|
Sports » rec.sport.golf » Re: Warren Buffet
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068582] |
Mo, 10 Juli 2006 18:21 |
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:11:01 -0700, larryrsf wrote:
>
> > I don't know anyone else who even knows what the Usenet is!
>
> Lucky for you that all your less that honorable Usenet activities slide by
> on the down low. How awkward if everyone at your club saw through the
> facade.
"slide by on the down low."
???? What language is that? Are you translating from Swahili? Or
maybe it's jive? "you be slidin' by on the down low?"
Larry
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068585 ] |
Mo, 10 Juli 2006 18:36 |
|
In article <1152548498.001871.291610 [at] 35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"larryrsf" <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
> > On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:11:01 -0700, larryrsf wrote:
> >
> > > I don't know anyone else who even knows what the Usenet is!
> >
> > Lucky for you that all your less that honorable Usenet activities slide by
> > on the down low. How awkward if everyone at your club saw through the
> > facade.
>
> "slide by on the down low."
>
> ???? What language is that? Are you translating from Swahili? Or
> maybe it's jive? "you be slidin' by on the down low?"
>
> Larry
You should consider getting out and playing golf occasionally.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068602 ] |
Mo, 10 Juli 2006 19:13 |
|
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:21:38 -0700, larryrsf wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:11:01 -0700, larryrsf wrote:
>>
>> > I don't know anyone else who even knows what the Usenet is!
>>
>> Lucky for you that all your less that honorable Usenet activities slide
>> by on the down low. How awkward if everyone at your club saw through
>> the facade.
>
> "slide by on the down low."
>
> ???? What language is that? Are you translating from Swahili? Or
> maybe it's jive? "you be slidin' by on the down low?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down-low
The expression traditionally has meant men who have sex with other men
while in prison. Basically, doing something you want to keep hidden from
others. Like hiding all your internet trolling from everyone at your club.
Or if you were trying to pick up young boys in chat rooms, stuff like
that. You would be doing those things on the down low.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068702 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 16:01 |
|
"Carbon" <nobrac [at] nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.10.23.08.40.305820 [at] nospam.verizon.net...
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:39:59 -0700, larryrsf wrote:
>
> 30 years surrounded mostly by men. It must have been very lonely. I
> understand completely. And (cue heavy disco beat) so do the Village
People!
>
> IN THE NAVY
Another liberal bashing the military. You are scum.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068709 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 16:41 |
|
In article <ruudna2Z0ZvKMi7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d [at] centurytel.net>,
"the Moderator" <sparky [at] no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> "Carbon" <nobrac [at] nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.07.10.23.08.40.305820 [at] nospam.verizon.net...
> > On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:39:59 -0700, larryrsf wrote:
> >
> > 30 years surrounded mostly by men. It must have been very lonely. I
> > understand completely. And (cue heavy disco beat) so do the Village
> People!
> >
> > IN THE NAVY
>
> Another liberal bashing the military. You are scum.
It must be frustrating to be a conservative these days since there
doesn't seem to be any in charge. You do realize that 'borrow and
spend' has never been a conservative postition, don't you? Good Lord,
the liberal 'tax and spend' types never even dreamed of being able to
piss that much money away!
As to the bashing the military, Carbon didn't do that. He did bash
Lllllary a bit, though. Larry is so bashable these days, it is hard not
to.
But your knee-jerk reaction is typical of those higher ups in the Navy
that loved the song UNTIL they found out exactly what the Village People
were.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068719 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 17:35 |
|
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons [at] mac.com> wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-0A5FCF.09415511072006 [at] individual.net...
> In article <ruudna2Z0ZvKMi7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d [at] centurytel.net>,
> "the Moderator" <sparky [at] no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> > "Carbon" <nobrac [at] nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2006.07.10.23.08.40.305820 [at] nospam.verizon.net...
> > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:39:59 -0700, larryrsf wrote:
> > >
> > > 30 years surrounded mostly by men. It must have been very lonely. I
> > > understand completely. And (cue heavy disco beat) so do the Village
> > People!
> > >
> > > IN THE NAVY
> >
> > Another liberal bashing the military. You are scum.
>
> It must be frustrating to be a conservative these days since there
> doesn't seem to be any in charge. You do realize that 'borrow and
> spend' has never been a conservative postition, don't you? Good Lord,
> the liberal 'tax and spend' types never even dreamed of being able to
> piss that much money away!
>
> As to the bashing the military, Carbon didn't do that. He did bash
> Lllllary a bit, though. Larry is so bashable these days, it is hard not
> to.
>
> But your knee-jerk reaction is typical of those higher ups in the Navy
> that loved the song UNTIL they found out exactly what the Village People
> were.
Just what we need, another liberal apologist.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068732 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 18:28 |
|
In article <I9mdndqQicHeWC7ZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d [at] centurytel.net>,
"the Moderator" <sparky [at] no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons [at] mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-0A5FCF.09415511072006 [at] individual.net...
> > In article <ruudna2Z0ZvKMi7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d [at] centurytel.net>,
> > "the Moderator" <sparky [at] no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Carbon" <nobrac [at] nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > news:pan.2006.07.10.23.08.40.305820 [at] nospam.verizon.net...
> > > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:39:59 -0700, larryrsf wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 30 years surrounded mostly by men. It must have been very lonely. I
> > > > understand completely. And (cue heavy disco beat) so do the Village
> > > People!
> > > >
> > > > IN THE NAVY
> > >
> > > Another liberal bashing the military. You are scum.
> >
> > It must be frustrating to be a conservative these days since there
> > doesn't seem to be any in charge. You do realize that 'borrow and
> > spend' has never been a conservative postition, don't you? Good Lord,
> > the liberal 'tax and spend' types never even dreamed of being able to
> > piss that much money away!
> >
> > As to the bashing the military, Carbon didn't do that. He did bash
> > Lllllary a bit, though. Larry is so bashable these days, it is hard not
> > to.
> >
> > But your knee-jerk reaction is typical of those higher ups in the Navy
> > that loved the song UNTIL they found out exactly what the Village People
> > were.
>
> Just what we need, another liberal apologist.
I don't ever apologize for being a liberal. I'm quite proud of it.
I'm also proud of my 20+ years in the Navy and wish more of our
'leadership' had heeded the call of our country instead of avoiding
serving their country. That is, avoided it until the price was right
and the risks were much less.
Some call them chicken-hawks, I call them chicken shits!
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068757 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 19:54 |
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> I don't ever apologize for being a liberal. I'm quite proud of it.
