Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 5:14:36 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
Guy buys a book to not read it. Gosh if everyone bought books to not
read them it would be a great economic time to be a book-seller regardless.
Guy thinks he knows everything. You've never both something as a joke? You run joke candidates, and think you are so smart.
There was a new article on the radio a few days ago. It was about eliminating the fuel tax, and taxing you on the miles you drive. It's about time that the EVs and Biofuel tax cheats start paying their fair share of the cost for roads and bridges.
Hitler didn't believe he was always right, at least not >privately, he was wracked by guilt and self-doubt constantly.
And you know this how ?
Even people who favor getting rid of birthright citizenship for >the children of illegal immigrants tend to agree itâs not >possible without a constitutional amendment or, at the very >least, an act of Congress.
They can remove someone's citizenship, if they can do that they can stop the birthright citizenship. But then, rather than let the fuck with the Constitution, which gives me the willies because they are such fuckers, just keep the pregnant Women the fuck out.
Easy. Common sense. (oh that's why they don't do it) Effective. (now they'll never do it)
Amma tellya gin. I do not want those who have no skills, no jobs, no desire to become one of us, have no intention of learning the language, got a bunch of kids they can't feed and a bunch of diseases we haven't seen since the dark ages.
If you do, GET OUT.
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 9:05:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Terrell wrote:
I am on two 1000mG tablets a day, ...
That's what I thought.
I'm on 500 mG, twice a day (before lunch and dinner), but I nearly always forget to take the dose at dinner. I suspect I am under-dosed, somewhat self-inflicted.
Many Americans seem determined to be the Middle East's and OPEC's
bitch their whole lives but I'm not into it myself.
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 3:57:29 PM UTC-4, Steve Wilson wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Their most dangerous conviction was that they were always right
about everything and should therefore control everything.
The least dangerous thing that attitude causes is to wreck the
economy.
Sounds like Trump.
He now wants to change the constitution so he can become king for
life!
America has never had a king, no matter what your perverted
fantasies desire to be true.
A President can't change the US
Constitutions,
no matter how much you wish we were lead by fools
like you are.
Amendments take a long, time consuming process, not
Obama's 'Pen and phone'.
However, there are plenty of references on how Trump is already
sneaking past the Constitution, and how he regards XI as King and
maybe he should give it a shot:
Where, in a fucking looney bin where you probably are ?
I DO read links, up with one or stand uncredible.
Who the fuck think... nevermind just get a link, one valid quote.
I might even accept a youtube video if it is of HIM saying it.
You aren't going to do that because you CAN'T.
Put up or shut up.
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:51:43 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/06/19 01:33, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:08:46 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/06/19 20:51, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:54:28 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 6/17/19 12:50 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 17/06/19 17:45, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:21:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/06/19 16:29, John Larkin wrote:
Their most dangerous conviction was that they were always right about
everything and should therefore control everything.
The same is true of rampant free-marketeers and libertarians.
But they have to compete. And we have elections.
The least dangerous thing that attitude causes is to wreck the
economy.
Unfortunately rampant capitalism (and their accountants
and MBAs) /did/ wreck the economy.
"Capitalism" was a slur invented by Marx. We don't live in a world
dominated by Capital. I don't think anyone ever has.
Even if correct, that wouldn't change the principal
point.
Capitalists /did/ wreck the economy.
Is the economy wrecked?
In a free economy, of course people are allowed to have herd instincts
and do collective stupid things.
The free-marketeers and economists base their understanding
on the concept that people make rational decisions. The more
intelligent specimens of those communities are only just
beginning to understand how flawed that is.
Of course most people aren't rational. That includes most economists.
On 18/06/19 01:33, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:08:46 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/06/19 20:51, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:54:28 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 6/17/19 12:50 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 17/06/19 17:45, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:21:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/06/19 16:29, John Larkin wrote:
Unfortunately rampant capitalism (and their accountants
and MBAs) /did/ wreck the economy.
"Capitalism" was a slur invented by Marx. We don't live in a world
dominated by Capital. I don't think anyone ever has.
Even if correct, that wouldn't change the principal
point.
Capitalists /did/ wreck the economy.
In a free economy, of course people are allowed to have herd instincts
and do collective stupid things.
The free-marketeers and economists base their understanding
on the concept that people make rational decisions. The more
intelligent specimens of those communities are only just
beginning to understand how flawed that is.
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 19:57:25 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:
Their most dangerous conviction was that they were always right about
everything and should therefore control everything.
The least dangerous thing that attitude causes is to wreck the
economy.
Sounds like Trump.
Not a bit. He is reducing government regulation.
He now wants to change the constitution so he can become king for life!
Really?
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:51:43 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/06/19 01:33, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:08:46 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/06/19 20:51, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:54:28 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 6/17/19 12:50 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 17/06/19 17:45, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:21:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/06/19 16:29, John Larkin wrote:
The great mass murders of the last century, a couple hundred million
starved and murdered, were engineered by socialists.
Except for those in that centuries, previous centuries,
and the current century that can only be described as
capitalists - and who embody and demonstrate traditional
libertarian ideals.
