Driver to drive?

[Kris Krieger]

Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in
news:C5068E83.C5681%dbowey@comcast.net:

On 9/29/08 12:31 PM, in article
Xns9B2893D39543Emeadowmuffin@216.168.3.70, "Kris Krieger"
me@dowmuff.in> wrote:

Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in news:C5054544.C54FD%
dbowey@comcast.net:

On 9/28/08 11:29 AM, in article
k--dnc0h3NttUULVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@earthlink.com, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

Let's hear it for fascism. Hovnanian thinks he'll be part of the
elite. He won't. He's a peasant. Once a peasant, always a peasant


If they lock him up in one of those newer, high security prisons,
will he be a peasant under glass?




What's wrogn with being a peasant? They're the ones who do all the
actual work in a society. Astiticrats (and/or aristo wannabes) can
stick up their noses as much as they want, but they'd be lost without
their servants/peasants to take care of them and their properties.


Innovative approach........ You attributed "something" to me, but did
not post anything I wrote. Didn't you approve of what I said?

The post is quoted as it was posted. The above is what showed up on my
screen; I tacked a general comment to the end. Maybe your gripe is ctually
with the previous people in the chain who didn't add [snip].

 

[Iceberg]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:bhs1e4tm77892mc7gjhmecle0qvmi3cn5i@4ax.com...

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:06:46 -0700 (PDT), bash <tbash@jrma.com> wrote:

On Sep 28, 11:03 pm, Tony Weber <mycroft...@SOCKSspeakeasy.net> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:12:44 -0700 (PDT), Paul <Quiller...@gmail.com
wrote:

OH MY GOD, no wonder McCain is dropping in
the polls:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8moOxzlGQ

It's SO bad, that all Tina Fey had to do was copy
verbatim what Palin said, and it was hilarious.

The choice in this election is clear: two lawyers or two non-lawyers.

No contest: vote McCain.

John

Interesting. The Declaration of Independence, the United States
Constitution and the Bill of Rights were all written by Lawyers.

Why do you hate America?

TW- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think my last post died, so I apologize if this went through 1/2 way

Washington was a surveyor/military man/farmer, Sam Adams dropped out
of Law School, John Hancock was a merchant, Jefferson was admitted to
the bar but spent most his time and made his living as a farmer and
spent more time building Monticello than practising law. No sane
person can compare the lawyers of the 18th century to the lawyers of
the 21st century

Yes. The great majority of lawyers nowadays got a liberal-arts
undergrad degree, went to law school, clerked or worked in a firm,
then began practising law. They are trained in the less-then-zero-sum
adversary power brokering game, and nothing else. Most have never done
a lick of real work in their lives. Virtually all are leftists, in the
sense that they think that all social and economic problems need legal
solutions.

The Founders were men of principle. Modern lawyers (and I've dated a
few) are people of power.

Government is inherently corrupt, so to have less corruption we need
less government.

well said, but the gits have got it sown up, it's the same here
1) they get in
2) make more and more laws
3) meaning more and more lawyers
4) meaning more and more court cases meaning more and more lawyers
5) in the end really just more money for them (which was their original aim)

 

[john jardine]

"Martin Griffith" <mart_in_medina@yah00.es> wrote in message
news:afh2e4ttgbaoui2h6a810a4phel00orlsu@4ax.com...

The one I didn't put money into, for so many years.
I wonder what it would be worth now?

martin

Last time I looked, it is quite a bit. Especially if it was a 2/3 final and
indexed. The present panic, fear and bleating will only show as a final
value 'blip' 2 or 3 years down the line.

(and well done that U.S. member who spoke up for the "mom and pop
businesses" and "Joe six-pack".
We've a crying need for similar straight talkers in the UK.

 

[DaveM]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48E16DB6.D15D0C38@hotmail.com...

DaveM wrote:

Mouser 532-7721-3PPS has a material thickness of 0.019" between the screw and
the transistor tab.

For 600V DC !

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Graham

The OP said he wanted something thicker than 0.01"... the Mouser part has
nearly double that. The material that washer is made from (Polyphenylene
Sulfide) has a dielectric strength of 457V/mil, and considering the wall
thickness of the Mouser part, it would have a dielectric strength of over 8500V.
Certainly enough to handle 600V.