1) Are you a proponent of creating social programs that are not covered in
US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 (and Ammendments) and using tax dollars
collected from the middle class to do it with? If so; please articulate
which social programs you are for and against that are supported by the
Democrat Party. Some are listed here in case you are not familiar with
the party you are saying you are proud of being associated with :
http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php
2) Are you a proponent of reversing the USC Second Ammendment? If so, why?
3) Have you read the Libertarian Party Platform in it's entirety? If not;
what made you pick one platform without understanding all platforms?
Please see the following link: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
> I'm also proud of my 20+ years in the Navy and wish more of our
> 'leadership' had heeded the call of our country instead of avoiding
> serving their country.
I can't agree with that more! And thank you for serving, BTW.
--
__________________________________________
01 C5 Coupe Magnetic Red II
http://www.hcast.photosite.com/Corvettes/?page=5
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068760 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 19:59 |
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:54:04 -0400, "Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> I don't ever apologize for being a liberal. I'm quite proud of it.
>
>1) Are you a proponent of creating social programs that are not covered in
>US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 (and Ammendments) and using tax dollars
>collected from the middle class to do it with? If so; please articulate
>which social programs you are for and against that are supported by the
>Democrat Party. Some are listed here in case you are not familiar with
>the party you are saying you are proud of being associated with :
>http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php
>
>2) Are you a proponent of reversing the USC Second Ammendment? If so, why?
>
>3) Have you read the Libertarian Party Platform in it's entirety? If not;
>what made you pick one platform without understanding all platforms?
>Please see the following link: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
>
He has no responsibility to answer these questions. He's not pushing
an agenda, you seem to be.
>
>> I'm also proud of my 20+ years in the Navy and wish more of our
>> 'leadership' had heeded the call of our country instead of avoiding
>> serving their country.
>
>I can't agree with that more! And thank you for serving, BTW
bk
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068766 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 20:16 |
|
In article <IARsg.89095$qd2.37055 [at] bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > I don't ever apologize for being a liberal. I'm quite proud of it.
>
> 1) Are you a proponent of creating social programs that are not covered in
> US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 (and Ammendments) and using tax dollars
> collected from the middle class to do it with? If so; please articulate
> which social programs you are for and against that are supported by the
> Democrat Party. Some are listed here in case you are not familiar with
> the party you are saying you are proud of being associated with :
> http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php
>
I am in favor of some of them. Note that I didn't claim to support
democrats, only liberal points. Even then, I'm not in agreement with
all of them.
In today's political climate anyone slightly to the left of Atilla the
Hun is a liberal, you know? ;-)
> 2) Are you a proponent of reversing the USC Second Ammendment? If so, why?
>
No.
> 3) Have you read the Libertarian Party Platform in it's entirety? If not;
> what made you pick one platform without understanding all platforms?
> Please see the following link: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
>
I have read much on the libertarian party and could support them in many
cases. The one sticking point with me is their stance on drugs.
Well, that and the fact that I don't think they are all there when it
comes to gaining political power. Too much from the top down instead of
the bottom up.
All politics is local is an old and true saying.
>
> > I'm also proud of my 20+ years in the Navy and wish more of our
> > 'leadership' had heeded the call of our country instead of avoiding
> > serving their country.
>
> I can't agree with that more! And thank you for serving, BTW.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068767 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 20:20 |
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
>> 3) Have you read the Libertarian Party Platform in it's entirety?
>> If not; what made you pick one platform without understanding all
>> platforms?
>> Please see the following link:
>> http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
>>
> He has no responsibility to answer these questions. He's not pushing
> an agenda, you seem to be.
1) Nobody on Usenet has a responsibility to answer or ask anything. You do
not understand the fundamental concept of a conversation.
2) I have no agenda; and your suggestion that I do shows your lack of
understanding of how Usenet works. Again, you do not understand the
fundamental concept of a conversation.
I don't have interest in googling your typical posting style; but am I far
off if you gravitate towards starting (or contributing to) flame wars?
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068771 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 20:35 |
|
Anon wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> 3) Have you read the Libertarian Party Platform in it's entirety?
> >> If not; what made you pick one platform without understanding all
> >> platforms?
> >> Please see the following link:
> >> http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
> >>
> > He has no responsibility to answer these questions. He's not pushing
> > an agenda, you seem to be.
>
>
> 1) Nobody on Usenet has a responsibility to answer or ask anything. You do
> not understand the fundamental concept of a conversation.
> 2) I have no agenda; and your suggestion that I do shows your lack of
> understanding of how Usenet works. Again, you do not understand the
> fundamental concept of a conversation.
>
>
> I don't have interest in googling your typical posting style; but am I far
> off if you gravitate towards starting (or contributing to) flame wars?
You have it all wrong. Bobby Knight inspires all of us with his posts.
He would never engage in name calling or gravitating to or starting a
flame war. He is a genius , pure and simple. Every post he makes,
your jaw drops, he is that profound. Where this group would be without
him, it is impossible to fathom. An amazing man, an amazing person,
and a true inspiration to all of us who come here.
I hope one day to be half the man he is. That will not be possbile, as
he is so close to perfection. But it gives me something to strive
for. He has inspired me over the years with his wisdom, and I have
grown from it. Bobby has made me a better person. Thank you Bobby for
all your love and caring as we have enjoyed each other in this group
for so many years.
God love you Bobby
the Hammer
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068774 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 20:45 |
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:20:01 -0400, "Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>>> 3) Have you read the Libertarian Party Platform in it's entirety?
>>> If not; what made you pick one platform without understanding all
>>> platforms?
>>> Please see the following link:
>>> http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
>>>
>> He has no responsibility to answer these questions. He's not pushing
>> an agenda, you seem to be.
>
>
>1) Nobody on Usenet has a responsibility to answer or ask anything. You do
>not understand the fundamental concept of a conversation.
Since you're so into Usenet's policies, start a conversation about
golf.
>2) I have no agenda; and your suggestion that I do shows your lack of
>understanding of how Usenet works. Again, you do not understand the
>fundamental concept of a conversation.
A conversation about the libertarian party's platform here?
>
>
>I don't have interest in googling your typical posting style; but am I far
>off if you gravitate towards starting (or contributing to) flame wars?
>
Only to those who I feel deserve it.
___,
\o
|
/ \
.
"Someone likes every shot"!
bk
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068775 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 20:45 |
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> "Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
>> 1) Are you a proponent of creating social programs that are not
>> covered in US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 (and Ammendments)
>> and using tax dollars collected from the middle class to do it with?
>>
> I am in favor of some of them. Note that I didn't claim to support
> democrats, only liberal points. Even then, I'm not in agreement with
> all of them.
