Chip with simple program for Toy

[zzbunker]

On Aug 25, 3:27 am, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

forbisga...@msn.com wrote:
On Aug 24, 3:41 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:

True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).
...

Furthermore, "free speech" is merely the right to express one's views
without restraint in a forum of one's own. It is not the right to loot
others.

So, for the poor to organize so as to stand up to superior economic
power is to engaging in looting?

Power is force. It's not economic.

Power is force x velocity.
That's why engineers generally make money, holograms, GPS, PV
Cells, microcomputers,
fiber oprics, robots, blogs, lasers, masers, Ebooks, USB, Online-
Publishing, History,
CD, DVD, HDTV, Broadvand, Adaptive A..I. Cell Phones, and proftis,
and Economists generally
make the null set about babbling nonsense.




You are equating economic inequality

with slavery. I do not think that is valid, and it ... insults people's
value and ability to be self-determined.

This is the Prime Mistake of Marxism.

I dont even thing free speach is sufficient for free trade.  I think
near equality of circumstances is required.

Then it's information-theoretic impossible. Since trade is *the*
mechanism for people to *improve* their lot, it casts them
into an eternal subclass.

Interchange by non-trade *is* force.

Any time people
with unequal power engage in trade the person with the greater
power has the advantage.  Nearly all laborers need their jobs to
survive but most businesses don't need any particular non-owner
employee to survive.

All businesses do, very much. Now, the culture is decaying and tells
people that they can "do it all", but the very mother's milk
of interdependency is trade.

--
Les Cargill

 

On Aug 26, 6:43 am, zzbunker <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote:

   Power is force x velocity.

or the square of activity times the opposition to it.

 

[Bret Cahill]

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.
True.

Nope, the real poor in modern first world countrys dont do any
work at all, they just put their hands out for welfare and benefits.

That's because they know they won't be properly paid for any work, or,
rather, don't know that they would be properly paid if they had free
speech.

As deTocqueville wrote, "slavery introduces idleness" to society.


Bret Cahill


"A slave is he who cannot speak his thought."

-- Euripides

 

[Bret Cahill]

When they go into straw man mode, it's a clear indication they have no
confidence in winning the debate.

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.

True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).

Who decides how much it too much?

Broadly, no one.

Just say "markets."

The market decides -

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

Now answer this question:

How can the market decide without free speech?

Even free marketeers will use terms like "informed market decisions"
etc.

How can anyone be informed without the free flow of information, in
other words, free speech.

.. . .

...supporting the precondition of free markets, free speech,
would cause free markets which would would level wealth which is
_exactly_ what would get them fired.

You mean that the precondition of free markets is looting

Where did anyone other than yourself ever suggest any such thing?

Only a censor would claim "free speech" was the same as "looting."

So, you are a censor?

_You_ are the one equating "free speech" to "looting."

_I_ never introduced the word "looting" to the discussion.

_You_ introduced the word "looting."

_You_ are the censor.

I'm not the one who is saying that free speech
is looting.

_You_ are the one who introduced the word "looting" to the debate.

I never used "looting" or any similar term.

You are.

Again, where did anyone other than _you_ suggest that free speech was
looting?

its most
productive participants - the rich?

Who decides who are most productive?

The market again, of course.

Again, how can the market decide without free speech?

.. . . .

Somehow I doubt that any "outspoken market economist" would have any
difficult in demolishing this delusion.

But can he answer The Question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

No one can - including yourself.

The answer is a self evident truth.

Only a complete idiot would even try to debate the answer.

It is a totally out of context
question

Free markets and their preconditions are out of context to _what_?

Economics?

blatantly and deliberately loaded with ambiguity and
equivocation.

Get a "market" economist to write that down as a response to The
Question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

Even on your own delusional terms - if free speech means looting
the
rich -

The record is clear:

The only one who claimed free speech is looting is _you_.

I never used the term "looting" or anything else that suggested free
speech was looting.

that obviously has nothing to do with free trade. In fact it is
the exact opposite.

You need to find something in the record that suggests my usage of
"free speech" is any different that that upheld by the courts.

Since there is nothing in the record then you must admit your
disreputable straw man tactic didn't work.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

It's self-evident: poor wealth does not flow to the rich.
The only way for the rich to get richer is for new
wealth to be created. If you mean that the labor
of the poor is being expropriated, just say so.
It's absurd to claim that their wealth is being taken
away, since they have none, by definition.