I was thinking of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim, Castro, Maduro.
Who did you have in mind?
Those people were indeed grade one bastards.
Slavers are the obvious example.
But there are many less extreme ones. All you have to do
is look at the fascist and/or religious dictatorships.
JL isn't particularly hip to the influence time or culture in his
analysis of world history; in his universe Hitler and Stalin and Mao
became "socialist" one day and all evil sprung out of that one decision,
and not the fact that these were people who had an enormously effective
personality cult surrounding them and that their attraction to the
people, the masses of millions of people who desperately wanted them to
be in power (at least for a while), was almost entirely divorced from
what they actually believed about organizing a society.
What were Hitler, Stalin, and Mao's actual convictions on what
principles should be used to organize a society? Well if you read their
writings what you'll notice is that for the most part it seems like they
didn't really have many. Or at least nothing particularly consistent. It
varied with time and political necessity. The only really consistent
thing about them was that they were inconsistent in what they believed
about things
Their most dangerous conviction was that they were always right about
everything and should therefore control everything.
The same is true of rampant free-marketeers and libertarians.
But they have to compete. And we have elections.
The least dangerous thing that attitude causes is to wreck the
economy.
Unfortunately rampant capitalism (and their accountants
and MBAs) /did/ wreck the economy.
"Capitalism" was a slur invented by Marx. We don't live in a world
dominated by Capital. I don't think anyone ever has.
Even if correct, that wouldn't change the principal
point.
Capitalists /did/ wreck the economy.
Is the economy wrecked? I hadn't noticed. Which Capitalists did that?
In a free economy, of course people are allowed to have herd instincts
and do collective stupid things.
The free-marketeers and economists base their understanding
on the concept that people make rational decisions. The more
intelligent specimens of those communities are only just
beginning to understand how flawed that is.
Of course most people aren't rational. That includes most economists.
On 18/06/19 04:53, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:51:43 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/06/19 01:33, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:08:46 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/06/19 20:51, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:54:28 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 6/17/19 12:50 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 17/06/19 17:45, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:21:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/06/19 16:29, John Larkin wrote:
The great mass murders of the last century, a couple hundred million
starved and murdered, were engineered by socialists.
Except for those in that centuries, previous centuries,
and the current century that can only be described as
capitalists - and who embody and demonstrate traditional
libertarian ideals.
I was thinking of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim, Castro, Maduro.
Who did you have in mind?
Those people were indeed grade one bastards.
Slavers are the obvious example.
But there are many less extreme ones. All you have to do
is look at the fascist and/or religious dictatorships.
JL isn't particularly hip to the influence time or culture in his
analysis of world history; in his universe Hitler and Stalin and Mao
became "socialist" one day and all evil sprung out of that one decision,
and not the fact that these were people who had an enormously effective
personality cult surrounding them and that their attraction to the
people, the masses of millions of people who desperately wanted them to
be in power (at least for a while), was almost entirely divorced from
what they actually believed about organizing a society.
What were Hitler, Stalin, and Mao's actual convictions on what
principles should be used to organize a society? Well if you read their
writings what you'll notice is that for the most part it seems like they
didn't really have many. Or at least nothing particularly consistent. It
varied with time and political necessity. The only really consistent
thing about them was that they were inconsistent in what they believed
about things
Their most dangerous conviction was that they were always right about
everything and should therefore control everything.
The same is true of rampant free-marketeers and libertarians.
But they have to compete. And we have elections.
The least dangerous thing that attitude causes is to wreck the
economy.
Unfortunately rampant capitalism (and their accountants
and MBAs) /did/ wreck the economy.
"Capitalism" was a slur invented by Marx. We don't live in a world
dominated by Capital. I don't think anyone ever has.
Even if correct, that wouldn't change the principal
point.
Capitalists /did/ wreck the economy.
Is the economy wrecked? I hadn't noticed. Which Capitalists did that?
Didn't you notice the 2007 crash? Many people did,
and many are still suffering from the consequences.
Which capitalists did that? Those that created CDAs
and lent money to people that were never going to be
able to afford repayments. When it went pear-shaped
they walked away and let you, me and our children
pick up and repay the debts.
The people that did that were accountants and MBAs
and bankers, and I doubt even a brain-dead libertarian
would think they were socialists or communists.
As the wags put it, "Osama bin Laden would have been
more effective if he had been a banker".
Another example, currently playing out...
My cousin works for a large aerospace company, and
they are in the process of being merged with another
aerospace company to make synergistic savings.
Unfortunately there is no overlap between the two
companies, so there is no duplication to remove.
Nonetheless savings must be made, presumably to
repay the highly leveraged buyout.
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote in
news:jkZNE.41732$IQ6.15366@fx09.iad:
Many Americans seem determined to be the Middle East's and OPEC's
bitch their whole lives but I'm not into it myself.
I have ridden a bike for the last 35 years. Everywhere.
City moves used cars or plane trips, but aside form that, it has
been my legs.
