Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :
:: :Fred J. McCall (aka Mclod) wrote:
:: :: :: What's too bad is that folks like you are unable to realize that "I
:: :: :: Hate Bush And So Should You" simply isn't a convincing argument, much
:: :: :: less a good policy prescription for what you'd change.
:: :: :
:: :: :I don't care if you love the guy, based upon results, he's weak...
:: :
:: :: And I don't care what stupid **** you believe I think, so far your
:: :: only recommendation for change is pretty well non-existent. What
:: :: would 'your' candidate do differently, other than be 'not George'.
:: :
:: :Nope, George was party to starting a war for profit.
:
:: You're a liar, El Chimpo.
:
:Attack the message, McClod, not the messenger. Exactly what part of the
:message is a lie?

All of it. You said one sentence. It's a lie.

Is that not clear enough for you?

:: :He and others of his
:: :ilk talk about alternate forms of energy but do nothing about it in the
:: :area that they could, like funding research.
:
:: That's why we're seeing hybrid vehicles and the big push to ethanol
:: fuels, right?
:
:A token attempt.

You obviously are absolutely uninformed. You have to be to think
that.

:Get a Democrat in there and see what happens with hybrids
:and gasohol.

We had a Democrat in there for 8 years before Bush. What happened
with hybrids and gasohol, El Chimpo?

And just by the way, I'm not talking about gasohol (which we use
around here and have for a long time). I'm talking about 80% ethanol
fuel REPLACING gasoline as a fuel, not just 10% being used as an
oxidizing agent in gasohol.

:: Pull your head out.
:
:: And I note that you STILL don't answer just what your candidate would
:: do differently, other than be 'not George'.
:
:Anyone else wouldn't pander to Big Oil as W is now doing.

Don't look now but you're lying again, El Chimpo.

:: :: :: By all means, you keep it up. It pretty much guarantees that you'll
:: :: :: be singing the same song in 2009 that you're singing right now, with
:: :: :: only the names changed.
:: :: :
:: :: :You have to get past the 2006 elections before your rhetoric has any effect. Do
:: :: :you think the GOP is going to actually gain seats in Congress? If so, would you
:: :: :like to bet? I take PayPal...
:: :
:: :: You won't be seeing George Bush replaced in 2006. If you think you
:: :: will, would you like to bet? I take cash.
:: :
:: :You're right, he'll just be more and more of a lame duck.
:
:: And you and yours will become more and more birdbrained to match.
:
:You're the coot.

And you're the coot droppings.

:: :: If you think George Bush's 'negative coattails' have anything to do
:: :: with Congressional elections, you must have been asleep for about the
:: :: last quarter century or more.
:: :
:: :We'll just have to wait and see.
:
:: Presidential 'coattails' haven't worked for at least a quarter century
:: now, even in the classical positive sense during presidential election
:: years.
:
:Explain why the GOP took over Congress in 1994. Clinton had nothing to do
:with that?

Nope. CONGRESS had to do with that. Take a look at Clinton's
popularity in 1994. He won the Presidency again 2 years later. Can
you seriously believe that the turnover in Congress was related to
CLINTON?

:: If you think 'negative coattails' are going to be a telling factor in
:: an off-year election, you need to move away from the crack pipe.
:: You've had enough.
:
:Again we'll have to wait and see. Besides I think Marrion Barry is more
:your type than mine...

Don't flatter yourself, El Chimpo. You don't think.

:Get out of the closet, Fred, you'll feel better about yourself.

No matter how you beg, you're not my type, El Chimpo. I don't date
outside the human species.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Wed, 31 May 2006 18:37:44 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
: : down from its $80 per share high to around $75.
:
: : Yes, obviously, that's the only reason we had a war--for Halliburton.
:
: Not just for Halliburton but others that profit from war as well. The ones
: that were able to bankroll Bush into the White House. PNAC, Rand, we have
: been telling you this for a few years now. Why do you continue to pretend
: not to know?

: One of the (many) reasons I think it's nuts is that you've been
: telling me this for a few years now.

But did you read it?! Just saying that I'm nuts because I've been
referencing it doesn't make the content invalid, Rand. Do you simply not
believe that PNAC exists, that it isn't bad, or what? Why do you make it
about me when we're discussing a commitee?