I think when someone claims to be liberal in their views; it assumes that
they are strong proponents of the Democrat Party and it's pro social
democracy platform. I personally do not agree with social programs that
are not covered in USC A1S8. I believe if it's not in the framework built
by our Founding Fathers; then it is unconstitutional and then the social
program should fall upon each individual State. In this way, we
Americans can choose to live in a State that most closely aligns itself with
our personal social interests. For example; I do not live in California
and am against illegal immigration. Therefore, if or when my Federal tax
dollars go to support social programs that give welfare, medical
assistance, housing assistance, or educational assistance to illegal
Mexicans in Los Angeles; I feel my money is being improperly spent.
If the Democrats are proponents of all kinds of social programs (and many
most certainly are); then they should let taxpayers vote on which ones they
support. Any federal program not covered in the USC A1S8 should be voted
on by all of America; and the majority vote decides if the social program
remains or is abolished.
Speaking of spending against Americans wishes - have you read up on pork
barrel spending in congress? www.cagw.org Take a look at the Pig Book
for any year and any state and you will find it shocking how your tax
dollars are being spent.
> I have read much on the libertarian party and could support them in
> many cases. The one sticking point with me is their stance on drugs.
I too have mixed feelings on drug laws; but my present pisition is that
anyone should be allowed to use any drug he wants as long as the following
criteria are met:
1) He does so on his own property and does not leave his own property while
under the influence for any reason whatsoever
2) He does not harm any other person that are located on his property.
This can include any physical or emotional harm, or neglect of others under
the age of 18.
3) Misuse of the drugs does not result in this person using any state,
federal, or commercial organization (for profit) funds to deal with his
misuse; unless he pays in full for those services up front. If a
not-for-profit wants to spend their funds on this person's drug related
issue - they are more than welcome to do so as long as they never get
Federal funds to support their non-profit organization.
> Well, that and the fact that I don't think they are all there when it
> comes to gaining political power.
Now we hit the crux of the problem here. Americans are not given the choice
of voting for a third party. In fact, recently the Federal Legislative
Branch members have conspired to pass a law that will fund all Executive
Branch campaigns; and will not fund any third party. As such; they will
effectively remove all third parties from all polling stations and take them
out of all televised or aired debates nationwide. Both the Republicans and
Democrats agree that the growth of a third party such as the Libertarian
Party would be dangerous to their power.
In fact, here is an article on this subject:
Thursday, February 9, 2006
Text of HR 4694
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4694:
Panic and retaliation among progressive Democrats over Green challenges are
behind HR 4694, say Greens, citing the bill's prohibitive petition
requirements, ban on private contributions; Greens call the bill patently
unconstitutional.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Green Party leaders called on Congress to reject a House
bill that combines public funding of congressional campaigns with a scheme
to ban third party and independents from such races.
HR 4694 ("Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act") would grant full public
funding to nominees of parties (i.e., Democrats and Republicans) that had
averaged 25% of the vote for House races in a given district in the last two
elections.
All others (i.e., third party and independent candidates) would be required
to submit petitions signed by 10% of the last vote cast for partial funding,
and 20% petitions for full funding.
Furthermore, candidates who don't qualify for funding would be barred from
spending any privately raised money on their campaigns.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068778 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 20:50 |
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:20:01 -0400, "Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
>> 1) Nobody on Usenet has a responsibility to answer or ask anything.
>> You do not understand the fundamental concept of a conversation.
>
> Since you're so into Usenet's policies, start a conversation about
> golf.
Again you show your ignorance about Usenet. Golf is the *required subject*
if a group is MODERATED. As this is an unmoderated group; at best this
thread should say "OT" (off topic) at the beginning of the thread.
>> I don't have interest in googling your typical posting style; but
>> am I far off if you gravitate towards starting (or contributing to)
>> flame wars?
>>
> Only to those who I feel deserve it.
As you have just admitted that you gravitate towards starting and
contributing to flame wars and I have no interest in playing that game; I
now elect to throw you into my killfile. Therefore; please do not waste
your time responding unless you need to show the rest of the group that you
have a psychological need to get in the last word. ^K
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068779 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 20:51 |
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:16:11 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons [at] mac.com> wrote:
>In today's political climate anyone slightly to the left of Atilla the
>Hun is a liberal, you know? ;-)
In any political climate, once you have established a word as "bad",
then that word often gets used and overused until it is meaningless.
We can see it happening to "terrorist".
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068780 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 20:52 |
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:16:11 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons [at] mac.com> wrote:
>Well, that and the fact that I don't think they are all there when it
>comes to gaining political power. Too much from the top down instead of
>the bottom up.
If & when the Libertarians get power, they will be corrupted by it
just like everybody else. Meanwhile, it is useful to indicate which
direction I want the state to move towards.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068781 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 20:57 |
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:50:09 -0400, "Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
>Again you show your ignorance about Usenet. Golf is the *required subject*
>if a group is MODERATED. As this is an unmoderated group; at best this
>thread should say "OT" (off topic) at the beginning of the thread.
>
Bullshit is now called.
>
>As you have just admitted that you gravitate towards starting and
>contributing to flame wars and I have no interest in playing that game; I
>now elect to throw you into my killfile. Therefore; please do not waste
>your time responding unless you need to show the rest of the group that you
>have a psychological need to get in the last word. ^K
>
Since you've killfiled me this is just for posterity. You're a idiot
coward, Anon.
___,
\o
|
/ \
.
"Someone likes every shot"!
bk
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068782 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:00 |
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:16:11 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons [at] mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, that and the fact that I don't think they are all there when it
>> comes to gaining political power. Too much from the top down
>> instead of the bottom up.
>
> If & when the Libertarians get power, they will be corrupted by it
> just like everybody else. Meanwhile, it is useful to indicate which
> direction I want the state to move towards.
Correct me if I am reading this incorrectly. What I am reading is that you
believe that voting for the Libertarian Party (or some other third party) is
useful to send a message to the Democrat and Republican Party of that state.
Further, the message is to tell the two party system the direction you
believe they should be going with your tax dollars?
I believe that Republicans and Democrats ignore these messages; even though
they are aware that such sentiments exist. Many people were interested in
Ross Perot; and his message of smaller government and less spending.
Since the time of Ross Perot, Republicans and Democrats have both worked
dilligently to grow the size of government and to increase the use of tax
dollars for social programs and corporate welfare programs that are
unconstitutional.
--
__________________________________________
01 C5 Coupe Magnetic Red II
http://www.hcast.photosite.com/Corvettes/?page=5
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068784 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:01 |
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:50:09 -0400, "Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
>
> >Again you show your ignorance about Usenet. Golf is the *required subject*
> >if a group is MODERATED. As this is an unmoderated group; at best this
> >thread should say "OT" (off topic) at the beginning of the thread.