--
Dave M
MasonDG44 at comcast dot net (Just substitute the appropriate characters in the
address)

Life is like a roll of toilet paper; the closer it gets to the end, the faster
it goes.

 

[Jenn]

In article <fv92e4d99j929n5r9okc02rcu2c0714g8c@4ax.com>,
The Great Attractor
<SuperM@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote:

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:21:51 -0700, Jenn <jennconducts@mac.com> wrote:


Interesting, thanks. That certainly affects my impression of the group.

You're an idiot.

Says the weirdo that feels the need to use various pseudonyms.

Just goes to show that one shouldn't judge too quickly. Thanks again.

Too late for that, eh, ya dippy bitch?

What you witnessed there was a bit of humility, Clem. Some of that
would flatter you.

 

[Salmon Egg]

In article
<62cd7944-1856-4f36-89d4-33b79a8b004f@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:

On Sep 25, 6:07 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
Have fun...

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html

http://emdrive.com/principle.html

Dave.

Note: I'm cross-posting this to sci.physics so all the people "smarter
than Einstein" can have a look at it.

I'm not quite sure about it. My gut feeling has to do with the fact
that the device theory more or less ignores the forces along the
tapered portion of the guide. This feels a lot like so many hydraulic
"perpetual motion" machines where forces on tapered surfaces get
neglected and thus the thing seems to work. [but they really don't]

The relativistic explanation would need to be looked at in detail to
really be sure about the device. I'm not sure that the frame
difference between the radiation and the guide really has the thrust
effect claimed. Radiation pressure is obviously real, but that should
only be a stress between the large and small end. ( including the
tapered portion I presume). Conservation of momentum seems to preclude
this thing from working...BUT I'd point out that in Newtons system of
action and reaction being equal, which actually doesn't hold when
causality is taken into account, then it follows that mechanical
momentum is NOT conserved! [for more information on this see
Jefimenko, "Gravitation and Cogravitation" P. 7] So if Newton's laws
don't hold then we are starting to get somewhere strange.

So guys, do we have an "all-electric" satellite thruster or not?
[Follow the links to the theory paper]

Note that any opinion from clowns who "know" it's bunk, even though
they haven't read the paper, should be ignored as should all comments
about "tinfoil" helmets.

There is no doubt that radiation pressure is real. With ordinary
propellents, the system is most efficient when the space vehicle is
going at a speed such the exhaust is stationary as the craft flies on.
That is, any kinetic energy in the exhaust is energy that cannot be used
to provide kinetic energy to the spacecraft.

In the case of radiation pressure, the spacecraft sees pressure from
radiation at the frequency emitted. A "stationary" observer at the
launch facility sees a doppler shifted beam of radiation leave the
spacecraft. It is the difference in photon energy generated in the
spacecraft and the doppler shifted beam leaving the spacecraft that is
providing the kinetic energy for the spacecraft. For spacecraft as we
know them the doppler shift will be tiny, and consequently, the
efficiency will be tiny.

I think someone is flim-flamming the Chinese government.

Bill

--
Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!

 

[Iceberg]

<anything@contractorcom.com> wrote in message
news:au43e45p8lrehlerni230eh1kct16b2f89@4ax.com...

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:02:02 GMT, "Iceberg"
big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:

anything@contractorcom.com> wrote in message
news:m3k1e4l5iq1vmd3a0ttac389ghqndmr5l8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:25:08 GMT, "Iceberg"
big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:

anything@contractorcom.com> wrote in message
newsac1e4d2ma79q8jk1hh0ln0oqlfkqt6lca@4ax.com...
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:51:36 -0700 (PDT), Paul <Quiller123@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sep 28, 10:48?pm, Norman Draper <normandra...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Sep 29, 12:56?am, Norman Draper <normandra...@verizon.net> wrote:





On Sep 28, 10:27?pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:

On 9/28/08 7:12 PM, in article
122e105c-db0d-49b1-9cda-c5035168d...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com,
"Paul"

Quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:

? ?OH MY GOD, no wonder McCain is dropping in
the polls:

? ? ?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8moOxzlGQ

? ? It's SO bad, that all Tina Fey had to do was copy
verbatim what Palin said, and it was hilarious.