Eric

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: :: On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:13:01 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
: :: Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: :: such a way as to indicate that:
: :
: ::
: ::
: :: Eric Chomko wrote:
: ::
: ::
: :: Rand, he's not agreeing with me per se, he's reading the writing on the
: :: wall.
: ::
: ::
: :: BTW- Halliburton lost money under Cheney's CEOship, so maybe he's trying
: :: to make up for past mistakes.
: :: Here, we see Halliburton proving war is good for stock prices and other
: :: growing things:
: :: http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/h/hal
: :: When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
: :: down from its $80 per share high to around $75.
: :
: :: Yes, obviously, that's the only reason we had a war--for Halliburton.
: :
: :Not just for Halliburton but others that profit from war as well. The ones
: :that were able to bankroll Bush into the White House.

: You mean the majority of the American people? I don't know how to
: break this to you, El Chimpo, but Bush collected more in SMALL
: INDIVIDUAL DONATIONS than his opponents. The idea that he (or anyone)
: can be "bankrolled into the White House" by big companies is beyond
: ignorant and ill-informed and well into stuck on stupid.

Not big companies but a small cabal of powerful people.

: :PNAC, Rand, we have
: :been telling you this for a few years now. Why do you continue to pretend
: :not to know?

: Because you say all sorts of silly tripe and support none of it.

I have backed up everything I have posted. Have you ever read C. Wright
Mills's book, "The Power Elite"? Anthony Sutton's, "The American
Establishment"?

No, you read right-wing rags and shake your head in agreement, and when
you disagree, you write it off as left-wing media, like so many other
dittohead Limbots...

: :: Loosen up the chinstrap on that tinfoil hat, Pat--it's cutting off the
: :: blood supply to your brain.
: :
: :Yep, just call him a conspiracy buff and move on. How establishment of
: :you. Thanks to dupes like, you Rand, the powers-at-be continue to rip off
: :all of us.

: You're even loonier than I thought you were, El Chimpo, and that's
: going some.

Yeah, and you're a stablizing force in the universe. McClod, idiots like
you voted Bush in office becuse of ignorance. Nothing more.

Eric

: --
: "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: territory."
: --G. Behn

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:25:08 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Wed, 31 May 2006 18:37:44 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
: : down from its $80 per share high to around $75.
:
: : Yes, obviously, that's the only reason we had a war--for Halliburton.
:
: Not just for Halliburton but others that profit from war as well. The ones
: that were able to bankroll Bush into the White House. PNAC, Rand, we have
: been telling you this for a few years now. Why do you continue to pretend
: not to know?

: One of the (many) reasons I think it's nuts is that you've been
: telling me this for a few years now.

But did you read it?! Just saying that I'm nuts because I've been
referencing it doesn't make the content invalid, Rand.

In your case it usually does.

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :
: :: :Fred J. McCall (aka Mclod) wrote:
: :: :: :: What's too bad is that folks like you are unable to realize that "I
: :: :: :: Hate Bush And So Should You" simply isn't a convincing argument, much
: :: :: :: less a good policy prescription for what you'd change.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :I don't care if you love the guy, based upon results, he's weak...
: :: :
: :: :: And I don't care what stupid **** you believe I think, so far your
: :: :: only recommendation for change is pretty well non-existent. What
: :: :: would 'your' candidate do differently, other than be 'not George'.
: :: :
: :: :Nope, George was party to starting a war for profit.
: :
: :: You're a liar, El Chimpo.
: :
: :Attack the message, McClod, not the messenger. Exactly what part of the
: :message is a lie?

: All of it. You said one sentence. It's a lie.

: Is that not clear enough for you?

You took the coward's way out as usual. Have you always been a wetnap?
Friggin wimp...

: :: :He and others of his
: :: :ilk talk about alternate forms of energy but do nothing about it in the
: :: :area that they could, like funding research.
: :
: :: That's why we're seeing hybrid vehicles and the big push to ethanol
: :: fuels, right?
: :
: :A token attempt.

: You obviously are absolutely uninformed. You have to be to think
: that.

The only thing Bush has done is start the war in Iraq. Don't you find it a
little odd that he made the claim that he won't pull out the troops at all
for any reason? That being nearly three years before he's out of office. I
do. Why make a comment like that? It is obvious that the war and nothing
else, including different forms of energy is Bush's sole commitment.

: :Get a Democrat in there and see what happens with hybrids
: :and gasohol.

