"Nazis Run Our Space Program" -- Peace Activist Bruce Gag-Me

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:01:08 +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:

: : : You didn't answer my question. What kind of uniform were you forced
: : : to wear?
: :
: : I was speaking about parading as a spectator sport.
:
: : That's not what Pat was talking about, so your response to him (like
: : many of your responses to many people) was a total idiotic
: : non-sequitur.
:
: This has nothing to do with Pat.

: So you're admitting that even though your response to Pat was that we
: were already doing what he wrote (which we aren't), you were actually
: just babbling about something that had nothing to do with what he
: wrote. Typical.

Why did you eliminate this?

All I was saying that I have notice an
increase in militray presence in our society lately and used the
prsentation of the colors as an example. No, I have not been doing any
parading myself!

This part that you removed clarified everything, yet you left it out and
went on about the first sentence out of context.

THAT is intellectual dishonesty! Your diatribe about Pat is what doesn't
follow. And as an aside from that YOU decided to quote out context.

What does this post and the topic of increased military in civilian life
have to do with any post from Pat?

: : : What do you think you are?
: :
: : An American, just like the troops.
: :
: : Would you go to war if drafted? It sounds like you would not.
:
: : Only to an illogical moron. You're not an illogical moron, are you?
:
: Another classic case of ad hominem from Rand.

: No. But I understand you don't know the difference. I didn't call
: you anything. I just asked you if you were, based on your dumb
: statement.

Yep, my dumb statement.

: You avoided an answer and went after character.

: No, I provided an answer. You're just too dumb to understand it.

The last part again is ad hominem.

And there is nothing that you have said that has gone over my head. You're
the type that when in a fight immediatley kicks for the privates. That is
the type of scumbag you are.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:02:30 +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:

: : : So, you believe that an employer should have the right to pay an
: : employee
: : : anything he wants to?
: :
: : : Of course, contingent on a mutually-agreed employment contract.
: :
: : Which is why we need labor unions, since the leverage that someone filling a
: : totally fungible low-level postion has is zip compared to the leverage of a
: : multi-million dollar company.
:
: : What leverage is needed? If the employee doesn't get paid what was
: : stipulated at the time of hire, the employer is in breach of the
: : contract, and he can quit, just as he can be fired if he doesn't do
: : the job. That's why it's a mutually-agreed employment contract.
:
: The contract is nothing but a piece of paper without a fair justice
: system.

: Who's opposed to a fair justice system? Can't you stay on topic for a
: single post?

I'm doing just fine. Why do you think that I felt you were opposed to a
fair justice system? I simply made a comment.

Do you take every post personally? Hey, leave your fragile but overly
large ego out of this!

Eric

Neil Gerace ) wrote:
: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message
: .. .

: Who's opposed to a fair justice system? Can't you stay on topic for a
: single post?

: Did someone say 'on topic'?


Rand, doesn't know when he's off topic based upon a subject line that is
on topic.

Eric

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Rand Simberg wrote:

Depends on calibre and muzzle velocity. With fish like Eric, though,
a shotgun is adequate, and one shot will do ya.


Ahh... unless you are using a slug, the shotgun projectile will probably
have more than one piece of shot in it- that's why they call it a
"shotgun"- because it fires multiple shot rather than a bullet... I still
think this is an odd way to fish, but using thermite to boil a pond full
of ducks is a little odd also, but at least does not lack in imagination.

Pat
However, it is a lousy way of cooking duck. To cook American ducks correctly
requires something that lets the fat leak out. (One way we've found that is
very nice is to poke holes in the skin, steam it til most of the fat has
rendered out, and the roast it.) Oddly enough, some European ducks are so
lean that they have to be barded (wrapped in fat) to cook well.

The recipie I particularily remember is Chinese Tea Duck. You take a
airtight (or nearly so) container, put in about a cup of loose tea leaves
and a cup of raw rice, a wire rack, and a duck. Stick it on top of the stove
for about an hour and a half. If the container isn't airtight, you may have
to open up all your windows and disconnect the fire alarm. (This is what
happened when we tried it.) The duck is absolutely delicious. It does seem
an odd way of cooking. My theory was that some guy centuries ago had a
warehouse where he stored rice and tea, and kept a few ducks in the attic.
One night, a drunken Toshiro Mifune crept in, looking for the hidden Samurai
armor, and accidentally set fire to the place. The poor owner was
distraught, but kept wondering "what is that wonderful smell"...

Pat Flannery ) wrote:


: Eric Chomko wrote:

:
: You counldn't hit the broad side of a barn much less a fish in a barrel,
: literally and figuratively!
:
:

: I still like the part where he's net-nannying your replies to my posts.

Yes, I think that that has gotten him a little meaner and nastier that
usual. "Cover your nuts!"

: Bourgeoisie? Nope, this guy wants the whole kit and kaboodle.
: Think an "R" monogram would look as good as an "N" one on the back of a
: throne?
: I guess that would depend on if the throne were made of porcelain. ;-)

And this whole ego thing. Overnurtured as a youth or simply a mama's boy?