? ? What's NOT hilarious, is the thought of this true
barbie doll getting a heart beat away from the
Presidency. ?At first I thought McCain was brilliant
choosing her, but now that we are seeing who she
really is, it's downright scary. ?Almost comical. ?A
political Farce really. ?Is this what the USA has been
reduced to?

? ? In fact, even the more intelligent Republicans
can now see how bad of a choice she is as a running
mate.

? ? ?My god, even her incredible beauty is NOT
going to save her come the debate this Thursday.

? ? ?She is GORGEOUS physically. ?No argument
there. ?And she no doubt loves America. ?But let's
get serious here......there is no way she's gonna
be fit for the white house.

? ? ? For the Love of Sweet Jesus, PLEASE
vote for Obama.

How about you display at least some low-level intelligence, and
tell
us just
what was so funny about what she said.

Can't do it can you? You're just a smear-monger idiot.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Don,

I agree... It's not funny. ?It's both sad and pathetic, but it's
not
funny. ?If you need to have what's sad and pathetic about her
response, get back to me. ?But if you really don't understand it
now,
there may not be a way for me to put it into terms you could
understand.

You REALLY didn't see any humor in her response???

Norman (Not Even A Little Bit??) Draper- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's a longer version of the interview......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj6KviFGzng&feature=related

I have another adjective: scary.

Here main theme seems to be that the world should be as we want it
to
be. Take note of the question that begins at 6:10.... ?It's right
after her statement about how we have to continue our nation
building
effort. ?I think the cat is out of the bag as far as her lack of
knowledge of.... hell, practically everything.

Norman (It's Still Sad) Draper- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Oh My. Very scary indeed.

She can barely put a coherent sentence together,
with dangling catch phrases like "freedom" and "democracy",
strung together.

Someone described her as a high school
student who didn't study enough, struggling to
bullshit her way through a test. Good description
in my book......WOW

Heh...when I was a kid we used to live on the orther side of the road
from a guy who was head of personnel (as it was then called) for ICI.

He turned down Margaret Thatcher for a job because he thought she was
OK but 'not too bright'.

Plus ca change...

these types are the sort of morons that worked for Decca and hollered
that
guitar bands were a thing of the past when The Beatles walked in and
asked
to be signed.


There's a big difference between turning down a rock and roll band for
a record label and hiring someone with the destructive instincts of
Thatcher for a major chemical company.

destructive? she got rid of the most destructive, backwards thinking and
power hungry dictatorial morons in the country ie. the union bosses. We
actually *want* our kids working down coal pits in the 90's, let's wreck
Wapping and bring back the Caxton printing press rather than these modern
digital ones yay! etc.


Iceberg,

You are clearly not an English person. If you were, you would know
better than to open your first sentence in the lower case.

I'm not sure about Wapping - that's a fairly handsome piece of
architecture. Rupert Murdoch, OTOH, I can do without.

Just like Thatcher really...she was absolutely posionous.

Don't lecture me about coal mining. I come from a family of coal
miners. None of them wanted to do it, but the miners powered the
country for two centuries. I reckon that gives them the right to have
a say in things. You watch you own great grandfather die of emphysemia
having spent the last ten years of his working life working a seam
only 23 inches deep and then tell me that he hasn't got something to
say.

I know I come across as fatuous and offhand a great deal of the time,
but I know what it's like to get my hands dirty.

Some of us are tough, some of us are wankers...

I AM an English person and the problem was that the miners OR rather the
leader Scargill they stupidly followed wanted not just to "have a say" but
thought he had the power to rule the entire country. It was either him or
Thatcher and they picked the wrong side, they were the past, she was the
future, sad as it may be, you HAVE to embrace the future. She forced
modernisation on this nation(Wapping finally showed everybody that the
unions were just backward luddites) plus she invented the home market and
made us the FX centre of the world. Try to deny it all you like and mention
minor unemployment blips etc but that's fact - you wouldn't own your own
home, stocks & shares, have a powerhouse city of London etc without her. And
even when it was revealed Scargill nicked your grandfather's money, the
miners still supported him, I found that a shame, what did it say to you?