: We had a Democrat in there for 8 years before Bush. What happened
: with hybrids and gasohol, El Chimpo?

Gas was just over a buck a gallon back then. Now it's $3 a gallon. So you
have a situation where we should be looking for alternate forms of energy
due to high gas prices but since a friend of Big Oil is in the WH nothing
gets done and they get richer.

: And just by the way, I'm not talking about gasohol (which we use
: around here and have for a long time). I'm talking about 80% ethanol
: fuel REPLACING gasoline as a fuel, not just 10% being used as an
: oxidizing agent in gasohol.

Not with your boy in the WH...

: :: Pull your head out.
: :
: :: And I note that you STILL don't answer just what your candidate would
: :: do differently, other than be 'not George'.
: :
: :Anyone else wouldn't pander to Big Oil as W is now doing.

: Don't look now but you're lying again, El Chimpo.

Nope, right on target...

: :: :: :: By all means, you keep it up. It pretty much guarantees that you'll
: :: :: :: be singing the same song in 2009 that you're singing right now, with
: :: :: :: only the names changed.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :You have to get past the 2006 elections before your rhetoric has any effect. Do
: :: :: :you think the GOP is going to actually gain seats in Congress? If so, would you
: :: :: :like to bet? I take PayPal...
: :: :
: :: :: You won't be seeing George Bush replaced in 2006. If you think you
: :: :: will, would you like to bet? I take cash.
: :: :
: :: :You're right, he'll just be more and more of a lame duck.
: :
: :: And you and yours will become more and more birdbrained to match.
: :
: :You're the coot.

: And you're the coot droppings.

And you're the insect eating coot droppings.

: :: :: If you think George Bush's 'negative coattails' have anything to do
: :: :: with Congressional elections, you must have been asleep for about the
: :: :: last quarter century or more.
: :: :
: :: :We'll just have to wait and see.
: :
: :: Presidential 'coattails' haven't worked for at least a quarter century
: :: now, even in the classical positive sense during presidential election
: :: years.
: :
: :Explain why the GOP took over Congress in 1994. Clinton had nothing to do
: :with that?

: Nope. CONGRESS had to do with that. Take a look at Clinton's
: popularity in 1994. He won the Presidency again 2 years later. Can
: you seriously believe that the turnover in Congress was related to
: CLINTON?

That's what the GOP rhetoric was in the era. Go ahead ane read what Newt
Gingrich said about it at the time.

: :: If you think 'negative coattails' are going to be a telling factor in
: :: an off-year election, you need to move away from the crack pipe.
: :: You've had enough.
: :
: :Again we'll have to wait and see. Besides I think Marrion Barry is more
: :your type than mine...

: Don't flatter yourself, El Chimpo. You don't think.

Clearer, deeper and more thorough than you McClod. Did you even make
sergeant after you dropped out of high school and joined the military?

: :Get out of the closet, Fred, you'll feel better about yourself.

: No matter how you beg, you're not my type, El Chimpo. I don't date
: outside the human species.

I doubt you date as much as you stalk...

Eric

: --
: "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: territory."
: --G. Behn

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :
: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
: :: :: :: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
: :: :: :: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
: :: :: :: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
: :: :: :: this one, right?
: :: :: :
: :: :: :Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
: :: :: :jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?
: :: :
: :: :: And the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
: :: :: "paying people too little" is?
: :: :
: :: :To give incentive for people to continue to work and not leave the country
: :: :for greener grass. Look at Mexico, if they DID have a minimum wage then
: :: :they wouldn't be crossing the border in droves to your ire. Or do you like
: :: :that sort of thing so as to give the unions fits?
: :
: :: Jesus, try READING THE WORDS, Eric. Let me try again.
: :
: :: What is the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
: :: "paying people too little" and tax cuts?
: :
: :Tax cuts are to boost business.

: Well, you got that much right.

That is the theory anyway.

: :Minimum wage hikes are to keep the
: :business owners from making much more than their workers.

: Got that one wrong, and stupidly wrong at that.

Why have a minimum wage? What is the economic reason for it?

: :The relationship
: :is indirectly related.

: So indirectly related as to be totally disconnected. In other words,
: you still have not answered my question and I think you've
: demonstrated that this is due to an inability on your part to do so.

: :Also, boosting minimum wage generates more tax
: :revenue.

: How's that work, again? You're not stupidly assuming that business
: keep the same number of employees if they have to pay more for them,
: are you?

