Latest News

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:52:45 -0700, Dennis M. O'Connor wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote ...
This is hilarious:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109218/

Seems the Dems lost because America is populated by ignorant religious
inbred finatics.

I've noticed that the current attitude of the Dems is
"Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid and/or evil."
Yeah, that arrogance will win 'em new friends. NOT.

I begin to believe the party I've been registered to
for almost three decades is self-destructing in
an orgy of arrogance, envy and hatred.

OOps! Oh, you have noticed!

Sorry about the tirade in my other FU.
I must have been talking about the other guy.

;^j
Rich

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:35:13 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:


Rich Grise wrote:


On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:04:46 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Now, once again, I ask you to tell me what exactly the
9-11 events were supposedly a "righteous" response to.

Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, to name a few.

Where does some fucking jumped-up wannabe prophet get off
blaming _me_ for a local warlord's inability to convince the
locals to build a society instead of continuing centuries of
idiotic Hatfield/McCoyism? Fucking braindead asshole Arafat
does _not_ deserve to die peacefully in his sleep.

Doesn't take much to trip your wire, does it?

Yeah, three thousand plus dead Americans shouldn't set me
off like that.

Fucking arrogant OBL can't keep his shit together and
blames everyone but himself.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[David]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:40:06 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Frank Bemelman wrote:
"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> schreef in bericht
news:hAQid.45384$G15.6541@fed1read03...


Where does some fucking jumped-up wannabe prophet get off
blaming _me_ for a local warlord's inability to convince the
locals to build a society instead of continuing centuries of
idiotic Hatfield/McCoyism? Fucking braindead asshole Arafat
does _not_ deserve to die peacefully in his sleep.

Arafat has won a Nobel Prize for Peace. Would you care to
explain? It's not a prize you win for sitting around the
table just once.

No, he was awarded that for not blowing up Stockholm.

Exactly _what_ has Arafat done to stop all the killing?
Nothing.

While I don't think Arafat should have got a peace prize, the Isrealis
have not exactly made it easy for him to prevent killing. They have a
nasty habit of bombing the Palestinian police stations and then blaming
the Palestinian authorities for not doing enough to prevent terrorism.

Deaths since september 2000, look here:

http://www.geocities.com/tents444/counters.htm#bann

974 Isrealis, 3426 Palestines.

Who is killing who?

Both sides are terrorists - the only difference is that the Isrealis were
uniforms, have better weapons, and are officially supported by the state.

Who gives a fuck? The "Palestinians" cannot build a
society anyway. If you choose to claim that Israel couldn't

How could you expect the Palestinians to build a society? Every time they
build a house two stories high, it gets bulldozed. Any infrastructure
gets hit by helicopter gunships, and civilians are driven off to live in
refuge camps.

either without massive U.S. aid, where were all the
"helpful" Arabs when the "Palestinians" were in need?
Covering their own asses and hoping the Jews would kill all
the "Palestinians", that's where.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jamie wrote:

uvcceet@juno.com wrote:

In <418bd5a5$0$21106$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, on 11/05/04 at 08:34 PM,
"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> said:


"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> schreef in bericht
news:KCMid.45358$G15.36434@fed1read03...


Now, once again, I ask you to tell me what exactly the
9-11 events were supposedly a "righteous" response to.


Bin laded explained that quite clear in his latest video.



Yes, and by all means, we must accept what he said as the truth. No way its
for his own personal agenda. He is the world's fountain of truth, and everyone
else, except every liberal, is lying all the time, and always.

I am pretty sure most of you pretending to be leftists and liberals are really
just conservatives, out for a few jollies in usenet, saying incendiary stuff
just to get a rise out of people. Its a pretty good scam, to a point, but its
getting old. I could rattle off the usernames of half a dozen of you who are
only posting to see if you can get a rise out of others.