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.

Define "properly."

A a free market free trade.

This is why the outspoken market economists will always dodge The
Question, "does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

That one has already been debunked,

If an outspoken market economist has already answered The Question,
then track down the original and I'll pay $200 for it.

In the meantime, Email BretCahill@aol.com a pdf or tif file of the
original.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

It's self-evident: poor wealth does not flow to the rich.
The only way for the rich to get richer is for new
wealth to be created. If you mean that the labor
of the poor is being expropriated, just say so.
It's absurd to claim that their wealth is being taken
away, since they have none, by definition.

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.

This is why the outspoken market economists will always dodge The
Question, "does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

They know supporting the precondition of free markets, free speech,
would cause free markets which would would level wealth which is
_exactly_ what would get them fired.

They'll eventually need to retrain for the productive sector anyway
because it's so cheap and easy for anyone here to send polite letters
by tracking mail to the "outspoken" market economists.

And then post the letters and numbers here.

The letter could read:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �My Address
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �Hometown, ST,
ZIPCO-DEXX

Thomas Sowell
Economics Dept.
Hoover Inst.
Stanford CA, 94546

Dear Dr. Sowell:

I'm a great admirer of your lofty work. �There's a lowly leftwing
smelly obnoxious commie liberaloon peacenik Democrat trolling
newsgroups under the handle "Bret Cahill" who claims he has inside
information on Hoover fellows and that you will refuse any request to
answer a simple question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade."

He claims he'll pay $200 for a hard copy answer from you.

You can answer with any text you want.

If you spend 5 minutes writing "no" then we can split the money and
both average $1200/hr for our effort, or, even better, discredit that
Cahill guy.

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �Yours,

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �Chat Group Chuck

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Or you could pretend to agree with me. �I could care less what you say
as long as you get a response to The Question.

Actually, I just IM'ed Thomas Sowell on Yahoo Messenger.
He says, "That little cracker, Bret Cahill, just doesn't like
strong conservative black men. �Bigoted liberal crackers
like him are a dime a dozen on the open market.

Sowell is black? If you don't want to do an Uncle Tom try out this
one:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My Address
Hometown, ST, ZIPCO-DEXX

President
American Enterprise Inst
Washington, DC 20471

Dear Dr. President:

I'm a great admirer of your lofty work. There's a lowly leftwing
smelly obnoxious commie liberaloon peacenik Democrat trolling
newsgroups under the handle "Bret Cahill" who claims he has inside
information on AEI philosophers and that you will refuse any request
to answer a simple question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade."

He claims he'll pay $200 for a hard copy answer from you.

You can answer with any text you want.

If you spend 5 minutes writing "no" then we can split the money and
both average $1200/hr for our effort, or, even better, discredit that
liberaloon Cahill troll.

Yours,

Chat Group Chuck

USPS tracking number

4578 3785 8576 2354 9720

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

It's self-evident: poor wealth does not flow to the rich.
The only way for the rich to get richer is for new
wealth to be created. ?If you mean that the labor
of the poor is being expropriated, just say so.
It's absurd to claim that their wealth is being taken
away, since they have none, by definition.

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.

.. . .

This is why the outspoken market economists will always dodge The
Question, "does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

Nope, they have enough of a clue to realise that its a stupid question.

Just because you are too stoopid to answer the question doesn't mean
it's a stupid question.

They know supporting the precondition of free markets,
free speech, would cause free markets which would would
level wealth which is _exactly_ what would get them fired.

.. . .

They'll eventually need to retrain for the productive sector anyway

Not even possible.

If they don't have enough money for retirement, they'll have to go on
Social Security.

because it's so cheap and easy for anyone here to send polite
letters by tracking mail to the "outspoken" market economists.

Who will just file it where it belongs, in the round filing cabinet under their desks.

They cannot be effective _politically_ dodgin' 'n dodgin' questions.

The funding will dry up.

And then post the letters and numbers here.

Where almost no one will even see them.

Can you start a thread that'll get more responses than the "$200 Shill
Tank Letter"?


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.

True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).

Who decides how much it too much?