If business is growing they do. You're coming from a point if staying the
same and shrinking, not from a growing buisness, which is what the tax
cuts were all about in the first place.

: :: :Hard to say where you GOPers are from time to time as you argue one point
: :: :against another without any clue of the cause and effect that both issues
: :: :share.
: :
: :: I'm right where I've always been. Your problem seems to be an
: :: inability to read and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
: :
: :You're a right winger that tends to be wrong.

: And yet all you manage to do is make yourself look stupid and
: uninformed when you aren't being outright loony.

Says you. You're the one that argues with everyone. Do you actually have a
friend? Or have you chased them all away, too?

: :You confuse being poltically
: :right with being correct (right, as a psychological assessment).

: No, I confuse being "right where I've always been" as equating to "my
: position remains what it has always been" rather than spinning off
: into whatever fantasy world you're reading it in to use other
: definitions of 'right'.

What you admit to is that you're consistent with your position, which is
often wrong. IOW, you're not open and will tend to always believe what you
initially believe never challenging your own position and beliefs. You
want to be right so badly that even when wrong you'll argue as if right
all along or try and change the subject to the point where the topic
changes. We have ALL seem that charateristic in you, McClod. I just hope
you learn something other than to say the other person is wrong, nuts or
some other aspersion of negativity that you like to cast in light of
actual debate.

: Wait, that's not confusion. That's merely being correct.

Sure whatever you say. If you're so clear and correct all the time, then
why all the anger?

: :Fred, your last sentence is a laughable joke, especially coming from you.

: Tu quoqe fallacy. Your problem still seems to be an inability to read
: and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.

Bleating and flaming? Ha, you confuse laughter and wit...

: :: :: :: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
: :: :: :: :it's a new concept for you.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
: :: :: :emulating you anytime soon.
: :: :
: :: :: The only thing you ever 'point out' is your own ass, Eric.
: :: :
: :: :Not to you Fred, as I'd likely bet that when you cheat on your wife it's
: :: :with another man.
: :
: :: I'm divorced and no matter how much you beg I wouldn't give you a
: :: tumble, even if you do ever actually grow up to be a man.
: :
: :I'm not surprised you're divorced.

: I'm not surprised at your charm and poise.

What comes around goes around. Why do you expect poise and charm when you
dish out mean spiritedness?

Try kindness and see. Do you mistake kindness with weakness? One
wonders...

Eric

: --
: "So many women. So little charm."
: -- Donna, to Josh; The West Wing

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Rand Simberg ) wrote:
:: :: On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:13:01 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
:: :: Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
:: :: such a way as to indicate that:
:: :
:: ::
:: ::
:: :: Eric Chomko wrote:
:: ::
:: ::
:: :: Rand, he's not agreeing with me per se, he's reading the writing on the
:: :: wall.
:: ::
:: ::
:: :: BTW- Halliburton lost money under Cheney's CEOship, so maybe he's trying
:: :: to make up for past mistakes.
:: :: Here, we see Halliburton proving war is good for stock prices and other
:: :: growing things:
:: :: http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/h/hal
:: :: When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
:: :: down from its $80 per share high to around $75.
:: :
:: :: Yes, obviously, that's the only reason we had a war--for Halliburton.
:: :
:: :Not just for Halliburton but others that profit from war as well. The ones
:: :that were able to bankroll Bush into the White House.
:
:: You mean the majority of the American people? I don't know how to
:: break this to you, El Chimpo, but Bush collected more in SMALL
:: INDIVIDUAL DONATIONS than his opponents. The idea that he (or anyone)
:: can be "bankrolled into the White House" by big companies is beyond
:: ignorant and ill-informed and well into stuck on stupid.
:
:Not big companies but a small cabal of powerful people.

For a definition of 'small' that leads to them outnumbering the
individual contributors giving to the Democratic candidate....

:: :PNAC, Rand, we have
:: :been telling you this for a few years now. Why do you continue to pretend
:: :not to know?
:
:: Because you say all sorts of silly tripe and support none of it.
:
:I have backed up everything I have posted. Have you ever read C. Wright
:Mills's book, "The Power Elite"? Anthony Sutton's, "The American
:Establishment"?

Nope. But then I haven't read lots of things. No doubt the same
thing applies to everyone.

:No, you read right-wing rags and shake your head in agreement, and when
:you disagree, you write it off as left-wing media, like so many other
:dittohead Limbots...