Its a good show, but it is probably time to move on, as whining only gets you
so far. To those who are "debating" with these coneheads, I suggest you wake
up and realize they are actually on your side, and just playing with you to
pass the time of day. Unemployed people living off the dole have very little
else to do with their time, so they come to usenet and assume a position they
know with incite arguments. Please don't encourage them. They need to get off
their butts and get jobs and contibute, rather than living off of welfare.

Time to change the channel.

John
I like that one, i could not have said it any better my self!.
and don't forget, most of those on welfare most likely got their
computers and internet connection given to them as well.
like the welfare idiots we have in this town, they actually have Debit
cares issued from the town for them to buy what ever they want!.
-----------------

Nope, only food. Less trouble with them trading them than stamps.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

In <418bd5a5$0$21106$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, on 11/05/04 at 08:34 PM,
"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> said:

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> schreef in bericht
news:KCMid.45358$G15.36434@fed1read03...

Now, once again, I ask you to tell me what exactly the
9-11 events were supposedly a "righteous" response to.

Bin laded explained that quite clear in his latest video.

Yes, and by all means, we must accept what he said as the truth. No way its
for his own personal agenda. He is the world's fountain of truth, and everyone
else, except every liberal, is lying all the time, and always.

I am pretty sure most of you pretending to be leftists and liberals are really
just conservatives, out for a few jollies in usenet, saying incendiary stuff
just to get a rise out of people. Its a pretty good scam, to a point, but its
getting old. I could rattle off the usernames of half a dozen of you who are
only posting to see if you can get a rise out of others.

Its a good show, but it is probably time to move on, as whining only gets you
so far. To those who are "debating" with these coneheads, I suggest you wake
up and realize they are actually on your side, and just playing with you to
pass the time of day. Unemployed people living off the dole have very little
else to do with their time, so they come to usenet and assume a position they
know with incite arguments. Please don't encourage them. They need to get off
their butts and get jobs and contibute, rather than living off of welfare.

Time to change the channel.

John

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:52:45 -0700, Dennis M. O'Connor wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote ...
This is hilarious:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109218/

Seems the Dems lost because America is populated by ignorant religious
inbred finatics.

I've noticed that the current attitude of the Dems is
"Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid and/or evil."

No, no, you're missing the point entirely. They're saying that
they see Bush as a nazi tool, and anyone who votes for him is
stupid or evil.

But to them, when you say, "No, he's not," _some_ of them knee-jerk
and react with "you must be one of them."

But it does seem like a knee-jerk on the republican side that they
seem not to notice that there are extremists in the republican party,
who have earned themselves the appellation "neocons," who seem
to be pushing an agenda that's frighteningly in line with the
MO of every known fascist regime since they invented fascism.

And that's scary. Not only the "liberals'" perception of it as
being so extreme as to call out the resistance, but the idea that
the right-wing side won't even acknowledge that some of the
things in, for example, the Patriot Act, are a little bit extreme.

They always go, "you have to give up a little bit of freedom to
protect our security."

And it is happening.

And if you refuse to see that, then people will probably keep
calling you names.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:41:00 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
Just on the news...

Kerry concedes in call to Bush.

Daschle loses Senate race!

"It's a wonderful day in the neighborhood" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Not to about 150 million seriously disgruntled Americans it's not! The
price your party will pay for seriously underhanded and criminal
behavior will become obvious even to you in the coming months.

Methinks I read Bloggs as a terrorist. Time to track his ass down and
turn him in.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Brian Hance]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:56:53 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

........the whole core of the US went for Bush.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

--
Brian Hance
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Constantly talking is not necessarily communication."
from ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND

 

[Dr. Anton T. Squeegee]

In article <gf1io09kqsgst026h95m56reiqdi4h73en@4ax.com>,
thegreatone@example.com says...

Just on the news...

Kerry concedes in call to Bush.

Daschle loses Senate race!

"It's a wonderful day in the neighborhood" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

After hearing this news (when it first broke), I was able to sum
up my feelings about the entire election in four simple words.