Broadly, no one. The market decides - a result of the choices of
buyers and sellers or, in this instance, employers and workers. For
example, if you pay workers too little, they will quit and go
elsewhere and you will have difficulty finding replacements. On the
other hand, if workers demand too much and a company is unable to pay
them, it goes out of business (or goes elsewhere, e.g. overseas). This
of course is what has happened to the auto industry in the USA.

Labor and Capital are not on an equal footing unless they are allowed
to organize and make enforcable contracts as a group. ďż˝

The case law is clear: "Labor and capital, employer and employee,
stand on equal basis before this court."

-- The *Oakmar*

If employees have equal rights with employers including equal free
speech rights, then incomes will rapidly level so most everyone
receives close to the average mean income which is well over $60/hour.

Union workers will see a continuous increase of income with equal
rights to free speech.

Finally, no union can posture as being pro employee or pro union
without supporting free speech for employees. The truth is self
evident:

Freedom of speech for employees is a precondition of unionization.

Union officials either must admit to that self evident truth or face
declining market share.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Free markets are good for the economy!

But not people.

Maybe you mean the scam "free markets" touted by Repugliars are not
good for people.

But then, Repugliar pseudo markets aren't good for the economy
either. Democratic administrations generally do better.

The problem isn't free markets but the frauds pretending to support
free markets when they really don't.

As I've pointed out numerous times, anyone can cheaply and easily
discredit Repugliar "market" economists simply by popping them with
The Question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

If they really supported markets then they would be falling over
themselves to answer The Question.

Instead they all -- not some -- they ALL dodge it like it's the
plague.

Go figure.

Just glance through some political and economics classics next time
you are in the library and you'll get an idea of the disinformation
campaign, the dumbing down effort of the American despotism.

The economy is an imaginary construct. People are real.

And real people need real free speech, not the naked nazi flagburner
parades pseudo "speech" gush hyped by the corp. media.

That's nothing but a scam to dumb down the public concerned real
rights.

They want to keep you poor and powerless.

And they do it with scam "speech" and scam "markets."


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

You just need to state it properly:

Without free speech it's not a free trade.

So, your utopia in Singapore doesn't have free trade.

Or do you know of any significant censorship of economic issue in
Singapore?

If not then that's the reason E. Asia has double digit growth rates
while the U. S. is stuck with GOP tax cut stagflation.


Bret Cahill

 

On Aug 26, 8:13 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

It's self-evident: poor wealth does not flow to the rich.
The only way for the rich to get richer is for new
wealth to be created. If you mean that the labor
of the poor is being expropriated, just say so.
It's absurd to claim that their wealth is being taken
away, since they have none, by definition.

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.

This is why the outspoken market economists will always dodge The
Question, "does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

They know supporting the precondition of free markets, free speech,
would cause free markets which would would level wealth which is
_exactly_ what would get them fired.

They'll eventually need to retrain for the productive sector anyway
because it's so cheap and easy for anyone here to send polite letters
by tracking mail to the "outspoken" market economists.

And then post the letters and numbers here.

The letter could read:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My Address
Hometown, ST,
ZIPCO-DEXX

Thomas Sowell
Economics Dept.
Hoover Inst.
Stanford CA, 94546

Dear Dr. Sowell:

I'm a great admirer of your lofty work. There's a lowly leftwing
smelly obnoxious commie liberaloon peacenik Democrat trolling
newsgroups under the handle "Bret Cahill" who claims he has inside
information on Hoover fellows and that you will refuse any request to
answer a simple question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade."

He claims he'll pay $200 for a hard copy answer from you.

You can answer with any text you want.

If you spend 5 minutes writing "no" then we can split the money and
both average $1200/hr for our effort, or, even better, discredit that
Cahill guy.

Yours,

Chat Group Chuck

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Or you could pretend to agree with me. I could care less what you say
as long as you get a response to The Question.
Actually, I just IM'ed Thomas Sowell on Yahoo Messenger.
He says, "That little cracker, Bret Cahill, just doesn't like
strong conservative black men. Bigoted liberal crackers
like him are a dime a dozen on the open market.

Sowell is black?  If you don't want to do an Uncle Tom try out this
one:

Ah, thanks for proving Sowell's point. Given
that any black guy who disagrees with your
economic dogma is an "Uncle Tom" in your
mind, you are a bigot. You have earned your
fourth K, which is a very Special K. Keep it
up and you'll be a five-K general someday.