Don't look now but you're lying again. It's ok, though. We're used
to that from you.

Hint: I read fiction, technical stuff, and Usenet.

:: :: Loosen up the chinstrap on that tinfoil hat, Pat--it's cutting off the
:: :: blood supply to your brain.
:: :
:: :Yep, just call him a conspiracy buff and move on. How establishment of
:: :you. Thanks to dupes like, you Rand, the powers-at-be continue to rip off
:: :all of us.
:
:: You're even loonier than I thought you were, El Chimpo, and that's
:: going some.
:
:Yeah, and you're a stablizing force in the universe. McClod, idiots like
:you voted Bush in office becuse of ignorance. Nothing more.

Yes. Idiots like me voted Bush into office because of ignorance on
the part of those running against him and their supporters.

There was no other credible choice. As long as Democrats keep
thinking (and I use the term loosely) as you do here, that will
continue to be the case.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :
:: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :
:: :: :Fred J. McCall (aka Mclod) wrote:
:: :: :: :: What's too bad is that folks like you are unable to realize that "I
:: :: :: :: Hate Bush And So Should You" simply isn't a convincing argument, much
:: :: :: :: less a good policy prescription for what you'd change.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :I don't care if you love the guy, based upon results, he's weak...
:: :: :
:: :: :: And I don't care what stupid **** you believe I think, so far your
:: :: :: only recommendation for change is pretty well non-existent. What
:: :: :: would 'your' candidate do differently, other than be 'not George'.
:: :: :
:: :: :Nope, George was party to starting a war for profit.
:: :
:: :: You're a liar, El Chimpo.
:: :
:: :Attack the message, McClod, not the messenger. Exactly what part of the
:: :message is a lie?
:
:: All of it. You said one sentence. It's a lie.
:
:: Is that not clear enough for you?
:
:You took the coward's way out as usual. Have you always been a wetnap?
:Friggin wimp...

You lie and then insult me for pointing it out?

Friggin' dip****...

:: :: :He and others of his
:: :: :ilk talk about alternate forms of energy but do nothing about it in the
:: :: :area that they could, like funding research.
:: :
:: :: That's why we're seeing hybrid vehicles and the big push to ethanol
:: :: fuels, right?
:: :
:: :A token attempt.
::
:: You obviously are absolutely uninformed. You have to be to think
:: that.
:
:The only thing Bush has done is start the war in Iraq.

False statement.

on't you find it a
:little odd that he made the claim that he won't pull out the troops at all
:for any reason?

No. Don't you find it a little dishonest to utter lies like that one?

Yes, you're lying AGAIN...

:That being nearly three years before he's out of office. I
:do. Why make a comment like that? It is obvious that the war and nothing
:else, including different forms of energy is Bush's sole commitment.

Please provide a credible cite for the statement you claim was made.

:: :Get a Democrat in there and see what happens with hybrids
:: :and gasohol.
::
:: We had a Democrat in there for 8 years before Bush. What happened
:: with hybrids and gasohol, El Chimpo?
:
:Gas was just over a buck a gallon back then. Now it's $3 a gallon.

Gas hit a historical high in constant dollar terms under Carter
(another Democrat). What did HE do?

:So you
:have a situation where we should be looking for alternate forms of energy
:due to high gas prices but since a friend of Big Oil is in the WH nothing
:gets done and they get richer.

No, we just have a situation where people like you lie.

:: And just by the way, I'm not talking about gasohol (which we use
:: around here and have for a long time). I'm talking about 80% ethanol
:: fuel REPLACING gasoline as a fuel, not just 10% being used as an
:: oxidizing agent in gasohol.
:
:Not with your boy in the WH...

Pull your head out and check the facts, El Chimpo. You're lying
again.

:: :: Pull your head out.
:: :
:: :: And I note that you STILL don't answer just what your candidate would
:: :: do differently, other than be 'not George'.
:: :
:: :Anyone else wouldn't pander to Big Oil as W is now doing.
::
:: Don't look now but you're lying again, El Chimpo.
:
:Nope, right on target...

It's easy to hit 'targets' when you're willing to lie, as you do
constantly.