> >
> Bullshit is now called.
> >
> >As you have just admitted that you gravitate towards starting and
> >contributing to flame wars and I have no interest in playing that game; I
> >now elect to throw you into my killfile. Therefore; please do not waste
> >your time responding unless you need to show the rest of the group that you
> >have a psychological need to get in the last word. ^K
> >
>
> Since you've killfiled me this is just for posterity. You're a idiot
> coward, Anon.
> ___,
> \o
> |
> / \
> .
> "Someone likes every shot"!
> bk
You tell him Bobby!
You tell him!
Put the MF'er in his place
The Hammer
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068785 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:01 |
|
"The Hammer" <buggertt [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152642938.659601.240830 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Anon wrote:
> > Bobby Knight wrote:
> > >> 3) Have you read the Libertarian Party Platform in it's entirety?
> > >> If not; what made you pick one platform without understanding all
> > >> platforms?
> > >> Please see the following link:
> > >> http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
> > >>
> > > He has no responsibility to answer these questions. He's not pushing
> > > an agenda, you seem to be.
> >
> >
> > 1) Nobody on Usenet has a responsibility to answer or ask anything.
You do
> > not understand the fundamental concept of a conversation.
> > 2) I have no agenda; and your suggestion that I do shows your lack of
> > understanding of how Usenet works. Again, you do not understand the
> > fundamental concept of a conversation.
> >
> >
> > I don't have interest in googling your typical posting style; but am I
far
> > off if you gravitate towards starting (or contributing to) flame wars?
>
>
> You have it all wrong. Bobby Knight inspires all of us with his posts.
> He would never engage in name calling or gravitating to or starting a
> flame war. He is a genius , pure and simple. Every post he makes,
> your jaw drops, he is that profound. Where this group would be without
> him, it is impossible to fathom. An amazing man, an amazing person,
> and a true inspiration to all of us who come here.
>
> I hope one day to be half the man he is. That will not be possbile, as
> he is so close to perfection. But it gives me something to strive
> for. He has inspired me over the years with his wisdom, and I have
> grown from it. Bobby has made me a better person. Thank you Bobby for
> all your love and caring as we have enjoyed each other in this group
> for so many years.
>
> God love you Bobby
>
> the Hammer
>
"Hammer" drinks a lot I take it.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068789 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:10 |
|
MnMikew wrote:
> "The Hammer" <buggertt [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1152642938.659601.240830 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Anon wrote:
> > > Bobby Knight wrote:
> > > >> 3) Have you read the Libertarian Party Platform in it's entirety?
> > > >> If not; what made you pick one platform without understanding all
> > > >> platforms?
> > > >> Please see the following link:
> > > >> http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
> > > >>
> > > > He has no responsibility to answer these questions. He's not pushing
> > > > an agenda, you seem to be.
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) Nobody on Usenet has a responsibility to answer or ask anything.
> You do
> > > not understand the fundamental concept of a conversation.
> > > 2) I have no agenda; and your suggestion that I do shows your lack of
> > > understanding of how Usenet works. Again, you do not understand the
> > > fundamental concept of a conversation.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't have interest in googling your typical posting style; but am I
> far
> > > off if you gravitate towards starting (or contributing to) flame wars?
> >
> >
> > You have it all wrong. Bobby Knight inspires all of us with his posts.
> > He would never engage in name calling or gravitating to or starting a
> > flame war. He is a genius , pure and simple. Every post he makes,
> > your jaw drops, he is that profound. Where this group would be without
> > him, it is impossible to fathom. An amazing man, an amazing person,
> > and a true inspiration to all of us who come here.
> >
> > I hope one day to be half the man he is. That will not be possbile, as
> > he is so close to perfection. But it gives me something to strive
> > for. He has inspired me over the years with his wisdom, and I have
> > grown from it. Bobby has made me a better person. Thank you Bobby for
> > all your love and caring as we have enjoyed each other in this group
> > for so many years.
> >
> > God love you Bobby
> >
> > the Hammer
> >
> "Hammer" drinks a lot I take it.
Hey Mike
Not much of a drinker, but the wife makes a margarita that folks beg
for. Ever in the area, stop by and my treat!
The Hammer
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068791 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:14 |
|
The Hammer wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:50:09 -0400, "Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
>>> As you have just admitted that you gravitate towards starting and
>>> contributing to flame wars and I have no interest in playing that
>>> game; I now elect to throw you into my killfile. Therefore;
>>> please do not waste your time responding unless you need to show
>>> the rest of the group that you have a psychological need to get in
>>> the last word. ^K
>>>
>>
>> Since you've killfiled me this is just for posterity. You're a
>> idiot coward, Anon.
>
>
> You tell him Bobby!
> You tell him!
> Put the MF'er in his place
I see that the childish fucktard had to get the last word. That's OK - I
left that option open to him. But Hammer - now the question becomes: are
you a proponent of his childish antics and lack of Usenet understanding; or
are you just taunting him? I would like to think you are just taunting
him; but having not seen many of your posts I am putting the question in
your court to respond to.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068792 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:16 |
|
In article <7lSsg.89106$qd2.69241 [at] bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > "Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
> >> 1) Are you a proponent of creating social programs that are not
> >> covered in US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 (and Ammendments)
> >> and using tax dollars collected from the middle class to do it with?
> >>
> > I am in favor of some of them. Note that I didn't claim to support
> > democrats, only liberal points. Even then, I'm not in agreement with
> > all of them.
>
> I think when someone claims to be liberal in their views; it assumes that
> they are strong proponents of the Democrat Party and it's pro social
> democracy platform. I personally do not agree with social programs that
> are not covered in USC A1S8. I believe if it's not in the framework built
> by our Founding Fathers; then it is unconstitutional and then the social
> program should fall upon each individual State. In this way, we
> Americans can choose to live in a State that most closely aligns itself with
> our personal social interests. For example; I do not live in California
> and am against illegal immigration. Therefore, if or when my Federal tax
> dollars go to support social programs that give welfare, medical
> assistance, housing assistance, or educational assistance to illegal
> Mexicans in Los Angeles; I feel my money is being improperly spent.
>
You shouldn't make the assumption that liberals all are in support of
the Democrats. It just isn't true these days. In the past, when the
Dems and the Reps really did stand for differrent things, you'd be
closer to right. But these days, neither party is doing anything for
you and I. All of them are doing it for the fat cats.
> If the Democrats are proponents of all kinds of social programs (and many
> most certainly are); then they should let taxpayers vote on which ones they
> support. Any federal program not covered in the USC A1S8 should be voted
> on by all of America; and the majority vote decides if the social program
> remains or is abolished.