God help us all.



--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
with surreal ports?"

 

[Clarence]

"Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" <SpammersAreVermin@dev.null> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bfd3501dc93ebc0989809@192.168.42.131...

In article <gf1io09kqsgst026h95m56reiqdi4h73en@4ax.com>,
thegreatone@example.com says...

Just on the news...

Kerry concedes in call to Bush.

Daschle loses Senate race!

"It's a wonderful day in the neighborhood" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

After hearing this news (when it first broke), I was able to sum
up my feelings about the entire election in four simple words.

God help us all.

Obviously She Did!

 

[Jamie]

Right- FUCK HIM and all the other *scum* in JESUSLAND- that so-called
"core" of the US consists of welfare client states- worthless parasitic
trash.
Now now Fred, did we forget to take our pills this morning?

 

[Mark Fergerson]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Democrats, having a meeting to decide why they lost the election,
decided it was because Bush fought a dirty campaign.

My view on that:

(1) I didn't see a single Kerry ad that wasn't an out-and-out lie.

----------------
Lying slightly to defeat evil is a virtuous act!

Who decides what "slightly" means? Shall we now assume
that nothing you say is to be trusted, since (as you tell us
so often) we're so evil, you must be lying "slightly"
whenever you think it's appropriate?

Steve, if you truly believe what you wrote, you've
destroyed any credibility you ever had.

(2) Kerry had a "plan", but never gave any particulars... I guess
expecting, "Elect me, then I'll tell you".

-------------------
It was spelled out clearly, to everyone who actually wanted to know.
You were simply disingenuous about claiming you did, else you'd have
gone to their website.

Hold on, I did read it. It comprised four of the five
points on the Bush site.

(3) Taxing anyone over $200K gets every small business owner in the
US... not too smart.

----------------------
Crucial to the final equality of workers.
Tax the rich back to the level of the rest of us.
Require any business to pay each person working the SAME per hour.

Dammit Steve, do you have to keep repeating the same old
zero-sum bullshit? How about making us ALL the current
equivalent of filthy rich? You know damn well we're capable
of it right now.

(4) Never answering any question until 24 hours later, so he could run
a poll.

-----------------------
Lie. Republicans always lie, they seem to think it makes their dicks
larger to tempt fate that way, actually it just makes them stupid
dicks.

So, why do Dems lie?

(5) Why do leftists hate Texans?

---------------------------
It's not merely Texans, it's ANY slack jawed moron stupid enough to
identify with dirt instead of ideas.

(6) Looking at a Red/Blue map, looks like the Blues choose appearance
over substance...

---------------------
Lie. The blue was simply the educated people in the USA. We're getting
real close to a Majority now, one of these years its gonna be all over
for your beloved Dark Ages.

the whole core of the US went for Bush.

------------------------
Population-wise, the "core" of the USA is nearly empty. The population
is in the north and on the coasts. Look at the light-at-night satellite
photos from orbit.

New England
and the Left Coast look like a bunch of sick puppies.

--------------------------
Then why do they have the lion's share of technical production to
their credit, and several of those states rank next to nations in
terms of their productivity.

The red is all scattered dirt farmers.

There's that elitist streak again. What will you do when
your local Committee decides you're best suited to carrying
nightsoil?

(7) Looks to me like it's time to penalize the Blue states, and do
away with any deductions for state/city income taxes... stop the
leaching off of the core... Boston, New York, LA and SF deserve the
fruit of their seed ;-)

----------------------------
If you in the red all died, we could repopulate the farm industry
in a few weeks. Us city kids mostly came from the country, TO GET
AWAY FROM YOU SHIT!! The rest of you slack-jawed morons are useless
and waste of resources and skin. Without a few hauling jobs you'd
be useless and unnecessary!

But if we blue disappeared, you'd GET your wish and return the
Dark Ages and in months you'd be back to the digging stick as your
average technology!