 

[Iceberg]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:fm53e41p7ffng6c20uoe5b0pvua0ftomdp@4ax.com...

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:32:58 -0700 (PDT), Shy Picker
ShyPicker@aol.com> wrote:

On Sep 28, 11:38?pm, Tony Weber <mycroft...@SOCKSspeakeasy.net> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:03:57 -0700, Tony Weber
mycroft...@SOCKSspeakeasy.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:12:44 -0700 (PDT), Paul
Quiller...@gmail.com
wrote:

? ? OH MY GOD, no wonder McCain is dropping in
the polls:

? ? ? ?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8moOxzlGQ

? ? ?It's SO bad, that all Tina Fey had to do was copy
verbatim what Palin said, and it was hilarious.

The choice in this election is clear: two lawyers or two
non-lawyers.

No contest: vote McCain.

John

Interesting. ?The Declaration of Independence, the United States
Constitution and the Bill of Rights were all written by Lawyers.

The DI, Less than half, and many of the lawyers had additional
occupations.

http://www.usconstitution.net/declarsigndata.html

The Constitution, a bit over half. Things were going downhill already.

Actually, in both, you point out who signed it. ?Not who wrote it. ?So,
therefore not a response to the original point.



Why do you hate America?

What a silly question.

John

Not at all. ?Given how much the current Administration has tried to
emasculate the rights and ideals enumerated in both documents, and then
their supporters on the Right charged that those who objected did so
because they hated America.

So, tell me, why do you hate our Freedoms?

TW- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He doesn't hate his freedoms, he just hates yours.

David

I don't hate freedoms, or any reasonable people. I am amused by
neurotic shrieking.

wasn't there a big call for the 1st Amendment to be removed in yankland a
while ago because you should only use "responsible"(ie.politically correct)
speech? was that Bush or Clinton?

 

Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:

On Sep 25, 6:07 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
Have fun...

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html

http://emdrive.com/principle.html

This has been discussed before in one of the sci.*
groups, a few years ago IIRC. It's a drive based on
radiation pressure, with an additional (and erroneous)
claim that using a resonator multiplies the thrust by
the Q-factor of the resonator.


--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (PHOT) (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kinsler@physics.org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

 

[TheM]

"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message news:62cd7944-1856-4f36-89d4-33b79a8b004f@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Note that any opinion from clowns who "know" it's bunk, even though
they haven't read the paper, should be ignored as should all comments
about "tinfoil" helmets.

Start here for some criticism from someone who is not a clown:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/shawyerfraud.pdf

What's wrong with tinfoil helmets?
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

M

 

[Frnak McKenney]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:47:10 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote:

I received an 'interesting' request from a potential customer. But I've
got to find a way to tell them, 'No thanks' politely.

Back story: Several years ago, I responded to a request to provide some
consulting services to a local utility.
--snip--
.. In the course of talking to them, I learned that the root cause
of their problems was that the crews just went out and built stuff
without engineering drawings, leaving the engineers to go out after the
fact and figure out what had been done. ...
--snip--
... I
don't want to get involved in organizational politics. I'm going to send
them a 'Thanks, but no thanks' letter, but I don't and to burn my
bridges completely. There may be some interesting actual engineering
work I could do for them. So I don't want to tell them, 'No' for all
cases. But I don't know if it would be wise to hint at the real reason.
--snip--

Paul,

If you're certain you don't want to take a crack at it, you could
mention your current workload and offer some idea of when, due to
prior commitments, you might be able to properly devote your talents
to their problem. (Yes, that response can cover a lot of different
situations, and you don't actually _have_ to mention contingencies
related to weather reports from the Nether Regions. <grin!&gt

On the other hand, if you have a bit of think-time available, you
might develop (but possibly not send) a proposal that addresses the
full extent of the customer's problem(s) as you understand them.
That is -- and other posters have alluded to this -- what would it
take in terms of your time and other resources to get the work crews
and the engineers working together? In addition to whatever work
they originally asked you to do, that is.