>
they do let us vote on them. Each election is about our representation.
> Speaking of spending against Americans wishes - have you read up on pork
> barrel spending in congress? www.cagw.org Take a look at the Pig Book
> for any year and any state and you will find it shocking how your tax
> dollars are being spent.
>
I'm too old to be shocked by much the politicos do these days. And you
certainly can find plenty of pork being done by all of our
representatives.
>
> > I have read much on the libertarian party and could support them in
> > many cases. The one sticking point with me is their stance on drugs.
>
> I too have mixed feelings on drug laws; but my present pisition is that
> anyone should be allowed to use any drug he wants as long as the following
> criteria are met:
> 1) He does so on his own property and does not leave his own property while
> under the influence for any reason whatsoever
> 2) He does not harm any other person that are located on his property.
> This can include any physical or emotional harm, or neglect of others under
> the age of 18.
> 3) Misuse of the drugs does not result in this person using any state,
> federal, or commercial organization (for profit) funds to deal with his
> misuse; unless he pays in full for those services up front. If a
> not-for-profit wants to spend their funds on this person's drug related
> issue - they are more than welcome to do so as long as they never get
> Federal funds to support their non-profit organization.
>
Not bad, but it doesn't cover the problem. Dopers are usually the first
to admit that is why they call it dope. Makes them do stupid shit. If
it was just harmless crap, I wouldn't care what they as adults do as
long as they are not endangering others.
Unfortunately the crack and meth heads only have one goal in their
chaotic, pitiful lives. Getting more crack and meth. In the process
they steal, con, lie and in general just don't care about anything
except more drugs. Children are just in the way, families too. That is
AFTER they've ripped the family off and been cut off from them. They
will usually do any perverted act necessary in their pursuit of that
nirvana called a high.
So legalizing drugs just isn't the answer, and your suggestions won't
work either, unfortunately.
>
> > Well, that and the fact that I don't think they are all there when it
> > comes to gaining political power.
>
> Now we hit the crux of the problem here. Americans are not given the choice
> of voting for a third party. In fact, recently the Federal Legislative
> Branch members have conspired to pass a law that will fund all Executive
> Branch campaigns; and will not fund any third party. As such; they will
> effectively remove all third parties from all polling stations and take them
> out of all televised or aired debates nationwide. Both the Republicans and
> Democrats agree that the growth of a third party such as the Libertarian
> Party would be dangerous to their power.
>
That's why the Libertarians, if they are to garner power, must start in
the cities and counties and work up from there.
But let's assume that a Libertarian got elected President, what then?
Well, nothing, matter of fact. He/She wouldn't have any clout in
congress because the Libertarians didn't work from the bottom up to fill
those seats.
Just a wrong assed way to gain power and elected office, imo.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068793 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:18 |
|
In article <7ns7b2tu9obtqsn693f5nbpi3gb4ck7v05 [at] 4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard [at] brazee.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:16:11 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons [at] mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In today's political climate anyone slightly to the left of Atilla the
> >Hun is a liberal, you know? ;-)
>
> In any political climate, once you have established a word as "bad",
> then that word often gets used and overused until it is meaningless.
> We can see it happening to "terrorist".
>
Amen to that!
I used to be a moderate, but now I'm a liberal. But my views didn't
change at all.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068795 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:19 |
|
In article <jqs7b2plauclit03k5852si63abh2e2btf [at] 4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard [at] brazee.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:16:11 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons [at] mac.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, that and the fact that I don't think they are all there when it
> >comes to gaining political power. Too much from the top down instead of
> >the bottom up.
>
> If & when the Libertarians get power, they will be corrupted by it
> just like everybody else. Meanwhile, it is useful to indicate which
> direction I want the state to move towards.
>
Unfortunately, what you say is true. That's why we need to change them
out early and often. Reduces the level of corruption 'cause they don't
have enough time to really get good at it.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068796 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:20 |
|
Anon wrote:
> The Hammer wrote:
> > Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:50:09 -0400, "Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
> >>> As you have just admitted that you gravitate towards starting and
> >>> contributing to flame wars and I have no interest in playing that
> >>> game; I now elect to throw you into my killfile. Therefore;
> >>> please do not waste your time responding unless you need to show
> >>> the rest of the group that you have a psychological need to get in
> >>> the last word. ^K
> >>>
> >>
> >> Since you've killfiled me this is just for posterity. You're a
> >> idiot coward, Anon.
> >
> >
> > You tell him Bobby!
> > You tell him!
> > Put the MF'er in his place
>
>
> I see that the childish fucktard had to get the last word. That's OK - I
> left that option open to him. But Hammer - now the question becomes: are
> you a proponent of his childish antics and lack of Usenet understanding; or
> are you just taunting him? I would like to think you are just taunting
> him; but having not seen many of your posts I am putting the question in
> your court to respond to.
It has come to me finally what a low life I am. And how when Bobby
scolds me publicly on this forum, I really am getting what I deserve.
Bobby's may come off rough, believe me I now understand that his
harshness is out of genuine caring. He wants you to do better, to be
the best you can be. He practices tough love. I realize that now.
I am in the process of evaluating my ways, and coming up with goals
that maybe one day I can be a person that Bobby will respect. I am way
short of that now and for that I am both ashamed and humbled
The Hammer
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068797 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:20 |
|
In article <yySsg.89108$qd2.14848 [at] bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:16:11 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> > <lloydparsons [at] mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, that and the fact that I don't think they are all there when it
> >> comes to gaining political power. Too much from the top down
> >> instead of the bottom up.
> >
> > If & when the Libertarians get power, they will be corrupted by it
> > just like everybody else. Meanwhile, it is useful to indicate which
> > direction I want the state to move towards.
>
> Correct me if I am reading this incorrectly. What I am reading is that you
> believe that voting for the Libertarian Party (or some other third party) is
> useful to send a message to the Democrat and Republican Party of that state.
> Further, the message is to tell the two party system the direction you
> believe they should be going with your tax dollars?
>
> I believe that Republicans and Democrats ignore these messages; even though
> they are aware that such sentiments exist. Many people were interested in
> Ross Perot; and his message of smaller government and less spending.
> Since the time of Ross Perot, Republicans and Democrats have both worked
> dilligently to grow the size of government and to increase the use of tax
> dollars for social programs and corporate welfare programs that are
> unconstitutional.
They do ignore them now, but if you start defeating them in elections
they'll start listening again.
Congress critters - change 'em up early and often is my position.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068802 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:33 |
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:00:02 -0400, "Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
>> If & when the Libertarians get power, they will be corrupted by it
>> just like everybody else. Meanwhile, it is useful to indicate which
>> direction I want the state to move towards.
