O.T. Grocery clerks strike [Archive]

View Full Version : O.T. Grocery clerks strike

Pages : [1] 2 |

Michael Mckelvy

October 18th 03, 06:51 AM

If you live anywhere that this strike is being carried out, I'm wondering
what the strikers are claiming as the reason(s) for their action.

The main reason people where I live are avoiding stores being struck is that
they are being intimidated by the picketers and this is likely to get worse
now that the maf......er Teamsters are involved.

If you'd like to see the contract that they are rejecting you can find it on
the KFI640 web site. I think you'll find it very interesting.

http://www.kfi640.com/main.html

Joseph Oberlander

October 18th 03, 10:41 AM

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

> If you live anywhere that this strike is being carried out, I'm wondering
> what the strikers are claiming as the reason(s) for their action.

The companies make billions in profits and want the employees to start
paying for healthcare when it was already there for employees for decades.
(ie - a pay cut, but in a sneaky manner)

Trader Joe's(small chain in California) has literally half the markup of
Vons/Safeway and yet is planning on expanding 100 stores in the next three years.

Even with the current pay, the companies are still making money hand over fist.

> The main reason people where I live are avoiding stores being struck is that
> they are being intimidated by the picketers and this is likely to get worse
> now that the maf......er Teamsters are involved.

Where I live, most of the town supports or was at one time a member of
a union and they refuse to shop and support the companies or scabs.

The Teamsters got involved because the companies decided to try to break
the union, so the employees called in the Teamsters to get some hurt on
by not delivering the supplies.

George M. Middius

October 18th 03, 03:21 PM

Obie said:

> Trader Joe's(small chain in California) has literally half the markup of
> Vons/Safeway and yet is planning on expanding 100 stores in the next three years.
>
> Even with the current pay, the companies are still making money hand over fist.

They don't pay union wages, do they. And they only sell packaged
goods, which require less labor to display. No meat to cut, no produce
to uncrate and place in neat piles.

A more apt comparison is a bookstore.

ScottW

October 18th 03, 05:06 PM

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in
message
k.net...
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>
> > If you live anywhere that this strike is being carried out,
I'm wondering
> > what the strikers are claiming as the reason(s) for their
action.
>
> The companies make billions in profits and want the employees
to start
> paying for healthcare when it was already there for employees
for decades.
> (ie - a pay cut, but in a sneaky manner)
>
> Trader Joe's(small chain in California) has literally half the
markup of
> Vons/Safeway and yet is planning on expanding 100 stores in the
next three years.
>
> Even with the current pay, the companies are still making money
hand over fist.
>
> > The main reason people where I live are avoiding stores being
struck is that
> > they are being intimidated by the picketers and this is
likely to get worse
> > now that the maf......er Teamsters are involved.
>
> Where I live, most of the town supports or was at one time a
member of
> a union and they refuse to shop and support the companies or
scabs.
>
> The Teamsters got involved because the companies decided to try
to break
> the union, so the employees called in the Teamsters to get some
hurt on
> by not delivering the supplies.
>
Check the earnings statements. The companies are making a
whopping 1.3 to 1.5% profit.
Walmart is the 400 lb gorilla that is breaking the union. I
believe Trader Joes is a non-union store BTW. What health
benefits do they provide their employees?

The real issue for everyone is, WTF is going on with health care
costs? Allow imported pharmaceuticals.

ScottW

S888Wheel

October 18th 03, 05:18 PM

>
>They don't pay union wages, do they. And they only sell packaged
>goods, which require less labor to display. No meat to cut, no produce
>to uncrate and place in neat piles.
>

No, they sell fresh produce and many things that you can't get at the major
supermarkets.

George M. Middius

October 18th 03, 05:59 PM

S888Wheel said:

> >They don't pay union wages, do they. And they only sell packaged
> >goods, which require less labor to display. No meat to cut, no produce
> >to uncrate and place in neat piles.

> No, they sell fresh produce and many things that you can't get at the major
> supermarkets.

The ones in Maryland don't sell fresh produce. Except for *packaged*
foods. Nor do they have anything not in the supermarkets. They have
more choices of some stuff, particularly frozen fish.

I guess they tailored the east coast stores to what they thought would
sell here.

Michael Mckelvy

October 18th 03, 10:19 PM

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>
> > If you live anywhere that this strike is being carried out, I'm
wondering
> > what the strikers are claiming as the reason(s) for their action.
>
> The companies make billions in profits and want the employees to start
> paying for healthcare when it was already there for employees for decades.
> (ie - a pay cut, but in a sneaky manner)
>
They want them to pay $5.00 per week towards their own healthcare, $15.00
per week for family coverage.