For the proposal I have in mind, you'd have to think seriously about
how to address the co-ordination problem, and you'd have to describe
it in... I can't think of a good word, so I'll say
"non-judgemental" terms. It is _possible_, for example, that the
work crews are, from their point of view, working out ad-hoc
solutions to hte problems they are faced with because they feel the
problems require immediate solutions and can't wait for the
"pointy-headed engineers who would slow them down", while the
engineers are spending so much time playing catch-up because of
those "neanderthal work crews who won't stop throwing together
short-term solutions to problems which wind up causing extra work
and higher costs". That is, everybody really _is_ trying to "do
right" according to their concept of what "is needed".

Once you have your own thoughts down on paper, you'd spend some time
with the engineers and crews to find out all the things you assumed
that weren't true, as well as the ones you'd never even considered
might be part of the situation. At which point you'd be ready to
come up with a complete proposal and cost estimate.

At this point, you'd have at least two new options: (1) try to sell
management on your taking on the whole problem and solving it, or
(2) writing a proposal for "just the original work" which took the
situation-as-you-see-it into account: extra time, work needing to be
re-done, extra training, whatever.

If you decide on either of these, I'd stronly advise you not to bid
low. From your description, you _will_ have frustrations; just make
sure you'll make enough money on the deal to keep you from fighting
the natural urge to develop an "I don't care anymore" attitude
halfway through.

Or not. Jes' some thoughts.

Let us know what you decide to do.


Frank McKenney
--
"Humor is indispensable to democracy. It is the ingredient lacking
in all the dictatorships in what seems to be an increasingly
authoritarian world. It is the element that permits us to laugh
at ourselves and with each other, whether we be political friends
or foes." -- Edward Bennet Williams, "Humor and the Presidency"
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney ayut mined spring dawt cahm (y'all)

 

[Jenn]

In article <af04e413dn7fmkjs8085jr2pi550bd6b0m@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

No contest. Nancy Pelosi may have just set the record as making the
most stupid, and most expensive, 1-minute speech in human history.

rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/economy/econ092908_pelosi.rm


John

So some placed their vote on the most important issue of the year based
on the fact that they were insulted?

 

[George's ProSound Company]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:6qc4e4dm2e92c4judr1jg9erso3mbmidrl@4ax.com...

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:06:21 GMT, Dave Hazelwood
the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote:

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:42:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:



No contest. Nancy Pelosi may have just set the record as making the
most stupid, and most expensive, 1-minute speech in human history.

rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/economy/econ092908_pelosi.rm


John





i thought it was fantastic and right on the money.

in fact i was disappointed that she didn't say bush and his thieving
minons should all be sent to prison !

Well, it blew the bailout and cost the US economy 1.2 trillion dollars
in a few hours.

bullshit
to say someone is so irresponsible that they refuse act to save their
country because of that speech is a act of extreme cowardice and tends
towards treason
Pelosi did not make or prevent anyone from voting their conscience, those
worms are just using that as a excuse

I ,after reading the bailout, do not understand how ANYONE could have voted
for it

that legislation was a finger in the dike , not a cure for the problem
all it would have done is held the real issues at bay until after the
election, and that was the urgency in it all
the republicans did not feel they could take any more hits on how badly they
have fucked over america.
George

 

[Obama'08]

"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:lf54e4llr77k39oe25md1mbe30peet53j7@4ax.com...

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:42:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:



No contest. Nancy Pelosi may have just set the record as making the
most stupid, and most expensive, 1-minute speech in human history.

rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/economy/econ092908_pelosi.rm


John





i thought it was fantastic and right on the money.

in fact i was disappointed that she didn't say bush and his thieving
minons should all be sent to prison !

Yes, she was just stating the truth. But, I had lost all respect for her
when she became the speaker and said that impeachment was off the table.
If she valued the constitution, she would not have made such a dumb
statement.

 

[Kris Krieger]

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in
news:81b19d01-5bf5-4239-b599-2182b6b2dd45@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 29, 3:10�pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote
innews:j1opd49o9m7mvqa3polttokn2tpo
sndfir@4ax.com:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:26:11 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

Good grief! �Sick ideas emanating from a sick mind :-(

Jim Thompson

One has to look no further than congress or candidates for sick
minds.