Eric

: Pat

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Ami Silberman" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Ami Silberman" wrote:
:
: :They don't pay income taxes. They do pay social security (6.2%) and
Medicare
: 2.9%), and there are usually state taxes as well.
:
: All of which they more than recover as 'earned income credit' or some
: such euphemism.
:
:Single with no children, income of $7,500 per year, EIC is $303. For
married
:and no children, it is $380. For some reason you get a lot more back if
you
:have kids. In fact, for a married couple with two children, they get
$1000
:back with a taxable income as high as $30,700. The bonus "child refund"
eaks at $2600 for one child for a single parent with income of up to
:$12,500, which is about $1000 above the level at which EIC goes away for
:non-parents. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p596.pdf has all the gory
:details.
:
:In the case of single person making $7,500 per year, the "lucky ducky"
gets
:$303 back from the government, which is about 4% of their income, or less
:than half of what they pay in social security and Medicare.

You have the numbers wrong. You've incorrectly doubled the Medicare
rate.

Now add in everything else they get at that income level.

OK, so maybe I made a mistake with the Medicare (or the source I looked up
on the web did.) I will not dispute the fact that people with (very) low
income receive more in monetary support from the government than they put
in. I thought you were refering only to the EIC, not to the EIC and all
other payments.

And so what if they get back more than they put in. Should we say that a
person should only get back as much, or less, from the government in goods
and services than they put in? Ok, so that means that when I was a graduate
student, I shouldn't have been given a tuition waver, should have been
prohibited from driving on public highways, and should have had to pay much
more than a middle class person for museum admission.

Oh, how do we figure the indirect benefits of government (such as the
promotion of stability, market regulation etc.) which disproportionately
benefit the rich. One of the side effects of the modern wellfare state is
that we haven't had a peasant uprising in centuries.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:57:25 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ami
Silberman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


Oh, how do we figure the indirect benefits of government (such as the
promotion of stability, market regulation etc.) which disproportionately
benefit the rich. One of the side effects of the modern wellfare state is
that we haven't had a peasant uprising in centuries.

No, instead we've had taxpayer uprisings.
Which usually don't result in burned manor houses, murdered nobility and
clergy, and violent suppression by the government. We also, so far, haven't
had democracy seriously subverted by mob rule (or mobs of disenfranchised
led on by ambitious men) as in the late Roman Republic. I think of the
welfare state as a price we pay for civil stability. This is not to say that
there aren't flaws, or reasons to reform, but publicly supplied bread and
circuses accomplishes the following:
1. The "masses" are overall more contented and less prone to rebel.
2. Since the bread and circuses are supplied by the government, as
opposed to individuals, it is harder to manipulate the masses by means of
the bread and circuses.
It's a pretty cynical view, but I think that, overall a rational one.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:39:56 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

If you keep your powder up your ass, you can cover all bases. But
then you'd have to worry about sneezing and blowing your fool head
off....

....**** ******, is that you?

PLONK

Not that it matters...

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:47:15 +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:

: : : What leverage is needed? If the employee doesn't get paid what was
: : : stipulated at the time of hire, the employer is in breach of the
: : : contract, and he can quit, just as he can be fired if he doesn't do
: : : the job. That's why it's a mutually-agreed employment contract.
: :
: : The contract is nothing but a piece of paper without a fair justice
: : system.
:
: : Who's opposed to a fair justice system? Can't you stay on topic for a
: : single post?
:
: I'm doing just fine. Why do you think that I felt you were opposed to a
: fair justice system? I simply made a comment.

: Why did you make the comment? What were you responding to? Do you
: just type whatever pops into your head that instant, regardless of its
: relevance to anything?

: Never mind, we all know the answer to that one.

Dementia appears to be your schtick not mine.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:44:55 +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, 16 Mar 2005 22:01:08 +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:
:
: : : : You didn't answer my question. What kind of uniform were you forced
: : : : to wear?
: : :
: : : I was speaking about parading as a spectator sport.
: :
: : : That's not what Pat was talking about, so your response to him (like
: : : many of your responses to many people) was a total idiotic
: : : non-sequitur.
: :
: : This has nothing to do with Pat.
:
: : So you're admitting that even though your response to Pat was that we
: : were already doing what he wrote (which we aren't), you were actually
: : just babbling about something that had nothing to do with what he
: : wrote. Typical.
:
: Why did you eliminate this?
:
: All I was saying that I have notice an
: increase in militray presence in our society lately and used the
: prsentation of the colors as an example. No, I have not been doing any
: parading myself!

: Because it was completely irrelevant to anything that was under
: discussion, until you idiotically misunderstood Pat's comment.

I understood Pat's comment perfectly, and it has nothing to do with the
military and as everything to do with how you view yourself.

: This part that you removed clarified everything, yet you left it out and
: went on about the first sentence out of context.
:
: THAT is intellectual dishonesty! Your diatribe about Pat is what doesn't
: follow. And as an aside from that YOU decided to quote out context.
:
: What does this post and the topic of increased military in civilian life
: have to do with any post from Pat?

: Nothing. That's the point. Yet you diverted the thread here in
: response to his post.

No the diversion was that you're still sore at being the butt of Pat's
joke. There that should be enough fodder to get you back into trouble.

Eric