Yeah, right. Which coast do you "live" on?

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[me]

The Left Coast, where we have the most productive farms on earth.
They're automated and corporate, meaning the People can run them
just as well as ignorant rich bastards by taking over and controlling
the corportation by Majority Democracy.

-Steve

No way comrade. Communism does not work. Even the chinese are going
capitalist. If everyone depended on dumb asses like you to make us rich
we'd all be living in mud huts and starving to death.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[R. Steve Walz]

me wrote:

The Left Coast, where we have the most productive farms on earth.
They're automated and corporate, meaning the People can run them
just as well as ignorant rich bastards by taking over and controlling
the corportation by Majority Democracy.

-Steve

No way comrade. Communism does not work.
---------------------

Ah, the anonymous liar errs again.

Communism has NEVER EVER been tried, it was subverted at birth in
the USSR and a feudal nobility called the Politburo used the Russian
economy strictly to enrich themselves as a rich class for 70 years,
enslaving their majority and trying to convince them they were in a
"worker's paradise", why they were all "equal" weren't they? EQUALLY
POOR BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING ENSLAVED AND STOLEN FROM! Same with
China, the technical class that served the Emperor took over and
ran it for their own aggrandizement!!! When you allege that some
"communism" "failed", you have to let us follow the MONEY to see
what REALLY happened!

Wherever a rich class EXISTS, it is automatically *NOT* ANY KIND
of "communism". THAT'S HOW YOU CAN TELL! Any REAL Communism would
make all disparity in wealth by profit, speculation and salary
absolutely illegal.

Even the chinese are going capitalist.
----------------------

No, China is doing whatever they think will make their rich class
richer! They use "communism" as an excuse to control the economy
and all business to optimize profit for the rich, while with the
other hand, they claim they are becoming more "capitalistic", but
for the same purpose!! When we get rid of the rich, the lies will
STOP FINALLY!

If everyone depended on dumb asses like you to make us rich
we'd all be living in mud huts and starving to death.
------------------------

Anyone who depends on others to make them rich deserves mud huts
in the case of stupid poor people, and a noose in the case of
the vicious rich shit.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 07:23:27 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

meaning the People can run them
just as well as ignorant rich bastards by taking over and controlling
the corportation by Majority Democracy.

Yet those "ignorant bastards" are the ones that set up
those extremely productive farms, not a bunch of long-haired
Co-op ex-hippies. Where are the extremely productive
communes, Steve? There aren't any.

I see you've engaged the impenetrable Walz.


;^j
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:41:36 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:
Steve, if you truly believe what you wrote, you've
destroyed any credibility you ever had.

------------------------
Any credibility I *DO* have is based on *WHAT* I say,

But if you're lying...
---------------------------
You missed the point. Content determines credibility, not source.

"Content determines credibility"????!?!?!!???

"Oh, yeah, that sounds like something I already know - must be
true!"

Sigh.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:41:36 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:
Mark Fergerson wrote:
Steve, if you truly believe what you wrote, you've
destroyed any credibility you ever had.

------------------------
Any credibility I *DO* have is based on *WHAT* I say,

But if you're lying...
---------------------------
You missed the point. Content determines credibility, not source.

"Content determines credibility"????!?!?!!???

"Oh, yeah, that sounds like something I already know - must be
true!"

Sigh.
-------------------------

People believe content that is believable.
Further, they agree with what they believe when they hear it.
Tell them what they know and they'll know you're right.
Do it in a new way that makes them take a new side, and they'll
change sides.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Mark Fergerson]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Lying slightly to defeat evil is a virtuous act!

Who decides what "slightly" means? Shall we now assume
that nothing you say is to be trusted, since (as you tell us
so often) we're so evil, you must be lying "slightly"
whenever you think it's appropriate?

Hah, hah.
And so you hadn't realized until just now that others can LIE???

Yes, of course anyone can lie.