In the past, I'd several times considered trying to run for office. ď
ż˝Then I
realized that candidates are not elected ont eh basis of reasonable
intelligence and education and so on - they're elected on the basis of
(1) geniality and (2) how much mud they can smear all over the other
candidate. I've no social sense, and I'm too focuses on information to
deal with lies, so I'd be DOA.

Mud, intelligence and geniality?
Over-rated.

Just move somewhere where you can see a foreign country. (Sarah
Palin)
El Paso, TX has some pretty good food, I hear....

-mpm

<LOL!>

Well, Texas *is* right next to Mexico...

And I lived in both Massachusetts AND California for a couple years -
those are basically foreign countries, according to Palin's version of
"the Real America" hehe

Of course, I'm also over 50, plump, balding, etc. - pics of *me* in a
bathing suit holding a hunting rifle would be...
......eeeeew...<shudder!>...

<LOL!>

 

[hank alrich]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Well, it blew the bailout and cost the US economy 1.2 trillion dollars
in a few hours.

This bail-out is corrupt, has horrible implications and potential
consequences for the economy even a short time down the road, and the
least viable among several put forward. However, it's Paulson's darling
and other views are not being properly considered, since it's an
"emergency". Hey, we need to vest him with power completely outside
review or influence by those who are supposed to fund his game.

Warren Buffet sounded the derivatives alarm FIVE YEARS AGO. And here it
is, just like he said. Now the foxes are alarmed, having killed and
eaten the chickens, and they want the taxpayers to restock the coop,
under threat of ordinary citizens losing their retirement funds.

Reality is that buying stocks is a gamble. One is not rationally
guaranteed a dividend return, capital gain, or even maintenance of
parity with one's first cost.

Funny that so many of those espousing "free" markets are shouting that
this remedy must be foisted upon us with little review and little
consideration for long-term effects.

The system is ill-configured and is not going to serve us well until it
is reconfigured. However, that is exactly what the big money people do
not want, as it would drastically alter their ability to manipulate the
economy in their favor.

The military-industrial complex of which Ike warned us is now upon us,
globally, and has us by the economic throat.

Meanwhile, we have gone in a mater of days from a few large US banks, to
three. Good luck with that, and howdy to the new conglomeration of
economic dinosaurs.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance
"of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks
"and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people
"of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the
"continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

 

[hank alrich]

Obama'08 <Obama08@comcast.net> wrote:

"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:lf54e4llr77k39oe25md1mbe30peet53j7@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:42:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:



No contest. Nancy Pelosi may have just set the record as making the
most stupid, and most expensive, 1-minute speech in human history.

rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/economy/econ092908_pelosi.rm


John





i thought it was fantastic and right on the money.

in fact i was disappointed that she didn't say bush and his thieving
minons should all be sent to prison !

Yes, she was just stating the truth. But, I had lost all respect for her
when she became the speaker and said that impeachment was off the table.
If she valued the constitution, she would not have made such a dumb
statement.

Thank you.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

 

[Kris Krieger]

Richard Swaby <reswaby@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:5fk3e4h1kopciot6b4keoo5omchllvt10h@4ax.com:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:26:43 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in
wrote:

Richard Swaby <reswaby@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:f4a1e4hjtshv6252a64vjfepug1u06c3lo@4ax.com:

[snip]

Examples are numerous. Christian missionaries inflicting their beliefs
throughout Africa, the British Empire, radical muslims causing mayhem,
the US invading countries to secure oil supplies and to establish
outposts etc. etc.
In fact, it usually turns out that if you can identify a tribe you can
attribute some kind of atrocity to it.

No group is pure - but some groups are far worse than the average.

And therein lies the problem.

If Group (or nation) A is just going along, engages in equitable trade,
giving aid to other groups, and otherwise behaving reasonably well and
non- aggressively, it's inevitable that some other Group X will see
Group A as "weak" yet posessing something that Group X wants, and X will
decide to attack A.

