%. I remind you, though, that in the United States there is no capital gains at death; all costs bases are stepped up to market value at death. 7. Should there be laws against pollution? And should there be fines for polluting. Yes. 8. Should there be international penalties (fines, or trading blocks) against countries that use cheap labor wth people who have no rights and are more like endentured slaves than workers to produce their food and manufacture their goods, which they then sell at a profit? If they are like slaves then this is a reason not only to not do business with a country but to seriously considering forming an international coalition and invade that country. By the way, your explanation of such a country bears an eery resemblance to Cuba, whose totalitarian Marxist regime regularly contracts with foreign companies for, say, $10.00 an hour for the labor provided and then only pay the Cuban workers, say, 50 cents an hour, with the communist government keeping the difference for themselves. The reason I ask these last questions is because it all ties into the cost of business and therefore is relevant to the tax question. In other words, if, for example, a country sells goods that poison, pollute, or damage others, should there be fines or penalties (since taxing ahead of time is not possible, but the pollution needs to be cleaned up. And since all companies pollute to some extent, should there be a (very) small pollution tax on a business that helps communities deal better with the local pollution, and nations bring better ways to deal with
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: You are confusing the issue by bringing in the concept of profits for different class groups. NET PROFIT (revenue less expenses) for a individual taxpayer -- which under this discussion would be an individual doing business as a single proprietor or his share of a partnership -- is considered taxable income (that is, once deductions and exemptions are deducted from that net profit). That's called profit. No, it's not. It's only called profit (and more exacting NET profit) when someone is conducting business where either goods or services are sold. Its just profit. There is income, there is expenditure, and there is profit. For everyone. That's all that exists. Perhaps it is just semantics but because about 10% of all taxpayers are self-employed the distinction between profit and taxable income must be made. No-one is technically taxed on anything but profit (unless they are not educated, or rich enough to have lawyers. Warren Buffet says he pays less taxes than his secretary. No, Buffet never said that; he said that he pays a LOWER PERCENTAGE of his income as taxes than his secretary. Look it up. And Mr. Buffet is being a wee bit disingenuous because I know exactly what he is referring to: Under about $103,000 in Adjusted Gross Income, one pays 15.3 in payroll taxes IN ADDITION TO their marginal tax rate. Those earning ABOVE that amount don't pay any ADDITIONAL payroll taxes so, yes, for a certain comparison between Mr. Buffet and his secretary she would be paying a higher percentage of her income in taxes than Mr. Buffet. So Shemp is suggesting that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate. That is an eye-opener about your real rational. No, I am NOT saying that; I'm saying that Buffet is correct in what he said but a little misceivious and manipulative. I think that both the secretary and the billionaire should be paying the SAME tax rate, SS and Medicare included in the figuring. But it is disingenuous because although it is legitimate to call payroll taxes a tax it is more fair to call them contributions because contributions is, indeed, what they are: contributions to two insurance plans: Medicare and Social Security. But both of these programs do not ACT like other taxes because other taxes pay into the U.S. Treasury from which ALL government programs are funded except Medicare and SS which are funded from payroll taxes...PLUS you get benefits from these two programs completely differently than from all other government programs. As insurance programs the benefits are dependent upon whether you paid in and in the case of SS how much you get in benefits. This is completely different from all other government programs. So,yes, Medicare and SS contributions are taxes but not really. So you are saying that with the money that the government has to spend each year, that if you take out SS and MediCare, (which is not theirs to spend - it belongs to you as atrust fund) then you would have over 50% of the annual budget spent on the military, so you are saying that the US military is the biggest socialist program in the world. TheRepublicans under Nixon decided to add SS and MC to the budget as if it was theirs to spend, thus hiding the size of the military budget. If you can deduct it against your income then that is a deduction. If after all deductions you apply, your income exceeds your expenditure, then the difference is called profit. No, the difference is called TAXABLE INCOME. Which is called profit. And you have to make the distinction because self-employed people have net profit from their business activity (which is filled out on a separate schedule from the 1040 form) and then that net profit is brought on to the 1040 as income from which deductions and exemptions are then deducted. You are confusing two things that are NOT the same and must be considered separately. But I guess you didn't know that and you are being ripped off for that enslaved mind of yours, and the rich and the corporations end up with YOUR money in their profit.. Now answer the questions: What should be the tax rate: 1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their total revenues. 2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. 3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - notice I said PROFITS, not income.) OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com ,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: What should be the tax rate: Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say anything about me havi8ng to pay a federal income tax. (we don't have an income tax here in Texas). So, I am opposed to payroll income taxes. So, if I had to pay a federal income tax, I'd prefer to pay a flat tax, but it should be very low, because the federal government should be very small. I agree 100%. Indeed, Willy, I was discussing the following with a friend a while back: it seems to me that the surge in federal spending has resulted, at least in part, to the 17th amendment of the constitution which transferred selection of U.S. senators from selection by each state legislature to popular vote. The original idea of the Senate was, in addition to being a chamber of sober second thought, a hold or check on federal power and spending. And because the senators were creatures of and representing the states, it was in the Senate where grand schemes and runaway spending would be held in check. As someone opposed to the crazy kind of spending and meddling by the federal government in things that were NEVER envisioned by them to be doing by the fathers of this country, I think that the repeal of the 17th amendment should be considered. That way, we could have a body holding the craziness going on now in check.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