And, you sidestepped my question. What concerns me here
is not your lying to me, but to yourself.

If you want to trust anyone, trust the guy who ADMITS it.

Right. I will henceforth take everything Dan Rather says
at face value.

Pretending Rather is not credible because of a misstep he admitted
is disingenuous.

No, stating that he's not credible because he presented
faked documents he _wanted_ to believe to be true, and
wanted to convince his audience were true _in the face of
counterevidence he suppressed_, is reasonable.

He selectively presented information that supported his
beliefs, and did not present information that contradicted
them, and in fact said that any such information was "not
credible" without stating his criteria for credibility. He
also went out of his way to suppress information on the
source of the faked documents.

After he was exposed he claimed to have "misstepped", yet
did not remedy his failure to report the contradictory
information, nor did he make any effort to report on the
motives of the source of the faked documents. He lied to his
audience and justified it by lying to himself.

Steve, if you truly believe what you wrote, you've
destroyed any credibility you ever had.

Any credibility I *DO* have is based on *WHAT* I say,

But if you're lying...

You missed the point. Content determines credibility, not source.

There's the rub. Much of what you claim cannot be
second-sourced.

and NOT the reverse.

how will I know?

Examine what is said and why, not who says what.

Great. Provide cites to support your opinions in future.

Nobody believes anyone else unless they agree with them.

Only if they can't distinguish between "truth" and "fact".

No, what I said applies to everyone. People agree NOT based on
whether something is true, but whether they share the same belief.

This contradicts what you said above. Agreement about
"truths" is based on a common belief system which does not
take note of, or deliberately rejects, objectively
verifiable evidence.

This is the difference between religion and science. In
the latter, agreement comes from the presentation and
examination of _all_ evidence for a given POV, both
supportive and contradictory.

Rather is comparable to a Baptist tent preacher pounding
his Bible on a lectern, ignoring or shouting down doubters,
then turning his flock against them with pitchforks and
torches lest his lies be exposed.

You are one of his faithful because you believe his lies,
and accept his excuses for lying.

The way we are changed from external influences is from within,

You used to say that we cannot change our minds from
within at all. Lying again, or changed your mind?

We cannot, through ANY act of supposed "will", change what we
believe, not even the smallest thing. But other things from within
and from without will change us, even if against our "will".

This is either your opinion or a lie. Please present
objectively verifiable evidence so I may discern which.

below awareness, beyond our control.

True for those that will not even attempt to understand
how their minds work.

Nonsense. You cannot lift yourself into the air, and you cannot
encompasse your own nature with your awareness. Any believed
control is easily proved to be illusory.

Then kindly present a brief, concise proof.

Hold on, I did read it. It comprised four of the five
points on the Bush site.

Yeah, except in the opposite direction.

Uh, no. Same identical points.

So you'd like to pretend that there was no reason to see these men
as adversaries? You're an idiot!

Of course there's no reason for them to be adversaries;
they're from the same socioeconomic stratum, members of the
same "secret society", and have much the same ends in mind.
Their political platforms were conveniences of the moment
and will have as much effect on their subsequent policies as
past examples, which is to say none.

Did you fail to actually _read_ the points on both sites
and note the similarity, or did you just prefer to not see
it because it contradicted one of your articles of faith?

As for the name-calling, Steve, do you really take the
American political dog-and-pony shows seriously?

Tax the rich back to the level of the rest of us.
Require any business to pay each person working the SAME per hour.

Dammit Steve, do you have to keep repeating the same old
zero-sum bullshit?

Ain't bullshit. At any moment the economy is finite,

There's your problem, trying to apply calculus to
economics. You make the same mistake every economist from
Adam Smith onward makes; you willfully ignore the fact that
value and cost are in constant flux WRT each other.

FTM, in your stated ideal economy, a made object's value
must decline over time. A house built last week would have
less value than one built today, even if they're otherwise
indistinguishable. This makes no sense at all. If you wish
your system to be accepted, you'll have to resolve this kind
of inconsistency.