:: :: :: :: By all means, you keep it up. It pretty much guarantees that you'll
:: :: :: :: be singing the same song in 2009 that you're singing right now, with
:: :: :: :: only the names changed.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :You have to get past the 2006 elections before your rhetoric has any effect. Do
:: :: :: :you think the GOP is going to actually gain seats in Congress? If so, would you
:: :: :: :like to bet? I take PayPal...
:: :: :
:: :: :: You won't be seeing George Bush replaced in 2006. If you think you
:: :: :: will, would you like to bet? I take cash.
:: :: :
:: :: :You're right, he'll just be more and more of a lame duck.
:: :
:: :: And you and yours will become more and more birdbrained to match.
:: :
:: :You're the coot.
::
:: And you're the coot droppings.
:
:And you're the insect eating coot droppings.

Make up your mind. You said I was the coot.

What are you, about 7?

:: :: :: If you think George Bush's 'negative coattails' have anything to do
:: :: :: with Congressional elections, you must have been asleep for about the
:: :: :: last quarter century or more.
:: :: :
:: :: :We'll just have to wait and see.
:: :
:: :: Presidential 'coattails' haven't worked for at least a quarter century
:: :: now, even in the classical positive sense during presidential election
:: :: years.
:: :
:: :Explain why the GOP took over Congress in 1994. Clinton had nothing to do
:: :with that?
::
:: Nope. CONGRESS had to do with that. Take a look at Clinton's
:: popularity in 1994. He won the Presidency again 2 years later. Can
:: you seriously believe that the turnover in Congress was related to
:: CLINTON?
:
:That's what the GOP rhetoric was in the era. Go ahead ane read what Newt
:Gingrich said about it at the time.

I don't need to read it. I was around then.

You're kidding yourself.

:: :: If you think 'negative coattails' are going to be a telling factor in
:: :: an off-year election, you need to move away from the crack pipe.
:: :: You've had enough.
:: :
:: :Again we'll have to wait and see. Besides I think Marrion Barry is more
:: :your type than mine...
::
:: Don't flatter yourself, El Chimpo. You don't think.
:
:Clearer, deeper and more thorough than you McClod. Did you even make
:sergeant after you dropped out of high school and joined the military?

The Navy doesn't have sergeants and I have multiple college degrees.

How long are you going to be in that coop job at NASA before you have
to go back to school, El Chimpo?

:: :Get out of the closet, Fred, you'll feel better about yourself.
::
:: No matter how you beg, you're not my type, El Chimpo. I don't date
:: outside the human species.
:
:I doubt you date as much as you stalk...

But then, you seem to 'doubt' most of reality. Tighten down that
tinfoil beanie, El Chimpo....

--
"I'll bet your father spent the first year of your life
throwing rocks at the stork."
-- Irving Brecher (Marx Bros. "At the Circus")

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :
:: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :
:: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
:: :: :: :: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
:: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
:: :: :: :: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
:: :: :: :: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
:: :: :: :: this one, right?
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
:: :: :: :jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?
:: :: :
:: :: :: And the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
:: :: :: "paying people too little" is?
:: :: :
:: :: :To give incentive for people to continue to work and not leave the country
:: :: :for greener grass. Look at Mexico, if they DID have a minimum wage then
:: :: :they wouldn't be crossing the border in droves to your ire. Or do you like
:: :: :that sort of thing so as to give the unions fits?
:: :
:: :: Jesus, try READING THE WORDS, Eric. Let me try again.
:: :
:: :: What is the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
:: :: "paying people too little" and tax cuts?
:: :
:: :Tax cuts are to boost business.
::
:: Well, you got that much right.
:
:That is the theory anyway.

Yep. It's generally the reality, too.

:: :Minimum wage hikes are to keep the
:: :business owners from making much more than their workers.
::
:: Got that one wrong, and stupidly wrong at that.
:
:Why have a minimum wage? What is the economic reason for it?

There is no economic reason for it. In fact, economic reasoning would
indicate they are a BAD idea.

Minimum Wage laws are a SOCIAL policy, not an economic one.

:: :The relationship
:: :is indirectly related.
:
:: So indirectly related as to be totally disconnected. In other words,
:: you still have not answered my question and I think you've
:: demonstrated that this is due to an inability on your part to do so.
::
:: :Also, boosting minimum wage generates more tax
:: :revenue.
::
:: How's that work, again? You're not stupidly assuming that business
:: keep the same number of employees if they have to pay more for them,
:: are you?
:
:If business is growing they do.