You are confusing the issue by bringing in the concept of profits for different class groups. NET PROFIT (revenue less expenses) for a individual taxpayer -- which under this discussion would be an individual doing business as a single proprietor or his share of a partnership -- is considered taxable income (that is, once deductions and exemptions are deducted from that net profit). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: Shemp and Willy : What should be the tax rate: 1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their total revenues. 17% 2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. 17% 3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - notice I said PROFITS, not income.) 17% OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote: You are confusing the issue by bringing in the concept of profits for different class groups. NET PROFIT (revenue less expenses) for a individual taxpayer -- which under this discussion would be an individual doing business as a single proprietor or his share of a partnership -- is considered taxable income (that is, once deductions and exemptions are deducted from that net profit). That's called profit. No-one is technically taxed on anything but profit (unless they are not educated, or rich enough to have lawyers. Warren Buffet says he pays less taxes than his secretary. If you can deduct it against your income then that is a deduction. If after all deductions you apply, your income exceeds your expenditure, then the difference is called profit. But I guess you didn't know that and you are being ripped off for that enslaved mind of yours, and the rich and the corporations end up with YOUR money in their profit.. Now answer the questions: What should be the tax rate: 1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their total revenues. 2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. 3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - notice I said PROFITS, not income.) OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Shemp and Willy : What should be the tax rate: 1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their total revenues. 17% 2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. 17% 3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - notice I said PROFITS, not income.) 17% OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: You are confusing the issue by bringing in the concept of profits for different class groups. NET PROFIT (revenue less expenses) for a individual taxpayer -- which under this discussion would be an individual doing business as a single proprietor or his share of a partnership -- is considered taxable income (that is, once deductions and exemptions are deducted from that net profit). That's called profit. No-one is technically taxed on anything but profit (unless they are not educated, or rich enough to have lawyers. Warren Buffet says he pays less taxes than his secretary. If you can deduct it against your income then that is a deduction. If after all deductions you apply, your income exceeds your expenditure, then the difference is called profit. But I guess you didn't know that and you are being ripped off for that enslaved mind of yours, and the rich and the corporations end up with YOUR money in their profit.. Now answer the questions: I already did in the last post, if you bothered looking below where you actually asked the questions. Pay attention. What should be the tax rate: 1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their total revenues. 2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. 3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - notice I said PROFITS, not income.) OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Shemp and Willy : What should be the tax rate: 1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their total revenues. 17% 2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. 17% 3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - notice I said PROFITS, not income.) 17% OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Willy on Taxes.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: You are confusing the issue by bringing in the concept of profits for different class groups. NET PROFIT (revenue less expenses) for a individual taxpayer -- which under this discussion would be an individual doing business as a single proprietor or his share of a partnership -- is considered taxable income (that is, once deductions and exemptions are deducted from that net profit). That's called profit. No, it's not. It's only called profit (and more exacting NET profit) when someone is conducting business where either goods or services are sold. No-one is technically taxed on anything but profit (unless they are not educated, or rich enough to have lawyers. Warren Buffet says he pays less taxes than his secretary. No, Buffet never said that; he said that he pays a LOWER PERCENTAGE of his income as taxes than his secretary. Look it up. And Mr. Buffet is being a wee bit disingenuous because I know exactly what he is referring to: Under about $103,000 in Adjusted Gross Income, one pays 15.3 in payroll taxes IN ADDITION TO their marginal tax rate. Those earning ABOVE that amount don't pay any ADDITIONAL payroll taxes so, yes, for a certain comparison between Mr. Buffet and his secretary she would be paying a higher percentage of her income in taxes than Mr. Buffet. But it is disingenuous because although it is legitimate to call payroll taxes a tax it is more fair to call them contributions because contributions is, indeed, what they are: contributions to two insurance plans: Medicare and Social Security. But both of these programs do not ACT like other taxes because other taxes pay into the U.S. Treasury from which ALL government programs are funded except Medicare and SS which are funded from payroll taxes...PLUS you get benefits from these two programs completely differently than from all other government programs. As insurance programs the benefits are dependent upon whether you paid in and in the case of SS how much you get in benefits. This is completely different from all other government programs. So,yes, Medicare and SS contributions are taxes but not really. If you can deduct it against your income then that is a deduction. If after all deductions you apply, your income exceeds your expenditure, then the difference is called profit. No, the difference is called TAXABLE INCOME. And you have to make the distinction because self-employed people have net profit from their business activity (which is filled out on a separate schedule from the 1040 form) and then that net profit is brought on to the 1040 as income from which deductions and exemptions are then deducted. You are confusing two things that are NOT the same and must be considered separately. But I guess you didn't know that and you are being ripped off for that enslaved mind of yours, and the rich and the corporations end up with YOUR money in their profit.. Now answer the questions: What should be the tax rate: 1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their total revenues. 2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. 3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - notice I said PROFITS, not income.) OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Shemp and Willy : What should be the tax rate: 1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their total revenues. 17% 2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. 17% 3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - notice I said PROFITS, not income.) 17% OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Hey Shemp, have you considered this...