Or find better ways to make things that don't involve
more hand labor.

Absolutely. Don't tell me that you have some delusion that I want
everyone to "plant a garden" or "make things by hand"!!?? By labor
I mean the maintenance and use of state of the art manufacturing by
manufacturing technician workers.

Yeah, I got that. But that means that an hour's labor one
day (before an innovation is installed) will produce less
than an hour's labor the next day after upgrading. Also, an
hour's labor in one factory will produce less than a factory
elsewhere with more efficient technology.

OTOH are you suggesting that every workplace everywhere
be upgraded simultaneously? Sure, that'll work.

How about making us ALL the current equivalent of filthy rich?
You know damn well we're capable of it right now.

You know no such thing, we don't have self-replicating industrial
robots yet. This means we are limited in what we can have and
maintain by how much we can work and to what degree our industrial
base amplifies our production.

So? That doesn't mean that a more efficient distribution
of the output of the present means of production cannot make
everyone the equivalent of filthy rich in terms of not going
without neccesities or even luxuries (depending who's
defining "luxury"). What's stopping it from happening is the
popular addiction to bookkeeping in the form of
artificially-defined credit.

"Production amplification" is exactly the reason your
"work to live" scheme is pointless. People used to have to
work dawn to dusk just to eat. That's no longer the case.
It's down to, what, four hours a day (excluding "tax hours")?

We need to share the profit of production entirely equally, and
then we'll see the average buying power triple, when we prevent
the rich from stealing it all.

Exactly; there won't _be_ any "rich" by the old
definitions of accumulated wealth and buying power.

But as I've tried to explain to you many times, those you
despise as "wealthy crooks" don't count their wealth as
accumulated buying power, but as accumulated ability to
influence and control the lives of those they perceive as
lesser beings. You propose to cure this misperception
through slow death by torture, which completely misses the
point.

So, why do Dems lie?

They don't, except obviously where appropriate and moral to do so.

Interesting; you forgive doublespeak when your side does
it. I don't forgive it at all.

Republican lying to steal versus Democratic lying to steal back,
of course!! Stealing is not forgivable, stealing back for the
victim is a virtue!

Bullshit. Exposing lies does not require lying. Getting
in the habit of lying _for any excuse_ merely makes further
lying easier. This is the doublespeak trap that forced what
_might_ have been Lenin's Socialism in the USSR to become
Stalin's Oligarchy. The leaders first lied to themselves,
then each other (with a wink here and there), then everyone,
because they'd gotten in the habit of not telling harsh truths.

You propose the same old thing; set up your Ideal
Socialism on lies, and it will go the same way.

New England
and the Left Coast look like a bunch of sick puppies.

Then why do they have the lion's share of technical production to
their credit, and several of those states rank next to nations in
terms of their productivity.

The red is all scattered dirt farmers.

There's that elitist streak again.

Nonsense, the stupid are the stupid.

Now you're merely parroting Kerry's wife.

Irrelevant, she didn't run, and is mildly insane.

She claimed that anyone who disagreed with her husband
was stupid, and you're doing the same for yourself. Simple
elitism.

What will you do when
your local Committee decides you're best suited to carrying
nightsoil?

Doesn't happen, ain't no "committee", just Majority Democracy, and
everyone gets the same work and the same chances.

What, you've revised your precious People's Committees
out of existence? How will your State know what the People
need to do?

By Democratic vote, of course, the sub-committees are merely advisory
executive/research organs.

Ah, the "local committes" now pop back into existence,
under a new name.

And if their research indicates there are too many people
doing your preferred job, and not enough nightsoil carriers?
What will you do, move away? You never did answer me when I
asked you about that the first time. Suppose the committee
decides you're too valuable to allow to move away?

How can any State function if everyone does all the same
jobs? Shit's gonna pile up real quick.