>
>Correct me if I am reading this incorrectly. What I am reading is that you
>believe that voting for the Libertarian Party (or some other third party) is
>useful to send a message to the Democrat and Republican Party of that state.
>Further, the message is to tell the two party system the direction you
>believe they should be going with your tax dollars?
As much as anything I can do at the general election - unless the
election looks real close.
Right after each primary, I change my registration to independent. On
the day of the next primary, I'm allowed to pick a party (if I was
registered for the opposing party I wouldn't be allowed to do that, at
least in Colorado). I generally vote in the primary of the party of
the candidate that I fear the most.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068806 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:36 |
|
In article <7lSsg.89106$qd2.69241 [at] bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
> > I have read much on the libertarian party and could support them in
> > many cases. The one sticking point with me is their stance on drugs.
>
> I too have mixed feelings on drug laws; but my present pisition is that
> anyone should be allowed to use any drug he wants as long as the following
> criteria are met:
> 1) He does so on his own property and does not leave his own property while
> under the influence for any reason whatsoever
Are you willing to included alcohol under those strictures? Nicotine?
Caffeine?
> 2) He does not harm any other person that are located on his property.
> This can include any physical or emotional harm, or neglect of others under
> the age of 18.
Same question...
> 3) Misuse of the drugs does not result in this person using any state,
> federal, or commercial organization (for profit) funds to deal with his
> misuse; unless he pays in full for those services up front. If a
> not-for-profit wants to spend their funds on this person's drug related
> issue - they are more than welcome to do so as long as they never get
> Federal funds to support their non-profit organization.
Same question...
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068807 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:38 |
|
In article <lloydparsons-A26E8C.14160611072006 [at] individual.net>,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons [at] mac.com> wrote:
> In article <7lSsg.89106$qd2.69241 [at] bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> "Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
>
> > Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > > "Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
> > >> 1) Are you a proponent of creating social programs that are not
> > >> covered in US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 (and Ammendments)
> > >> and using tax dollars collected from the middle class to do it with?
> > >>
> > > I am in favor of some of them. Note that I didn't claim to support
> > > democrats, only liberal points. Even then, I'm not in agreement with
> > > all of them.
> >
> > I think when someone claims to be liberal in their views; it assumes that
> > they are strong proponents of the Democrat Party and it's pro social
> > democracy platform. I personally do not agree with social programs that
> > are not covered in USC A1S8. I believe if it's not in the framework built
> > by our Founding Fathers; then it is unconstitutional and then the social
> > program should fall upon each individual State. In this way, we
> > Americans can choose to live in a State that most closely aligns itself
> > with
> > our personal social interests. For example; I do not live in California
> > and am against illegal immigration. Therefore, if or when my Federal tax
> > dollars go to support social programs that give welfare, medical
> > assistance, housing assistance, or educational assistance to illegal
> > Mexicans in Los Angeles; I feel my money is being improperly spent.
> >
> You shouldn't make the assumption that liberals all are in support of
> the Democrats. It just isn't true these days. In the past, when the
> Dems and the Reps really did stand for differrent things, you'd be
> closer to right. But these days, neither party is doing anything for
> you and I. All of them are doing it for the fat cats.
>
> > If the Democrats are proponents of all kinds of social programs (and many
> > most certainly are); then they should let taxpayers vote on which ones they
> > support. Any federal program not covered in the USC A1S8 should be voted
> > on by all of America; and the majority vote decides if the social program
> > remains or is abolished.
> >
> they do let us vote on them. Each election is about our representation.
>
> > Speaking of spending against Americans wishes - have you read up on pork
> > barrel spending in congress? www.cagw.org Take a look at the Pig Book
> > for any year and any state and you will find it shocking how your tax
> > dollars are being spent.
> >
> I'm too old to be shocked by much the politicos do these days. And you
> certainly can find plenty of pork being done by all of our
> representatives.
>
> >
> > > I have read much on the libertarian party and could support them in
> > > many cases. The one sticking point with me is their stance on drugs.
> >
> > I too have mixed feelings on drug laws; but my present pisition is that
> > anyone should be allowed to use any drug he wants as long as the following
> > criteria are met:
> > 1) He does so on his own property and does not leave his own property
> > while
> > under the influence for any reason whatsoever
> > 2) He does not harm any other person that are located on his property.
> > This can include any physical or emotional harm, or neglect of others
> > under
> > the age of 18.
> > 3) Misuse of the drugs does not result in this person using any state,
> > federal, or commercial organization (for profit) funds to deal with his
> > misuse; unless he pays in full for those services up front. If a
> > not-for-profit wants to spend their funds on this person's drug related
> > issue - they are more than welcome to do so as long as they never get
> > Federal funds to support their non-profit organization.
> >
> Not bad, but it doesn't cover the problem. Dopers are usually the first
> to admit that is why they call it dope. Makes them do stupid shit. If
> it was just harmless crap, I wouldn't care what they as adults do as
> long as they are not endangering others.
Sorry. But this is just wrong. Marijuana never made anyone do as much
stupid shit as alcohol does.
>
> Unfortunately the crack and meth heads only have one goal in their
> chaotic, pitiful lives. Getting more crack and meth. In the process
> they steal, con, lie and in general just don't care about anything
> except more drugs. Children are just in the way, families too. That is
> AFTER they've ripped the family off and been cut off from them. They
> will usually do any perverted act necessary in their pursuit of that
> nirvana called a high.
>
> So legalizing drugs just isn't the answer, and your suggestions won't
> work either, unfortunately.
They have to do the stealing, conning and lying because drugs are
*expensive*. They're expensive because they're illegal.
The strongest addiction there is is to *nicotine*, but nobody holds up
convenience stores to feed that addiction. Because, being legal, it's
not too expensive to feed using only legal means.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068809 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:42 |
|
"Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote in message
news:pMSsg.89109$qd2.74772 [at] bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> The Hammer wrote:
> > Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:50:09 -0400, "Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
> >>> As you have just admitted that you gravitate towards starting and
> >>> contributing to flame wars and I have no interest in playing that
> >>> game; I now elect to throw you into my killfile. Therefore;
> >>> please do not waste your time responding unless you need to show
> >>> the rest of the group that you have a psychological need to get in
> >>> the last word. ^K
> >>>
> >>
> >> Since you've killfiled me this is just for posterity. You're a
> >> idiot coward, Anon.
> >
> >
> > You tell him Bobby!
> > You tell him!