...having been bitten by the TMO as an unrecertified teacher wanting to share the teaching you preserve through your practice? Have you considered joining a movement like the Vedic Meditation movement and share the gift you enjoy? http://www.introtomeditation.com/ I can imagine a number of spinoffs inspired Ex-TM teachers could share: Tantric Mantra Meditation Transcendental Silence Meditation Bija Mantra Meditation Ishta-Devata Meditation ...and any number of variations. The possibilities are endless for the aspiring ex-TM teacher, esp. if you're near or in retirement and want something rewarding to do with your time. Have you or any of the other ex-TM teachers here considered that (Shemp? Raunchy D? Rick? Barry? Nabby? Dorflx? etc.) What would you call it? Are you too attached to the old name or is the innocent experience more important and the name less so?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp: Climate Change and Conservatives | Bill McKibben | Orion Magazine
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Shemp, A friend sent this to me after seeing our conversation. I think it's a thoughtful article which addresses some of the points we've both been making in a reasonable way. Please read it and let me know what you think. http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4799/ Rick: When I read the following from the article... Many libertariansand much of the larger conservative movementhave let down the intellectual process by refusing to engage on the most important issue of our time, and it's making it much harder to solve the problem. ...I throw up my hands in resignation. It is the LIBERAL/DEMOCRATIC side that has refused to engage. It is the liberal media that gives ZERO time and attention to the evidence that there is NOTHING to global warming. It IS a hoax. And when -- and this was my original point which enforces my belief that it is a hoax -- people on your side get ANGRY at any evidence that there isn't global warming, like I have said countless times, it is simply irrational and unreasonable. YOU SHOULD BE CELEBRATING ANY NEWS THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL So I read stuff like that link and I shake my head. The religion of global warming alarmism is now at the point where you are killing people -- usually the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet -- and, of course, like the typical liberals that you are YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT. Global warming alarmism is an unfounded bullshit theory that has no basis in science and the more that your side is shown that, the more shrill and intolerant you become. That silly article you linked to asks: Why the endless opposition? WHAT OPPOSITION?? The mainstream media (except outlets like the Drudge Report) NEVER covers ANY contrary news to global warming and it is NEVER debated in the mainstream...and the few times it is, global warming alarmism ALWAYS loses bigtime.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp: Climate Change and Conservatives | Bill McKibben | Orion Magazine
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Shemp, A friend sent this to me after seeing our conversation. I think it's a thoughtful article which addresses some of the points we've both been making in a reasonable way. Please read it and let me know what you think. http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4799/ http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4799/ Shemp does not understand the concept of greenhouse gases. Let him try to explain the scientific concept of greenhouse gases on a planet's atmosphere (eg. Venus), and how does it work. He does not understand the concept, so how can his opinion on the effects be of any interest. It would be like talking to a caveman about how an airplane works. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp: Climate Change and Conservatives | Bill McKibben | Orion Magazine
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Shemp, A friend sent this to me after seeing our conversation. I think it's a thoughtful article which addresses some of the points we've both been making in a reasonable way. Please read it and let me know what you think. http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4799/ http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4799/ Shemp does not understand the concept of greenhouse gases. Let him try to explain the scientific concept of greenhouse gases on a planet's atmosphere (eg. Venus), and how does it work. He does not understand the concept, so how can his opinion on the effects be of any interest. It would be like talking to a caveman about how an airplane works. OffWorld Why don't you first understand the concept of sticking to one point of view instead of being all over the map politically. It is insulting to those of us who admire people like Ron Paul to have nutcases like you be his fan one minute and then support his ideological opposite like Barry Obama the next. And, speaking of Ron Paul -- whose attitude on Global Warming is a wait-and-see one as to whether it is real or not -- his stand on what government should do about it is 180 degrees different from Barry cap and trade Obama. Get educated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vbMly74cZ8feature=related .
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp: Climate Change and Conservatives | Bill McKibben | Orion Magazine
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of off_world_beings Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 2:39 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp: Climate Change and Conservatives | Bill McKibben | Orion Magazine Shemp does not understand the concept of greenhouse gases. Let him try to explain the scientific concept of greenhouse gases on a planet's atmosphere (eg. Venus), and how does it work. He does not understand the concept, so how can his opinion on the effects be of any interest. It would be like talking to a caveman about how an airplane works. OffWorld He's capable of understanding it. He's just in right-wing consciousness. The guy thinks DDT was a great blessing to humanity and that Rachael Carson inflicted great harm by getting it banned.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp: Climate Change and Conservatives | Bill McKibben | Orion Magazine
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of off_world_beings Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 2:39 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp: Climate Change and Conservatives | Bill McKibben | Orion Magazine Shemp does not understand the concept of greenhouse gases. Let him try to explain the scientific concept of greenhouse gases on a planet's atmosphere (eg. Venus), and how does it work. He does not understand the concept, so how can his opinion on the effects be of any interest. It would be like talking to a caveman about how an airplane works. OffWorld He's capable of understanding it. He's just in right-wing consciousness. The guy thinks DDT was a great blessing to humanity and that Rachael Carson inflicted great harm by getting it banned. Yes, quite right.