KKKKahill: Any black man who pushes me
too fer is an Uncle Tom, and wait until he
sees my microwage beam.

KKKKahill: We're off to see the Wizard,
The Grand Imperial One.

 

[Bret Cahill]

Just as the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime . . .

The gun nut bigot who types "KKK" all the time

Your anterograde amnesia is showing.

What makes you think I was talking about you?

Anyway why did you delete the part where the gun nutter denied the
existence of the microwave beam weapon that BATF could use to take yer
AK-47 out of your "live warm hands?"

�Everyone
knows I am not a bigot. ďż˝

Coming from someone who once tried to deny that he was "anti-faggot"
-- anyone can google that for proof -- will convince no one.

Or are you so delusional you want to rewrite the public record?


Bret Cahill

 

On Aug 26, 9:12 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Just as the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime . . .

The gun nut bigot who types "KKK" all the time
Your anterograde amnesia is showing.

What makes you think I was talking about you?

Because I am always on your mind.
I am always on your mind.

Anyway, we all know you lie like a
snake in the sun, but how many others
do you tell the same lies about? I thought
we had something special.

Anyway why did you delete the part where the gun nutter denied the
existence of the microwave beam weapon that BATF could use to take yer
AK-47 out of your "live warm hands?"

I didn't. It's in the public record. Remember?
I mentioned how you worry too much about the
Corpwhore mind rays, and I have some Depleted
Uranium helmets to sell you to keep the troops
from suffering permanent damage.

And watch out for the cosmic rays, Buford.

Everyone
knows I am not a bigot.

Coming from someone who once tried to deny that he was "anti-faggot"
-- anyone can google that for proof -- will convince no one.

Or are you so delusional you want to rewrite the public record?

Fags can use the word "fag" all they want. Haven't you
been following the flow? It's in the public record. Dementia
is a sad and growing problem in today's world. Also note
that according to the rules of PC, firmly established in the
Mao te Ching (Free Speech for the Working Class Edition),
a non-fag cannot evey use the word "fag" in quotes, without
redacting at least the vowel (f*g). So I guess we've learned
something about you. Either that or we're going to have to
call the Canadian Human Rights Commission, so they can
get Islamofascist on your ass.

"Nobody stones anybody, until I say so,
even if they do say the word, 'fag.'"
-Canadian Human Rights Commissioner Gordon

 

On Aug 26, 9:01 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

You just need to state it properly:
Without free speech it's not a free trade.
So, your utopia in Singapore doesn't have free trade.

Or do you know of any significant censorship of economic issue in
Singapore?

Free speech is censored in Singapore. Singapore
is a corpwhore bureaucratic corpwhore dictatorship
where you can't say the King is a fink and fucks
pigs. Here you can. In fact, here in the US, there
is no censorship on any issue, except to protect
the children from exploitation, and to keep the
corpwhores from advertising cigarettes on TV.
Where's the significant censorship of economic
issues in the US, aside from in your Ketamine-
induced hallucinations?

If not then that's the reason E. Asia has double digit growth rates
while the U. S. is stuck with GOP tax cut stagflation.

That doesn't follow, especially since we know that the
real reason there is double-digit growth in E. Asia is
PLENTY OF CHEAP LABOR. Welcome to reality.

The astute reader will note that you believe China has
free speech, but the US doesn't, which also indicates
what kind of changes you want here in order to get our
growth rate up with the Chinese. So your "Free Speech
for the Working Class" is revealed to be just what we
thought: unfree speech. QED. Case Closed.

"They're trying to build a prison.
They're trying to build a prison.
For you and me to live in.
Another prison to come,
Another prison to come.
Another prison to come."
-System of a Down

 

[Bret Cahill]

Just as the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime . . .

The gun nut bigot who types "KKK" all the time
Your anterograde amnesia is showing.

What makes you think I was talking about you?

Because I am always on your mind.

I am always on your mind.

The record shows that you are always on my threads trying to dodge
issues.

Recruiting for the Tim McVeigh wing of the NRA ain't easy, is it?

. . .