> > Put the MF'er in his place
>
>
> I see that the childish fucktard had to get the last word. That's OK - I
> left that option open to him. But Hammer - now the question becomes:
are
> you a proponent of his childish antics and lack of Usenet understanding;
or
> are you just taunting him? I would like to think you are just taunting
> him; but having not seen many of your posts I am putting the question in
> your court to respond to.
>
>
The "Hammer" is our pet schizophrenic in RSG. A google should tell you all
you need to know.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068810 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:44 |
|
"The Hammer" <buggertt [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152645041.803632.42000 [at] 75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
> > "The Hammer" <buggertt [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1152642938.659601.240830 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Anon wrote:
> > > > Bobby Knight wrote:
> > > > >> 3) Have you read the Libertarian Party Platform in it's
entirety?
> > > > >> If not; what made you pick one platform without understanding all
> > > > >> platforms?
> > > > >> Please see the following link:
> > > > >> http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
> > > > >>
> > > > > He has no responsibility to answer these questions. He's not
pushing
> > > > > an agenda, you seem to be.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1) Nobody on Usenet has a responsibility to answer or ask anything.
> > You do
> > > > not understand the fundamental concept of a conversation.
> > > > 2) I have no agenda; and your suggestion that I do shows your lack
of
> > > > understanding of how Usenet works. Again, you do not understand the
> > > > fundamental concept of a conversation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't have interest in googling your typical posting style; but
am I
> > far
> > > > off if you gravitate towards starting (or contributing to) flame
wars?
> > >
> > >
> > > You have it all wrong. Bobby Knight inspires all of us with his
posts.
> > > He would never engage in name calling or gravitating to or starting a
> > > flame war. He is a genius , pure and simple. Every post he makes,
> > > your jaw drops, he is that profound. Where this group would be
without
> > > him, it is impossible to fathom. An amazing man, an amazing person,
> > > and a true inspiration to all of us who come here.
> > >
> > > I hope one day to be half the man he is. That will not be possbile,
as
> > > he is so close to perfection. But it gives me something to strive
> > > for. He has inspired me over the years with his wisdom, and I have
> > > grown from it. Bobby has made me a better person. Thank you Bobby
for
> > > all your love and caring as we have enjoyed each other in this group
> > > for so many years.
> > >
> > > God love you Bobby
> > >
> > > the Hammer
> > >
> > "Hammer" drinks a lot I take it.
>
> Hey Mike
>
> Not much of a drinker, but the wife makes a margarita that folks beg
> for. Ever in the area, stop by and my treat!
>
> The Hammer
>
Tempting. Especially since it's going to be in the upper 90's here for quite
some time.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068811 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:47 |
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> You shouldn't make the assumption that liberals all are in support of
> the Democrats. It just isn't true these days. In the past, when the
> Dems and the Reps really did stand for differrent things, you'd be
> closer to right. But these days, neither party is doing anything for
> you and I. All of them are doing it for the fat cats.
Yep. But when you talk about liberals and conservatives; I think most of
us think in terms of Republicans and Democrats. Actually; I don't mean to
speak for the others here. I just mean I think in those terms. :-)
> they do let us vote on them. Each election is about our
> representation.
That's where things go bad. If you think back to the last major election
for your state senators and congressmen and then go to the Pig Book for the
last few years (
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook 2006 ), it
turns out those SOB's never did what they said they would when you and I
voted for them.
> Not bad, but it doesn't cover the problem. Dopers are usually the
> first to admit that is why they call it dope. Makes them do stupid
> shit. If it was just harmless crap, I wouldn't care what they as
> adults do as long as they are not endangering others.
But see - that's the deal. If they cross the line and affect any other
citizens; then arrest them for infringing on the rights of those other
people. But in the mean time; with the end on the war on drugs you can save
many billions in tax dollars, shring government by size and spending, and
perhaps even generate some revenue.
> Unfortunately the crack and meth heads only have one goal in their
> chaotic, pitiful lives. Getting more crack and meth. In the process
> they steal, con, lie and in general just don't care about anything
> except more drugs. Children are just in the way, families too. That
> is AFTER they've ripped the family off and been cut off from them.
> They will usually do any perverted act necessary in their pursuit of
> that nirvana called a high.
Yep - and those folks get put in jail or executed.
> So legalizing drugs just isn't the answer, and your suggestions won't
> work either, unfortunately.
I still think it might. :-)
> But let's assume that a Libertarian got elected President, what then?
> Well, nothing, matter of fact. He/She wouldn't have any clout in
> congress because the Libertarians didn't work from the bottom up to
> fill those seats.
Here's the deal though. People follow Presidential Elections more closely
than the local stuff. So the Libertarians should just run not to win; but
to show Americans what their platform is. And then, the legislative branch
elections should at some point get some Libertarians in power. After some
period of time, a Libertarian president can occur; but with Libertarians
in Congress to support Presidential acts. The bottom line remains that
this 2 party system is allowing for a ton of corruption, corporate welfare,
and unconstitutional misuse of taxes.
Maybe the deal is that we are all starting to see the problem; but none of
us has a viable solution. But you have to admit - identifying the problem
is the first step; so we are moving in the right direction by actually
reading those pork books and reading up on the party platforms.
--
__________________________________________
01 C5 Coupe Magnetic Red II
http://www.hcast.photosite.com/Corvettes/?page=5
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068812 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:47 |
|
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <lloydparsons-A26E8C.14160611072006 [at] individual.net>,
> Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons [at] mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <7lSsg.89106$qd2.69241 [at] bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
> >
> > > Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > > > "Anon" <Anonymuss [at] cia.kgb> wrote:
> > > >> 1) Are you a proponent of creating social programs that are not
> > > >> covered in US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 (and Ammendments)
> > > >> and using tax dollars collected from the middle class to do it with?
> > > >>
> > > > I am in favor of some of them. Note that I didn't claim to support
> > > > democrats, only liberal points. Even then, I'm not in agreement with
> > > > all of them.
> > >
> > > I think when someone claims to be liberal in their views; it assumes that
> > > they are strong proponents of the Democrat Party and it's pro social
> > > democracy platform. I personally do not agree with social programs that
> > > are not covered in USC A1S8. I believe if it's not in the framework built
> > > by our Founding Fathers; then it is unconstitutional and then the social
> > > program should fall upon each individual State. In this way, we
> > > Americans can choose to live in a State that most closely aligns itself
> > > with
> > > our personal social interests. For example; I do not live in California
> > > and am against illegal immigration. Therefore, if or when my Federal tax
> > > dollars go to support social programs that give welfare, medical
> > > assistance, housing assistance, or educational assistance to illegal
> > > Mexicans in Los Angeles; I feel my money is being improperly spent.