[FairfieldLife] For Shemp: Climate Change: Why It's Even Worse Than We Feared
Hopefully to counterbalance some of the crap with which you choose to fill your head: CLIMATE-CHANGE CALCULUS WHY IT'S EVEN WORSE THAN WE FEARED By Sharon Begley Newsweek August 3rd Issue, 2009 http://www.newsweek.com/id/208164 Among the phrases you really, really do not want to hear from climate scientists are: that really shocked us, we had no idea how bad it was, and reality is well ahead of the climate models. Yet in speaking to researchers who focus on the Arctic, you hear comments like these so regularly they begin to sound like the thumping refrain from Jaws: annoying harbingers of something that you really, really wish would go away. Let me deconstruct the phrases above. The shock came when the International Polar Year, a global consortium studying the Arctic, froze a small vessel into the sea ice off eastern Siberia in September 2006. Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen had done the same thing a century before, and his Fram, carried by the drifting ice, emerged off eastern Greenland 34 months later. IPY scientists thought their Tara would take 24 to 36 months. But it reached Greenland in just 14 months, stark evidence that the sea ice found a more open, ice-free, and thus faster path westward thanks to Arctic melting. The loss of Arctic sea ice is well ahead of what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast, largely because emissions of carbon dioxide have topped what the panel -- which foolishly expected nations to care enough about global warming to do something about it -- projected. The models just aren't keeping up with the reality of CO2 emissions, says the IPY's David Carlson. Although policymakers hoped climate models would prove to be alarmist, the opposite is true, particularly in the Arctic. The IPCC may also have been too cautious on Greenland, assuming that the melting of its glaciers would contribute little to sea-level rise. Some studies found that Greenland's glacial streams were surging and surface ice was morphing into liquid lakes, but others made a strong case that those surges and melts were aberrations, not long-term trends. It seemed to be a standoff. More reliable data, however, such as satellite measurements of Greenland's mass, show that it is losing about 52 cubic miles per year and that the melting is accelerating. So while the IPCC projected that sea level would rise 16 inches this century, now a more likely figure is one meter [39 inches] at the least, says Carlson. Chest high instead of knee high, with half to two thirds of that due to Greenland. Hence the no idea how bad it was. The frozen north had another surprise in store. Scientists have long known that permafrost, if it melted, would release carbon, exacerbating global warming, which would melt more permafrost, which would add more to global warming, on and on in a feedback loop. But estimates of how much carbon is locked into Arctic permafrost were, it turns out, woefully off. It's about three times as much as was thought, about 1.6 trillion metric tons, which has surprised a lot of people, says Edward Schuur of the University of Florida. It means the potential for positive feedbacks is greatly increased. That 1.6 trillion tons is about twice the amount now in the atmosphere. And Schuur's measurements of how quickly CO2 can come out of permafrost, reported in May, were also a surprise: 1 billion to 2 billion tons per year. Cars and light trucks in the U.S. emit about 300 million tons per year. In an insightful observation in The Guardian this month, Jim Watson of the University of Sussex wrote that a new breed of climate sceptic is becoming more common: someone who doubts not the science but the policy response. Given the pathetic (non)action on global warming at the G8 summit, and the fact that the energy/climate bill passed by the House of Representatives is so full of holes and escape hatches that it has barely a prayer of averting dangerous climate change, skepticism that the world will get its act together seems appropriate. For instance, the G8, led by Europe, has vowed to take steps to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by reducing CO2 emissions. We're now at 0.8 degree. But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already enough to raise the mercury 2 degrees. The only reason it hasn't is that the atmosphere is full of crap (dust and aerosols that contribute to asthma, emphysema, and other diseases) that acts as a global coolant. As that pollution is reduced for health reasons, we're going to blast right through 2 degrees, which is enough to ex-acerbate droughts and storms, wreak havoc on agriculture, and produce a planet warmer than it's been in millions of years. The 2-degree promise is a mirage. The test of whether the nations of the world care enough to act will come in December, when 192 countries meet in Copenhagen to hammer out a climate treaty. Carlson vows that IPY will finish its Arctic assessment in time for the meeting, and one conclusion is
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp lies to cover his anon. cowardice.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: But that wasn't the issue It is now, especially after you put my name in the title, like the annonymous coward that you are. But, Tom, you are the one who chose to share your name with us. You are welcome to use it, I really don't care, but I still consider it cowardly to post here anonymously. Ony cowards do that. Well, then, I'm confused because it was only a few short weeks ago that you were complaining that I was outing you by using your real name in a post --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: But that wasn't the issue It is now, especially after you put my name in the title, like the annonymous coward that you are. But, Tom, you are the one who chose to share your name with us. You are welcome to use it, I really don't care, but I still consider it cowardly to post here anonymously. Ony cowards do that. Well, then, I'm confused because it was only a few short weeks ago that you were complaining that I was outing you by using your real name in a post Lying does not help your argument. The only time I was angry was when you gave my name and location to someone seeking money for a scam, and pretended to be me, as if I was offering him to come stay and have some money (all of which is a crime by the way.) You act like a low life, a scumbag, a troll, and a dirty old man. I am sure you are not like that. Your nastiness is eating away at your stomach and your brain, and you can feel it can't you? Put your name up, set yourself free from your cowardly self Mr. Nowhere Man. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp lies to cover his anon. cowardice.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: [snip] Well, then, I'm confused because it was only a few short weeks ago that you were complaining that I was outing you by using your real name in a post Lying does not help your argument. The only time I was angry was when you gave my name and location to someone seeking money for a scam, and pretended to be me, as if I was offering him to come stay and have some money (all of which is a crime by the way.) You act like a low life, a scumbag, a troll, and a dirty old man. I am sure you are not like that. Your nastiness is eating away at your stomach and your brain, and you can feel it can't you? Put your name up, set yourself free from your cowardly self Mr. Nowhere Man. OffWorld When exactly did I do all this? When did I pretend to be you and give your name and location to someone who would bilk you in a scam? What are you talking about?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp helps con artist-- then looses his mind