Anotehr problem. Maybe Group W is beahving badly but not with overt
aggression. If Group M starts making official statements that "W better
talk to us OR ELSE", but then says "But we won't talk to W unless W does
this, that, and the other thing" and makes otehrwise generalyl belliose
sounds, that automatically puts W into a defensive position, backs W
into a corner. And a cornered adversary is a dangerous animal.

So it's all a huge mess. Even if Group A decides that the best path is
to be a peaceable nation which engages in ethical trading practices, it
will be surrounded by others groups with aggressive intentions which
will have no moral/ethical reservations abotu using infultration
techniques to erode A's independence and economy. It's all well and
good to write pretty songs that say "give peace a chance", but that only
works until some agressor starts acting up.

I think I have the answer!

Why don't we set up a tribe called the "United Tribes" that polices
the lower tribes? Then we can invent a "God" to oversee the actions of
the UT.

And I have just the candidate!
http://www.venganza.org/evidence/

Oh balls! That won't work. God's already too busy winding up all the
tribes to destroy each other.

Richard

But wait, there is hope! Firstly, even the Bible says there are other gods
(and does so quite freguently), so if there is even competition among gods,
why not the FSM? Secondly, *everyone* claims thet God is on their side
anyway, so any tribe can claim the same thing - if they don't all get killed
by lightening, then hey!, they're fine.

 

[George's ProSound Company]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:frg4e41a0ahkqb47fu7c64kr7n1ap9i50n@4ax.com...

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:44:36 -0400, "George's ProSound Company"
bmoas@yahoo.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:6qc4e4dm2e92c4judr1jg9erso3mbmidrl@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:06:21 GMT, Dave Hazelwood
the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote:

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:42:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:



No contest. Nancy Pelosi may have just set the record as making the
most stupid, and most expensive, 1-minute speech in human history.

rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/economy/econ092908_pelosi.rm


John





i thought it was fantastic and right on the money.

in fact i was disappointed that she didn't say bush and his thieving
minons should all be sent to prison !

Well, it blew the bailout and cost the US economy 1.2 trillion dollars
in a few hours.

bullshit
to say someone is so irresponsible that they refuse act to save their
country because of that speech is a act of extreme cowardice and tends
towards treason


Pelosi should have lead a bipartisan effort to get this done. Instead,
she took a big political swipe at the Bush admin, the people who have
been warning about this for years.


Pelosi did not make or prevent anyone from voting their conscience, those
worms are just using that as a excuse

She should not have provided the provocation/excuse.



I ,after reading the bailout, do not understand how ANYONE could have
voted
for it

The original 2-page version, with one person in charge, was much
better.


that legislation was a finger in the dike , not a cure for the problem
all it would have done is held the real issues at bay until after the
election, and that was the urgency in it all
the republicans did not feel they could take any more hits on how badly
they
have fucked over america.
George


I sure hope George's Pro Sound Company survives the drying up of
credit and the cessation of luxury consumer spending that a crash will
produce.

I don't use credit
I closed that site at least two years ago as it was a expense that did not
produce income

And what happened to your web site? It seems to be down.

I closed that site at least two years ago as it was a expense that did not
produce income enough tojustify its existence
George

 

[George's ProSound Company]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:bjh4e4p6k3iosfm2mota88se4a38dnjm2b@4ax.com...

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:30:16 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET
kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

On Sep 28, 7:12 pm, Paul <Quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:
OH MY GOD, no wonder McCain is dropping in
the polls:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8moOxzlGQ

It's SO bad, that all Tina Fey had to do was copy
verbatim what Palin said, and it was hilarious.

Expectations have been lowered to the point where all Palin has to do
is not drool and she will be judged the winner of the debate. She
isn't a dumb as people think and she has been spending a lot of time
getting ready. She will have a lot of one liners ready to go and she
will have the talking points memorized twice over. I expect her to do
fairly well in the debate.

There is a significant chance that a young earth creationist will end
up being the president of the country. If the stars align just right
(wrong) we could have her and a significant recession together over
the next few years. If that happens, it could spell the end of the
republican party and mean several generations will have to pass before
another woman can become president.



Or, after McCain, she could be the most popular President after Ronald
Reagan.

Who in hell liked RR?

being more popular than RR , fuck even Hillary could have managed that