You're becoming confused.
The jobs are all different, but they just PAY the same.

Well, now that the "sub-committees" are back in
existence, no problem.

(7) Looks to me like it's time to penalize the Blue states, and do
away with any deductions for state/city income taxes... stop the
leaching off of the core... Boston, New York, LA and SF deserve the
fruit of their seed ;-)

If you in the red all died, we could repopulate the farm industry
in a few weeks. Us city kids mostly came from the country, TO GET
AWAY FROM YOU SHIT!! The rest of you slack-jawed morons are useless
and waste of resources and skin. Without a few hauling jobs you'd
be useless and unnecessary!

But if we blue disappeared, you'd GET your wish and return the
Dark Ages and in months you'd be back to the digging stick as your
average technology!

Yeah, right. Which coast do you "live" on?

The Left Coast

Why am I not surprised?

Why do you posture irrelevantly?

Not irrelevant posturing. Please secede ASAP. Then try
living on the resources within your borders.

where we have the most productive farms on earth.

Using water stolen from other states.

Who can't use it when they're frozen or parched 7 months of the year.

I live in AZ, one of those places parched seven months of
the year which is exactly when that water is most needed.
Oh, wait; the People's Republic of Kalifornia has greater
need because You Say So, right? Try living on your own
rainfall. We can, and have. But the Imperial Valley will dry
back up to the desert it was before it was irrigated with
Colorado River water stolen from other states.

They're automated and corporate

Which displaced lots of farmers.

Farmers as owners are ridiculous. The arable land belongs to everyone
who eats from it.

By which farming technologies? You forget that things
change; does that mean you think you have a part-ownership
in land in Sri Lanka that produces grams of saffron? Is it
equal to your part-ownership in land in Kansas that produces
megabushels of corn?

meaning the People can run them
just as well as ignorant rich bastards by taking over and controlling
the corportation by Majority Democracy.

Yet those "ignorant bastards" are the ones that set up
those extremely productive farms,

No they weren't. They were set up as" family dynastic farms and
werfe gobbled up when their kids wanted to move to LA.

You left out a couple steps; the "family dynasties" could
not produce at the corporate levels because they couldn't
mechanize the same way. They couldn't afford to do so
because they couldn't reach larger markets. The kids moved
out simply because they were dirt-poor.

not a bunch of long-haired Co-op ex-hippies.

Which is also irrelevant and unrelated posturing crap.

Really? Communes are not "family dynasties"; they're
closer to a corporate setup with all members making
decisions, eliminating the takeover steps. Why couldn't they
outproduce their own needs and sell the excess?

Where are the extremely productive
communes, Steve? There aren't any.

"Communes" weren't FOR that, you stupid fixated redneck.

Because they refused to look beyond themselves, pursuing
the sweet lie of self-sufficiency.

Get past the name-calling Steve; stop lying to yourself
and resolve the inconsistencies in your thinking exposed by
the name-calling.

But NON-profit, publically owned utilities span the nation.

Because they're _prevented by law_ from making profit.
And don't try to put up utility bonds as counterexamples;
you know damn well they're artificially supported by taxation.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:47:48 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Mark Fergerson wrote:
R. Steve Walz wrote:
....
The Left Coast

Why am I not surprised?

Why do you posture irrelevantly?

Not irrelevant posturing. Please secede ASAP. Then try
living on the resources within your borders.

Be careful what you ask for - the last I heard, California got back about
60% of what it paid in federal taxes. I don't think it'd be California
that'd suffer if they withheld their federal extortion payments.

--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:16:25 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness>
wrote:

But we live in a society of excess already, so most of the arguments
about class and wealth are moot.

That's what I was trying to tell RSW. It's approaching
the situation with royalty in the U.K. and other countries
that maintain them for show.

Someone recently noted that anybody can go to a nearby gas station
mini-mart and, for $6 or so, buy a better bottle of wine than any
French king ever tasted.

John