> > >
> > You shouldn't make the assumption that liberals all are in support of
> > the Democrats. It just isn't true these days. In the past, when the
> > Dems and the Reps really did stand for differrent things, you'd be
> > closer to right. But these days, neither party is doing anything for
> > you and I. All of them are doing it for the fat cats.
> >
> > > If the Democrats are proponents of all kinds of social programs (and many
> > > most certainly are); then they should let taxpayers vote on which ones they
> > > support. Any federal program not covered in the USC A1S8 should be voted
> > > on by all of America; and the majority vote decides if the social program
> > > remains or is abolished.
> > >
> > they do let us vote on them. Each election is about our representation.
> >
> > > Speaking of spending against Americans wishes - have you read up on pork
> > > barrel spending in congress? www.cagw.org Take a look at the Pig Book
> > > for any year and any state and you will find it shocking how your tax
> > > dollars are being spent.
> > >
> > I'm too old to be shocked by much the politicos do these days. And you
> > certainly can find plenty of pork being done by all of our
> > representatives.
> >
> > >
> > > > I have read much on the libertarian party and could support them in
> > > > many cases. The one sticking point with me is their stance on drugs.
> > >
> > > I too have mixed feelings on drug laws; but my present pisition is that
> > > anyone should be allowed to use any drug he wants as long as the following
> > > criteria are met:
> > > 1) He does so on his own property and does not leave his own property
> > > while
> > > under the influence for any reason whatsoever
> > > 2) He does not harm any other person that are located on his property.
> > > This can include any physical or emotional harm, or neglect of others
> > > under
> > > the age of 18.
> > > 3) Misuse of the drugs does not result in this person using any state,
> > > federal, or commercial organization (for profit) funds to deal with his
> > > misuse; unless he pays in full for those services up front. If a
> > > not-for-profit wants to spend their funds on this person's drug related
> > > issue - they are more than welcome to do so as long as they never get
> > > Federal funds to support their non-profit organization.
> > >
> > Not bad, but it doesn't cover the problem. Dopers are usually the first
> > to admit that is why they call it dope. Makes them do stupid shit. If
> > it was just harmless crap, I wouldn't care what they as adults do as
> > long as they are not endangering others.
>
> Sorry. But this is just wrong. Marijuana never made anyone do as much
> stupid shit as alcohol does.
>
> >
> > Unfortunately the crack and meth heads only have one goal in their
> > chaotic, pitiful lives. Getting more crack and meth. In the process
> > they steal, con, lie and in general just don't care about anything
> > except more drugs. Children are just in the way, families too. That is
> > AFTER they've ripped the family off and been cut off from them. They
> > will usually do any perverted act necessary in their pursuit of that
> > nirvana called a high.
> >
> > So legalizing drugs just isn't the answer, and your suggestions won't
> > work either, unfortunately.
>
> They have to do the stealing, conning and lying because drugs are
> *expensive*. They're expensive because they're illegal.
>
> The strongest addiction there is is to *nicotine*, but nobody holds up
> convenience stores to feed that addiction. Because, being legal, it's
> not too expensive to feed using only legal means.
Good points.
what makes "legal" drugs like Valium, Xanax, Ativan, etc any better
than the illegal ones. Absolutely nothing. You can get high off them
and there is withdrawal if you have been on them for a while and want
to get off them.
Drugs are drugs, doesn't matter whether they are legal or not. all
drugs should be legal and avaialbable. This would mean less old people
getting beaten up for crack money. Our jails would empty out. And we
could tax these legal drugs and use that money for education and
rehabilitation of addicts. Sad, that anyone needs these mind control
substances, but folks do and that is reality. Putting someone to jail
for smoking a joint while someone pops their Valium or their fifth of
scotch is wrong and hypocritical.
I guess it is all about economics and money.
The Hammer
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068813 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:48 |
|
The Hammer wrote:
> It has come to me finally what a low life I am. And how when Bobby
> scolds me publicly on this forum, I really am getting what I deserve.
> Bobby's may come off rough, believe me I now understand that his
> harshness is out of genuine caring. He wants you to do better, to be
> the best you can be. He practices tough love. I realize that now.
> I am in the process of evaluating my ways, and coming up with goals
> that maybe one day I can be a person that Bobby will respect. I am way
> short of that now and for that I am both ashamed and humbled
ROFLMAO. Stop it - yer killin' me!!!!!
--
__________________________________________
01 C5 Coupe Magnetic Red II
http://www.hcast.photosite.com/Corvettes/?page=5
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068815 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:50 |
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> Right after each primary, I change my registration to independent. On
> the day of the next primary, I'm allowed to pick a party (if I was
> registered for the opposing party I wouldn't be allowed to do that, at
> least in Colorado). I generally vote in the primary of the party of
> the candidate that I fear the most.
You know - I sometimes get so disgusted with the two political parties that
I just want to stop voting. Well, or move to the Caribbean once I am done
earning money.
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068816 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:51 |
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:38:52 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net>
wrote:
>They have to do the stealing, conning and lying because drugs are
>*expensive*. They're expensive because they're illegal.
>
>The strongest addiction there is is to *nicotine*, but nobody holds up
>convenience stores to feed that addiction. Because, being legal, it's
>not too expensive to feed using only legal means.
Also, people keep their jobs with nicotine addiction.
Drunks and pot-heads tend to have troubles being productive. But
the cost of their productivity problems are a lot less than the costs
resulting from their recreational drug of choice being illegal. That's
a major reason prohibition was repealed.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068818 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:52 |
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:36:08 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net>
wrote:
>> 1) He does so on his own property and does not leave his own property while
>> under the influence for any reason whatsoever
>
>Are you willing to included alcohol under those strictures?
Have alcohol and pot under the same strictures.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
|
| Re: Warren Buffet [message #1068819 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 21:54 |
|
In article <r408b25g05ear43mafbmgu1tqe4jiu8hbg [at] 4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard [at] brazee.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:38:52 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >They have to do the stealing, conning and lying because drugs are
> >*expensive*. They're expensive because they're illegal.
> >
> >The strongest addiction there is is to *nicotine*, but nobody holds up
> >convenience stores to feed that addiction. Because, being legal, it's
> >not too expensive to feed using only legal means.
>
> Also, people keep their jobs with nicotine addiction.
>
> Drunks and pot-heads tend to have troubles being productive. But
Most users of alcohol and marijuana have no trouble at all being
productive. Even most alcoholics.
> the cost of their productivity problems are a lot less than the costs
> resulting from their recreational drug of choice being illegal. That's
> a major reason prohibition was repealed.
Yup.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Sep 9 13:39:58 CEST 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,04459 Sekunden |