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: [snip] Well, then, I'm confused because it was only a few short weeks ago that you were complaining that I was outing you by using your real name in a post Lying does not help your argument. The only time I was angry was when you gave my name and location to someone seeking money for a scam, and pretended to be me, as if I was offering him to come stay and have some money (all of which is a crime by the way.) You act like a low life, a scumbag, a troll, and a dirty old man. I am sure you are not like that. Your nastiness is eating away at your stomach and your brain, and you can feel it can't you? Put your name up, set yourself free from your cowardly self Mr. Nowhere Man. OffWorld When exactly did I do all this? When did I pretend to be you and give your name and location to someone who would bilk you in a scam? Are you loosing your mind? You don't even remember. A quick search for my name in the message brought it up. Its right here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/203411 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/203411 Its message 203411 of FFL. And here is a screen shot of it: http://screencast.com/t/a3vV78GKpGH http://screencast.com/t/a3vV78GKpGH OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp helps con artist-- then looses his mind
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: [snip] Well, then, I'm confused because it was only a few short weeks ago that you were complaining that I was outing you by using your real name in a post Lying does not help your argument. The only time I was angry was when you gave my name and location to someone seeking money for a scam, and pretended to be me, as if I was offering him to come stay and have some money (all of which is a crime by the way.) You act like a low life, a scumbag, a troll, and a dirty old man. I am sure you are not like that. Your nastiness is eating away at your stomach and your brain, and you can feel it can't you? Put your name up, set yourself free from your cowardly self Mr. Nowhere Man. OffWorld When exactly did I do all this? When did I pretend to be you and give your name and location to someone who would bilk you in a scam? Are you loosing your mind? You don't even remember. A quick search for my name in the message brought it up. Its right here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/203411 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/203411 Its message 203411 of FFL. And here is a screen shot of it: http://screencast.com/t/a3vV78GKpGH http://screencast.com/t/a3vV78GKpGH OffWorld Oh, yes, I remember that. Quite amusing. However, when you next see your shrink, ask him to give you therapy for actually believing that Nigerian con-artists are real people who would actually come to Burlington and stay with you. Oh, and you don't actually live in Burlington, do you. You're in Swanton or some other such place (I've been to 'em all in Vermont).
[FairfieldLife] Save Shemp? Speak up! New posting rule suggestion....
Alex wrote: Well, we're all gonna have to wait an entire week to find out how he's [Shemp] doing, because in not being able to resist joking about sagging African breasts, he made a 51st post for the week. But, hey, at least he has a bottle of xanax to get him through the FFL withdrawal. Alex, Ya didn't have to diss Shemp with your announcement, but, YOU DID. No matter how much Shemp's been rude to you, you're a moderator, and thus your stomping on him was of a lower vibe by more than a notch, and it sure wasn't the sweet truth. 'Course, killing Bambi on a regular basis probably gives you a lot of practice in this sort of thing. What do you whisper to the deer that's spritzing blood and still kicking it's last? Do you try to make it feel okay about your finding protein in the wild? Does ya send them off to reincarnational heaven with a prayerful bon mot or do you snicker at them and say, gotcha ya rat with antlers, die, die, die? Just askin' to find out which end of the spectrum you're nearest: is it the end where your mind is like a meat processing plant pneumatic gun steer stunner's or is it the other end where you're like the Native American of long ago who considered the deer HIS PEER and wished him well on his journey in the afterlife and thanked him for helping the hunter's life continue? Here's Shemp, once easily put into the shoot and eat category equally with, say, Nab or Willy, but in recent weeks has been posting some seriously thought out stuff, and, I for one, was caught off guard with his improvement -- caught myself having put him into handcuffs that he Houdineed out of in a blink. Nice lesson there for all of us that Shemp could transform his energetic signature here before our eyes to the degree that we've all seen. But, Alex, you decided to deride him, negatively underline his use of MEDICINE, ignore his recent contributions, indirectly suggest that he's a Nat.Geo. masturbating adolescent, and then snicker about his overposting. S.H.A.M.E.O.N.Y.O.U.Mr. Moderator. New posting rule suggestion: every time someone goes over the posting limit and gets banned, if, say, seven posts come in asking for that poster to be pardoned and not penalized, then that's enough to overide the moderator's application of the penalty. Consider this the #1 post in favor of Shemp's not being banned. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: You know Shemp, the reason you're having a crisis in the first place, is because you are a heartless conservative who causes the rest to suffer needlessly and maybe this is just natures way of shaking you, to wake you up, out of your funk... :-) I thought it was karmic payback for all those years of looking at sagging African breasts in National Geographic. :-) Seriously, I hope all works out well, Shemp. Well, we're all gonna have to wait an entire week to find out how he's doing, because in not being able to resist joking about sagging African breasts, he made a 51st post for the week. But, hey, at least he has a bottle of xanax to get him through the FFL withdrawal.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Save Shemp? Speak up! New posting rule suggestion....