The sad thing I noticed is that Clinton's alternate fuels tax
breaks are not there for my ass as an alternate fuel. That is truly
sad because even alternate fuels have a footprint. Fuels are used
to generate the power used to charge them.
My old Diesel Jetta gt 42 MPG the way I drove it.
Cars do not need to be built like the muscle cars. They can be a
lot more efficient.
But man those cars are what set Americans apart. Cheep,
affordable, and powerful.
Not a Ferrari, but we do not see them spitting out hundreds of
thousands of cars a year either.
The gas-electric serial hybrid design is an excellent one; the
mechanical transmission is the second most unreliable part of the car,
furiously complicated full of about 3000 moving parts and an efficiency
loser. tossing all that and using the engine to drive a generator that
spins motors on the wheels, like a diesel locomotive, is elegant and
with modern motors and gen-sets very efficient.
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:19:31 +0100, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
On 18/06/19 04:53, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:51:43 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/06/19 01:33, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:08:46 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/06/19 20:51, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:54:28 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net
wrote:
On 6/17/19 12:50 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 17/06/19 17:45, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:21:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/06/19 16:29, John Larkin wrote:
The great mass murders of the last century, a couple
hundred million starved and murdered, were engineered
by socialists.
Except for those in that centuries, previous centuries,
and the current century that can only be described as
capitalists - and who embody and demonstrate traditional
libertarian ideals.
I was thinking of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim,
Castro, Maduro. Who did you have in mind?
Those people were indeed grade one bastards.
Slavers are the obvious example.
But there are many less extreme ones. All you have to do is
look at the fascist and/or religious dictatorships.
JL isn't particularly hip to the influence time or culture in
his analysis of world history; in his universe Hitler and
Stalin and Mao became "socialist" one day and all evil sprung
out of that one decision, and not the fact that these were
people who had an enormously effective personality cult
surrounding them and that their attraction to the people, the
masses of millions of people who desperately wanted them to be
in power (at least for a while), was almost entirely divorced
from what they actually believed about organizing a society.
What were Hitler, Stalin, and Mao's actual convictions on what
principles should be used to organize a society? Well if you
read their writings what you'll notice is that for the most
part it seems like they didn't really have many. Or at least
nothing particularly consistent. It varied with time and
political necessity. The only really consistent thing about
them was that they were inconsistent in what they believed
about things
Their most dangerous conviction was that they were always right
about everything and should therefore control everything.
The same is true of rampant free-marketeers and libertarians.
But they have to compete. And we have elections.
The least dangerous thing that attitude causes is to wreck the
economy.
Unfortunately rampant capitalism (and their accountants and MBAs)
/did/ wreck the economy.
"Capitalism" was a slur invented by Marx. We don't live in a world
dominated by Capital. I don't think anyone ever has.
Even if correct, that wouldn't change the principal point.
Capitalists /did/ wreck the economy.
Is the economy wrecked? I hadn't noticed. Which Capitalists did that?
Didn't you notice the 2007 crash? Many people did, and many are still
suffering from the consequences.
That was mostly a real estate bubble with a lot of paper profits and paper
losses.
It was driven by Fanny and Freddy here, quasi-government entities. They
encouraged banks to lend, so the banks did. Capitalist banks never would have
made the insane loans that they did if they couldn't hand off the rotten
packages to the government.
Which capitalists did that? Those that created CDAs and lent money to
people that were never going to be able to afford repayments. When it went
pear-shaped they walked away and let you, me and our children pick up and
repay the debts.
The people that did that were accountants and MBAs and bankers, and I doubt
even a brain-dead libertarian would think they were socialists or
communists.
As the wags put it, "Osama bin Laden would have been more effective if he
had been a banker".
Another example, currently playing out...
My cousin works for a large aerospace company, and they are in the process
of being merged with another aerospace company to make synergistic
savings.
Raytheon and Collins? Collins/UTAS/Pratt is one of my best customers.
Raytheon is pretty good too.
Unfortunately there is no overlap between the two companies, so there is no
duplication to remove.
I just read an interview with the CEO of Raytheon, in Aviation Week. He
expects a billion a year in profit from synergies. The merger would have been
forbidden on antitrust grounds if there had been much market overlap.
I'm expecting good things here. Raytheon is a lot better at electronics than
UTAS. The synergy isn't in markets, it's in skills.
Nonetheless savings must be made, presumably to repay the highly leveraged
buyout.
If we're talking Ratyheon and Collins/UTC, it's a stock deal, a merger. No
debt is involved.
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 9:40:13 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 9:05:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Terrell wrote:
I am on two 1000mG tablets a day, ...
That's what I thought.
I'm on 500 mG, twice a day (before lunch and dinner), but I nearly always forget to take the dose at dinner. I suspect I am under-dosed, somewhat self-inflicted.
Try cutting one of them in half, and take half at lunch, with the other at suppertime. It's easier to remember if you take it with every meal, and it reduces the urge to overeat. I learned that when I started taking Metformin, but by the time I had been diagnosed with Diabetes, it had already damaged my already poor vision.