You don't make business grow by artificially increasing their costs
for social policy purposes.

:You're coming from a point if staying the
:same and shrinking, not from a growing buisness, which is what the tax
:cuts were all about in the first place.

It doesn't matter what you assume. If you artificially increase my
labor costs, I will either employ fewer people and try to up their
productivity or I will employ the same number of people and lose
money.

:: :: :Hard to say where you GOPers are from time to time as you argue one point
:: :: :against another without any clue of the cause and effect that both issues
:: :: :share.
:: :
:: :: I'm right where I've always been. Your problem seems to be an
:: :: inability to read and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
:: :
:: :You're a right winger that tends to be wrong.
::
:: And yet all you manage to do is make yourself look stupid and
:: uninformed when you aren't being outright loony.
:
:Says you. You're the one that argues with everyone. Do you actually have a
:friend? Or have you chased them all away, too?

Yes, now there's a cogent, well-reasoned reply.

I argue with idiots, not everyone. You're an idiot so it seems to you
that I argue with everyone.

:: :You confuse being poltically
:: :right with being correct (right, as a psychological assessment).
::
:: No, I confuse being "right where I've always been" as equating to "my
:: position remains what it has always been" rather than spinning off
:: into whatever fantasy world you're reading it in to use other
:: definitions of 'right'.
:
:What you admit to is that you're consistent with your position, which is
ften wrong.

You're lying again.

:IOW, you're not open and will tend to always believe what you
:initially believe never challenging your own position and beliefs.

You're lying again.

:You
:want to be right so badly that even when wrong you'll argue as if right
:all along or try and change the subject to the point where the topic
:changes.

You're lying again.

:We have ALL seem that charateristic in you, McClod.

Oh? When was the vote taken? Or do you just mean you and the turd in
your pocket when you say 'we'?

:I just hope
:you learn something other than to say the other person is wrong, nuts or
:some other aspersion of negativity that you like to cast in light of
:actual debate.

Perhaps you should try engaging in 'actual debate' for a change, Eric?

When you're wrong I'm going to say you're wrong. When you're nuts I'm
going to say you're nuts. I'm sorry you find the truth so painful.

:: Wait, that's not confusion. That's merely being correct.
:
:Sure whatever you say. If you're so clear and correct all the time, then
:why all the anger?

What anger? Are you overestimating your own importance in the grand
scheme of things again?

:: :Fred, your last sentence is a laughable joke, especially coming from you.
::
:: Tu quoqe fallacy. Your problem still seems to be an inability to read
:: and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
:
:Bleating and flaming? Ha, you confuse laughter and wit...

Nope. Laughter is what I do at you. Wit is what you lack. No
confusion at all.

:: :: :: :: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
:: :: :: :: :it's a new concept for you.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
:: :: :: :emulating you anytime soon.
:: :: :
:: :: :: The only thing you ever 'point out' is your own ass, Eric.
:: :: :
:: :: :Not to you Fred, as I'd likely bet that when you cheat on your wife it's
:: :: :with another man.
:: :
:: :: I'm divorced and no matter how much you beg I wouldn't give you a
:: :: tumble, even if you do ever actually grow up to be a man.
:: :
:: :I'm not surprised you're divorced.
::
:: I'm not surprised at your charm and poise.
:
:What comes around goes around. Why do you expect poise and charm when you
:dish out mean spiritedness?

I don't from you. You continue to live down to my expectations.

:Try kindness and see.

'Kindness'? Is poor little Eric feeling picked upon?

Try logic, reason, and fact, Eric. Start with any one of the three
and work your way up to the combination.

o you mistake kindness with weakness? One
:wonders...

Well, at least you ditched that turd in your pocket....

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:25:08 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : On Wed, 31 May 2006 18:37:44 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
: : : When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
: : : down from its $80 per share high to around $75.
: :
: : : Yes, obviously, that's the only reason we had a war--for Halliburton.
: :
: : Not just for Halliburton but others that profit from war as well. The ones
: : that were able to bankroll Bush into the White House. PNAC, Rand, we have
: : been telling you this for a few years now. Why do you continue to pretend
: : not to know?
:
: : One of the (many) reasons I think it's nuts is that you've been
: : telling me this for a few years now.
:
: But did you read it?! Just saying that I'm nuts because I've been
: referencing it doesn't make the content invalid, Rand.

: In your case it usually does.

Yep, lazy as usual...