The union is also claiming that the stores want to cut 50% of their pension
benefits. This is a lie.

> Trader Joe's(small chain in California) has literally half the markup of
> Vons/Safeway and yet is planning on expanding 100 stores in the next three
years.
>
> Even with the current pay, the companies are still making money hand over
fist.
>
You've seen their books?

> > The main reason people where I live are avoiding stores being struck is
that
> > they are being intimidated by the picketers and this is likely to get
worse
> > now that the maf......er Teamsters are involved.
>
> Where I live, most of the town supports or was at one time a member of
> a union and they refuse to shop and support the companies or scabs.
>
> The Teamsters got involved because the companies decided to try to break
> the union, so the employees called in the Teamsters to get some hurt on
> by not delivering the supplies.
>
The Teamsters are involved because they lend muscle. They are thugs, they
have been keying cars of people who cross the picket lines.

S888Wheel

October 18th 03, 10:54 PM

>
>The ones in Maryland don't sell fresh produce. Except for *packaged*
>foods. Nor do they have anything not in the supermarkets. They have
>more choices of some stuff, particularly frozen fish.
>
>I guess they tailored the east coast stores to what they thought would
>sell here.
>
>
>
>

I didn't even know they were on the east coast.

Joseph Oberlander

October 18th 03, 11:14 PM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Obie said:
>
>
>>Trader Joe's(small chain in California) has literally half the markup of
>>Vons/Safeway and yet is planning on expanding 100 stores in the next three years.
>>
>>Even with the current pay, the companies are still making money hand over fist.
>
>
> They don't pay union wages, do they. And they only sell packaged
> goods, which require less labor to display. No meat to cut, no produce
> to uncrate and place in neat piles.

Actually, they do have a bakery section and produce section. The meat is
pre-packaged, but it's not something they sell a lot of - it's there
mostly as specialty items like sausage and imported cheeses the grocery
stores don't carry.

The fact is, they operate a grocery store. They pay nearly the same
wages as the big chains. They operate on a 80-100% markup over cost,
as opposed to the local Ralph's at 225% right next door. The same
milk and eggs - half as much across the street. $2 a pound for butter.
Chicken Bullion $2.69 and $4.59(Ralphs) Same exact products.

Yet they make more than enough money to expand. That the large
chains are squabbling over a little pay when they are turning
billions in profits per year is silly.

Joseph Oberlander

October 18th 03, 11:22 PM

S888Wheel wrote:

>>They don't pay union wages, do they. And they only sell packaged
>>goods, which require less labor to display. No meat to cut, no produce
>>to uncrate and place in neat piles.

I forgot to mention - it's all family owned, like In and Out Burger.
Both companies treat their employees well, pay the highest non-union
wages in the area, and generally run a fine, ethical business.

No shareholders, no board of directors, no earnings nonsense.

Unions really are only required when the management is unwilling
to run an ethical business, afterall.

In and Out is a good comparison. They pay $8-$9 an hour for the
exact same job that the other burger chains want you to do, yet
make enough money to expand roughly one new store every 2-3 weeks.
Oh - they charge less for a burger as well. Healthcare as well for
full-tiem employees(unheard of in fast food).

Compare that to McDonalds - minimum wage, pay increases every 6 months
of 25 cents(half what In and Out does every 3 months), a million rules,
more expensive food...

And they are closing locations in the U.S. Loosing money because they
are profit and shareholder driven. I'm amazed that they don't have a
union. The poor slobs working there certainly need one.

Joseph Oberlander

October 18th 03, 11:25 PM

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you live anywhere that this strike is being carried out, I'm
>
> wondering
>
>>>what the strikers are claiming as the reason(s) for their action.
>>
>>The companies make billions in profits and want the employees to start
>>paying for healthcare when it was already there for employees for decades.
>>(ie - a pay cut, but in a sneaky manner)
>>
>
> They want them to pay $5.00 per week towards their own healthcare, $15.00
> per week for family coverage.
>
> The union is also claiming that the stores want to cut 50% of their pension
> benefits. This is a lie.
>
>
>>Trader Joe's(small chain in California) has literally half the markup of
>>Vons/Safeway and yet is planning on expanding 100 stores in the next three
>
> years.
>
>>Even with the current pay, the companies are still making money hand over
>
> fist.
>
> You've seen their books?

Kroger had enough money to buy Ralphs a few years ago. Hundreds of millions
in profits.

> The Teamsters are involved because they lend muscle. They are thugs, they
> have been keying cars of people who cross the picket lines.