Anyway why did you delete the part where the gun nutter denied the
existence of the microwave beam weapon that BATF could use to take yer
AK-47 out of your "live warm hands?"

I didn't.  

Here, we'll try again:

Why did you delete the part where the gun nutter denied the existence
of the microwave beam weapon that BATF could use to take yer
AK-47 out of your "live warm hands?"


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

This is not a wager.  It is a free market free trade offer.

I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*

The Question is:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

The rules are simple.

1.  The letterhead must be from Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von Mises
Inst.*

2.  The Question must appear in the body of the letter.

3.  Some text must appear to be an answer to The Question, either a
"yes" or "no" or "I dunno."

4.  The signature of the outspoken economist must appear in the
letter.

5.  Email BretCah...@aol.com a copy in an attached pdf or tiff file
along with a mailing address.  If you are really secretive include a
map of a stump or pipe where I can stuff the cash.  (Lower 48 only.)

* Other shill tanks may be considered.

Bret Cahill

 

On Aug 26, 3:11 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Anyway why did you delete the part where the gun nutter denied the
existence of the microwave beam weapon that BATF could use to take yer
AK-47 out of your "live warm hands?"
I didn't.  

Here, we'll try again:

Why did you delete the part where the gun nutter denied the existence
of the microwave beam weapon that BATF could use to take yer
AK-47 out of your "live warm hands?"
Again: I didn't.

Why did you hallucinate that I deleted the part where
the fruit loop asked the same question which implicitly
claimed that I had previously deleted the aforementioned
and repeated question, like some kind of infinite fruit
loop?

 

[Topaz]

Here are some quotes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
after the heading Ku Klux Klan:

"Ku Klux Klan, the name of an American secret association of Southern
whites united for self-protection and to oppose the Reconstruction
measures of the United States Congress"

"The various causes assigned for the origin and development of
this movement were: the absence of stable government in the South for
several years after the Civil War; the corrupt and tyrannical rule of
the alien, renegade and negro, and the belief that it was supported by
the Federal troops which controlled elections and legislative bodies;
the disfranchisement of whites; the spread of ideas of social and
political equality among the negroes; fear of negro insurrections; the
arming of negro militia and the disarming of whites; outrages upon
white women by black men"

"The constitutions and rituals of these secret orders have
declarations of principles, of which the following are characteristic:
to protect and succour the weak and unfortunate, especially the widows
and orphans of Confederate soldiers; to protect members of the white
race in life, honour and property from the encroachments of the
blacks"

"To control the negro the Klan played upon his superstitious
fears by having night patrols, parades and drills of silent horsemen
covered with white sheets, carrying skulls with coals of fire for
eyes"

"the Ku Klux movement went on until it accomplished its object by
giving protection to the whites, reducing the blacks to order,
replacing the whites in control of society and state, expelling the
worst of the carpet-baggers and scalawags, and nullifying those laws
of Congress which had resulted in placing the Southern whites under
the control of a party composed principally of ex-slaves."

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.org

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Shrikeback@gmail.com wrote:

On Aug 27, 6:35 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Here are some quotes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
after the heading Ku Klux Klan:

"Ku Klux Klan, the name of an American secret association of Southern
whites united for self-protection and to oppose the Reconstruction
measures of the United States Congress"

God, what have I done? Maybe Cahill is right, I
shouldn't use those multiple K's. It looks like I
have inadvertently opened up a gate to hell,
allowing Nazi demons to crawl out.

This calls for an exorcism.

Back, back, vile demon to the sodomizing
stalagmites of Hell. The power of Karl Marx
compels you. The power of Karl Marx compels
you.

Just ignore the cornball. He hasn't been the same since he was fired
from Hee HAw, playing the jackass.

--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

On Aug 27, 6:35 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

         Here are some quotes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
after the heading Ku Klux Klan:

"Ku Klux Klan, the name of an American secret association of Southern
whites united for self-protection and to oppose the Reconstruction
measures of the United States Congress"

God, what have I done? Maybe Cahill is right, I
shouldn't use those multiple K's. It looks like I
have inadvertently opened up a gate to hell,
allowing Nazi demons to crawl out.

This calls for an exorcism.

Back, back, vile demon to the sodomizing
stalagmites of Hell. The power of Karl Marx
compels you. The power of Karl Marx compels
you.