Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

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?

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.

: :: :: 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.

Eric

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

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.

Pat

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.

Loosen up the chinstrap on that tinfoil hat, Pat--it's cutting off the
blood supply to your brain.

(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.

: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?

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'.

:: :: 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.

:: 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.

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.

--
"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:
:: :: :
:: :: :: :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?

: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.

:: :: :: 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.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

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

: 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.

Eric

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.

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?

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

: :: :: 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.

: :: 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?

: 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...

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

Eric

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

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. Minimum wage hikes are to keep the
business owners from making much more than their workers. The relationship
is indirectly related. Also, boosting minimum wage generates more tax
revenue.

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

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

: :: :: :: 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.

Eric

: --
: "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
: truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
: -- Thomas Jefferson

(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.

: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.

:: 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.

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