On Jun 19, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Duveyoung wrote: New posting rule suggestion: every time someone goes over the posting limit and gets banned, if, say, seven posts come in asking for that poster to be pardoned and not penalized, then that's enough to overide the moderator's application of the penalty. Consider this the #1 post in favor of Shemp's not being banned. While I think it's unreasonable to make a new posting rule whereby people are pardoned, I do believe it's reasonable for people in need to have extended posting rules. Since we did this for Kirk, we should extend the same courtesy to Shemp.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp is Mr. NoWhereMan
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Curtis is alive! Imagine my surprise after so much mourning, weeping, and crying to awaken this morning, turn on my computer, log onto FFL and discover that Curtis is NOT dead! Oh, happy day. What possessed that moron in Vermont to claim such a thing? I heard you guys say it a while back no? He has no reality to you though. He is just an online personlaity - ie. not a real one. Just like you, and ulike me who gives my real name in Vermont. Only an idiot worries so much about an anonymous digital personality who he has never met. OffWorld I went to MIU with Curtis from '75 to '79. I know he's a real person, what he looks like, and what he's like. Yes, I have remained anonymous and Curtis doesn't know who I am but I assure you if he met me, he'd remember me (and, yes, he played a really mean mouth organ even back then!). As for you giving your real name, you did that in a pique of temporary insanity Your stuff about my real name is bullshit. I gave my real name a very long time ago, several times, because you or someone else ...wasn't me. Why would you even hint that it was me? had your usual unbelievably disgusting insults, and I said, I'd like to see you say that to my face, and then I gave my name and state. That was LONG before the insult you gave me about my ex-wife. What insult that I gave you about your wife? Frothing again. That was new.morning, not me. The offer to say any of it to my face is still open to you or any of the other NoWhereMen anonymous haters on FFL. Now, go take your meds and stop bothering everybody. That's what people say when they are entirely lonely and lost little loosers, who can ONLY get social interaction as an anonymous poster, posting endless insults to people on the internet. I'm off out to the pub for nachos and a beer with my girlfriend, and drink a good pint of Vermont organic beer. Keep posting here while I'm gone Mr. NoWhereMan. Mr. NoWhereMan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scFa5DYupkU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scFa5DYupkU OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp Alert! Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
...this is one of the reasons why the New York Times is on the brink of bankruptcy. This is a propaganda piece, through and through. Here's just one gem: The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups. $1.68 million is, simply, chicken-feed. Compare that to the 10s of Billions (that's billions with a b) that the federal government gives out in grants that are meant to provide evidence for global warming (you won't get a grant unless that will be the obvious outcome). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: The gist of the article is that scientists working for the oil, coal, and auto industries made it clear to executives that man-made climate change is real, but as with the tobacco industry, executives chose to lie to the public out of greed and short-sightedness. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1hp hp The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From a friendly lurker Hey Rick I was just glancing at FFL and saw Shemp's post about being depressed. I would suggest he get a male hormone panel. Men at this age usually have a huge shift in the ratio of testosterone to estrogen and believe it or not there are ways to adjust this herbally and it might shift his mood. Thing is he has to be very careful who he goes to. Not an endocrinologist as they may want to use testosterone and that is the kiss of death. Only herbally and nutritionally For boosting testosterone and reducing estrogen dominance naturally, check out Dr. William Wong's websites: http://www.drwong.us/ http://www.naturalhealthpodcasts.com/podcasts.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp
On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From a friendly lurker Hey Rick I was just glancing at FFL and saw Shemp's post about being depressed. I would suggest he get a male hormone panel. Men at this age usually have a huge shift in the ratio of testosterone to estrogen and believe it or not there are ways to adjust this herbally and it might shift his mood. Thing is he has to be very careful who he goes to. Not an endocrinologist as they may want to use testosterone and that is the kiss of death. Only herbally and nutritionally For boosting testosterone and reducing estrogen dominance naturally, check out Dr. William Wong's websites: http://www.drwong.us/ http://www.naturalhealthpodcasts.com/podcasts.html Bioidentical hormones are getting some good science to back their use. I know it is really helpful for menopause, you can get rid of those nasty hot flashes and mood swings. Some women have a real drop in testosterone which can make them feel very vulnerable. You'll need a good and supportive doc to do the workup and then a compounding pharmacist to make up the meds. I know my insurance covers it, yours may too. Since these levels are a sensitive issue, it's great that you can now have someone work up your hormone profile and then follow it across time, adjusting the bioidenticals as needed. In a couple of months you can naturally be back to your teenage hormone levels.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp
Herbs are basically bullshit. They are fine if you are fine, they will not heal problems already manifesting. That's why all gurus eventually go to medical doctors. - Original Message - From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 8:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From a friendly lurker Hey Rick I was just glancing at FFL and saw Shemp's post about being depressed. I would suggest he get a male hormone panel. Men at this age usually have a huge shift in the ratio of testosterone to estrogen and believe it or not there are ways to adjust this herbally and it might shift his mood. Thing is he has to be very careful who he goes to. Not an endocrinologist as they may want to use testosterone and that is the kiss of death. Only herbally and nutritionally For boosting testosterone and reducing estrogen dominance naturally, check out Dr. William Wong's websites: http://www.drwong.us/ http://www.naturalhealthpodcasts.com/podcasts.html To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp
Hmmm? So 'herbs' are worthless if one has problems already manifesting! Inneresting Herbs are basically bullshit. They are fine if you are fine, they will not heal problems already manifesting. That's why all gurus eventually go to medical doctors. - Original Message - From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_ stan...@yahoo. com To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 8:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From a friendly lurker Hey Rick I was just glancing at FFL and saw Shemp's post about being depressed. I would suggest he get a male hormone panel. Men at this age usually have a huge shift in the ratio of testosterone to estrogen and believe it or not there are ways to adjust this herbally and it might shift his mood. Thing is he has to be very careful who he goes to. Not an endocrinologist as they may want to use testosterone and that is the kiss of death. Only herbally and nutritionally. ... For boosting testosterone and reducing estrogen dominance naturally, check out Dr. William Wong's websites: http://www.drwong. us/ http://www.naturalh ealthpodcasts. com/podcasts. html - - -- To subscribe, send a message to: FairfieldLife- subscribe@ yahoogroups. com Or go to: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/FairfieldL ife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] For Shemp [despondency]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Just pointing out that it could be the former. Doesn't really matter. Would you consider seeking out some counseling? Yes. A friend suggested I call a crisis hotline. I've got the number off the internet and it's sitting on my table. Now, it's just a matter of getting up the nerve to call. FWIW to you coming from me Shemp, I wish you the best. I've had my own serious personal black times and I truly know how devastatingly bad it can feel and be. -DO- get some assistance. It's readily available to you. I will tell you that apart from medical help - one thing that helped me is remembering that it will pass - even when I didn't see how it could. The dark stuff REALLY DOES pass. From Maharishi: == It may be that the clouds are gathered. Let them come and go. They go as they come. Take no notice of their coming. You go your way, make your way through the clouds, if they lie on the way. Do not try to dispel them, do not be held by them, they will go the way they have come. They are never found stationary. But, if you would like to pause to see them wither away, wait for a while the wind is blowing anyway. It is to clear the clouds from your way. Just wait to see the clouds wither away, and the sun, the same old sun of love will shine again in fullness of its glory. When night comes, all appears to be dark, but darkness does not last. The light of the dawn comes on and spreads the love and charm of life. So we shall not mind if the darkness of the night sets in for a while. For the light of love can, for certain, not be gone forever. ~Maharishi - Love and God, excerpt
[FairfieldLife] For Shemp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxPcJyypUKceurl=http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/ers-getting-screwed-42571.html http://tinyurl.com/bwmgn4
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp has no Colored friends
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Vermont has .5% black and 96.8% white. Not in my county. There are many colored people (I consider the term 'black' to be a racist term) [snip] Here's a novel concept for you, Offal: it's not what YOU want to call African-Americans, it's what THEY want to be called. That's why no one here believes you when you tell us that: 1) you have African-American friends; and 2) that you told them Obama is moving to The Black House and that they don't mind you referring to them as colored. You obviously have no colored friends Shemp. You're right, I don't. I do, however, know several African-Americans. I have several, and more than half of them take offence at being called black or African American. How many African-Vermonters do you know? Or, should I say, how many colored-Green-Mountainers do you know? I'm really curious to know the evolution of these race discussions you have with the colored...how does it start? Are you both sitting down to a meal of maple syrup and snow and somehow the conversation gets around to what labels they prefer? Who broaches the subject? It is derogatory to Tiger Woods mother to call Tiger black, and I have heard many people say that they hate being called black or African American because they are not, even though they may have some African in them down the line. They are neither African, nor black, and many are mixed race and you will see a backlash in society about the terms you think black people like. They do not like these terms. They don't like it Shemp, you are brain-washed by the mainstream media. They are mixed race. If you have black friends go ask them about all this and get back to us. That will be a long wait won't it. Look, it may be me but I wouldn't feel comfortable broaching the subject. You, obviously, are a brother and can walk through any street in Harlem at all hours. I can't...and it's not because I'm a racist; I simply can't. The only terms under which I'd have a conversation with a Black person about this subject would ONLY be: what do YOU prefer to be called or referred to when asked your race? That's it. I am mixed race too by the way. Yes, I understand you are of the exotic and elusive Scottish-English mix. Never seen one of them before. Do you prefer to be labelled White-White or Saxon-Gaelic? OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Why Shemp Is Wrong (was: Re: Why Obama will lose)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are another 33 days until the election. In that time, the American people will have time to discuss, learn about, and debate the causes of the mortgage/bailout crisis. Those 33 days will enable us to sort out a lot of what has been going on these past few weeks. And what will they learn? That it wasn't capitalism that failed but, rather socialism and regulation that got us into this mess: the requirement, by law, that lending institutions MUST lend money to undeserving and uncredit worthy individuals. Actually, Shemp may or may not be wrong about whether Obama will lose, or what voters will learn about the credit crisis that will keep them from voting for Obama. Trouble is, what they learn, as outlined by Shemp, will be wrong. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is not what caused the crisis. Barry Ritholtz is the chief market strategist for Ritholtz Research, an independent institutional research firm specializing in the analysis of macroeconomic trends and the capital markets. On his blog, The Big Picture, he has a post (with many links) called Misunderstanding Credit and Housing Crises: Blaming the CRA, GSEs. Here's an excerpt: Let's clarify the causes of current circumstances. Ask yourself the following questions about the impact of the Community Reinvestment Act and/or the role of Fannie Freddie: --Did the 1977 legislation, or any other legislation since, require banks to not verify income or payment history of mortgage applicants? --50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision; another 30% were made by banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. How was this caused by either CRA or GSEs? --What about No Money Down Mortgages (0% down payments)? Were they required by the CRA? Fannie? Freddie? --Explain the shift in Loan to value from 80% to 120%: What was it in the Act that changed this traditional lending requirement? --Did any Federal legislation require real estate agents and mortgage writers to use the same corrupt appraisers again and again? How did they manage to always come in at exactly the purchase price, no matter what? --Did the CRA require banks to develop automated underwriting (AU) systems that emphasized speed rather than accuracy in order to process the greatest number of mortgage apps as quickly as possible? --How exactly did legislation force Moody's, SPs and Fitch to rate junk paper as Triple AAA? --What about piggy back loans? Were banks required by Congress to lend the first mortgage and do a HELOC for the down payment--at the same time? --Internal bank memos showed employees how to cheat the system to get poor mortgages prospects approved that shouldn't have been: Titled How to Get an Iffy loan approved at JPM Chase. Was circulating that memo also a FNM/FRE/CRA requirement? --The four biggest problem areas for housing (by price decreases) are: Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami, Florida, and San Diego, California. Explain exactly how these affluent, non-minority regions were impacted by the Community Reinvesment Act? --Did the GSEs require banks to not check credit scores? Assets? Income? --What was it about the CRA or GSEs that mandated fund managers load up on an investment product that was hard to value, thinly traded, and poorly understood? --What was it in the Act that forced banks to make interest only loans? Were Neg Am loans also part of the legislative requirements also? --Consider this February 2003 speech by Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozlilo at the American Bankers National Real Estate Conference. He advocated zero down payment mortgages--was that a CRA requirement too, or just a grab for more market share, and bad banking? The answer to all of the above questions is no, none, and nothing at all. The CRA is not remotely one of the proximate causes of the current credit crunch, housing collapse, and mortgage debacle Read more: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstandin.html
[FairfieldLife] For Shemp: Steve Colbert's on White Male Oppression
Judy Stein may be many things but the implication of this horrible comment by Tom -- and I won't dignify it by spelling it out -- is, simply, unfair, unwarrented, and cruel. Also incomplete. Tom left out, He's a man. Well, then, you have nothing to worry about. *Especially* for Shemp, because the editors of Esquire took the long article he'd never have the attention span to read and turned it into a handy slide show: http://www.esquire.com/features/stephen-colbert-0808?click=main_sr Take an Advil, Shemp. You know, for that crushing pain and angst that comes back in four to six hours.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, MDixon WillyTex' Dumbass War
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For someone who is so against war and killing you sure have alot of bile and hatred in your system, Off.Kilter... Your hatred is the biggest on FFL life by far and everyone sees it. Your heart has become the heart of a vile old man, which were it ever touched with the slightest compassion would convulse as if poison had entered it. This hatred of yours is eating away at your flesh as we speak and you know it. When this process is complete the world will be able to shake off your useless remnant, and evolve at full capacity. This is not a judgement of you - for the ignorant must pass into their lonely oblivion. But it is the truth. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] For Shemp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_76Cx-bJ_s Contrite soul with guilt oppressed...
[FairfieldLife] For Shemp
[IraqBodyCount.jpg picture by FFL_2008]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, MDixon WillyTex' Dumbass War
For someone who is so against war and killing you sure have alot of bile and hatred in your system, Off.Kilter... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shemp, MDIXON WillyTex' Dumbass War (any other retards want their names added to the above list?) http://tinyurl.com/5s7bfe OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp MDixon's Dumbass War
off wrote: Shemp MDixon's Dumbass War http://youtube.com/watch?v=GePao3-2HL8 So, you think that the U.S. is in a war? Yes, a war against redneck ignorance and Texas retards. So, you're in a Dumbass War with rednecks, but you're saying that Texans are retards?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp MDixon's Dumbass War
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: off wrote: Shemp MDixon's Dumbass War http://youtube.com/watch?v=GePao3-2HL8 So, you think that the U.S. is in a war? Yes, a war against redneck ignorance and Texas retards. So, you're in a Dumbass War with rednecks, but you're saying that Texans are retards? Texans and rednecks...are the same thing. Dumbass. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp MDixon's Dumbass War
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Shemp MDixon's Dumbass War http://youtube.com/watch?v=GePao3-2HL8 OffWorld Hey, OffWorld, I just bought some Walker's Highland Oatcakes at CostPlus World Market. Did you grow up eating the wee things? Yes, very good with unsalted butter and jam on them. OffWorld Did you like my use of the adjective wee? Did it make you all homesick and such? No, I'm the ultimate hybrid...born and bred in Scotland to an otherwise entirely English family, thus inheriting the combined superiority complexes of both, making for a mega-superiority complex. Thereforeno, I'm not impressed. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Willytex, Shemp, MDixon's Dumbass War
Willytex, Shemp, and MDixon's Dumbass War http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080427/ts_nm/iraq_dc OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp MDixon's Dumbass War
So, you think that the U.S. is in a war? Yes, a war against redneck ignorance and Texas retards. So, you're in a Dumbass War with rednecks, but you're saying that Texans are retards? Texans and rednecks...are the same thing. So, you're in a dumbass war.