In a perfect world, they would pay well and have no need for unions. BTW, I
talked to a trucker who was there - they drive the truck there, then wait for
the temp to show up and drive it in/unload it. He said that he only makes
$40-$45K a year.

Imagine how little they would be paid if they didn't have a union.

S888Wheel

October 19th 03, 01:01 AM

>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>>>They don't pay union wages, do they. And they only sell packaged
>>>goods, which require less labor to display. No meat to cut, no produce
>>>to uncrate and place in neat piles.
>
>I forgot to mention - it's all family owned, like In and Out Burger.
>Both companies treat their employees well, pay the highest non-union
>wages in the area, and generally run a fine, ethical business.
>
>No shareholders, no board of directors, no earnings nonsense.
>
>Unions really are only required when the management is unwilling
>to run an ethical business, afterall.
>
>In and Out is a good comparison. They pay $8-$9 an hour for the
>exact same job that the other burger chains want you to do, yet
>make enough money to expand roughly one new store every 2-3 weeks.
>Oh - they charge less for a burger as well. Healthcare as well for
>full-tiem employees(unheard of in fast food).
>
>Compare that to McDonalds - minimum wage, pay increases every 6 months
>of 25 cents(half what In and Out does every 3 months), a million rules,
>more expensive food...
>
>And they are closing locations in the U.S. Loosing money because they
>are profit and shareholder driven. I'm amazed that they don't have a
>union. The poor slobs working there certainly need one.
>
>
>

In and Out also make a much better product than Mc Donalds. That doesn't hurt.

Michael Mckelvy

October 19th 03, 01:09 AM

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>
> > "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >
> >>Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>If you live anywhere that this strike is being carried out, I'm
> >
> > wondering
> >
> >>>what the strikers are claiming as the reason(s) for their action.
> >>
> >>The companies make billions in profits and want the employees to start
> >>paying for healthcare when it was already there for employees for
decades.
> >>(ie - a pay cut, but in a sneaky manner)
> >>
> >
> > They want them to pay $5.00 per week towards their own healthcare,
$15.00
> > per week for family coverage.
> >
> > The union is also claiming that the stores want to cut 50% of their
pension
> > benefits. This is a lie.
> >
> >
> >>Trader Joe's(small chain in California) has literally half the markup of
> >>Vons/Safeway and yet is planning on expanding 100 stores in the next
three
> >
> > years.
> >
> >>Even with the current pay, the companies are still making money hand
over
> >
> > fist.
> >
> > You've seen their books?
>
> Kroger had enough money to buy Ralphs a few years ago. Hundreds of
millions
> in profits.
>
IOW you have not seen the books.

> > The Teamsters are involved because they lend muscle. They are thugs,
they
> > have been keying cars of people who cross the picket lines.
>
> In a perfect world, they would pay well and have no need for unions.

When is there a need for thuggery?

They do pay well, there is no need for unions. These people make approx
23,000 a year if they make the top pay rate for working 24 hrs a week. If
they don't think they are getting enough to live on they should retrain for
another line of work. There's no guarantee nor should there be that things
will stay the same.

BTW, I
> talked to a trucker who was there - they drive the truck there, then wait
for
> the temp to show up and drive it in/unload it. He said that he only makes
> $40-$45K a year.
>
More than a lot of teachers. What's wrong with this picture.

> Imagine how little they would be paid if they didn't have a union.
>
They also recieve full medical and pension benefits even though they aren't
full time employees.

You do realize that if they get paid more, your groceries cost more, don' t
you?

They are not being asked to take a pay cut.

Michael Mckelvy

October 19th 03, 01:14 AM

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >>They don't pay union wages, do they. And they only sell packaged
> >>goods, which require less labor to display. No meat to cut, no produce
> >>to uncrate and place in neat piles.
>
> I forgot to mention - it's all family owned, like In and Out Burger.
> Both companies treat their employees well, pay the highest non-union
> wages in the area, and generally run a fine, ethical business.
>
> No shareholders, no board of directors, no earnings nonsense.
>
Earnings nonsense? It's earnings that pay the wages.

> Unions really are only required when the management is unwilling
> to run an ethical business, afterall.
>
Unions are never required. Every employee has the right to take what is
offered or go elsewhere. There is no hint of these chains being unethical.

> In and Out is a good comparison. They pay $8-$9 an hour for the
> exact same job that the other burger chains want you to do, yet
> make enough money to expand roughly one new store every 2-3 weeks.
> Oh - they charge less for a burger as well. Healthcare as well for
> full-tiem employees(unheard of in fast food).
>
> Compare that to McDonalds - minimum wage, pay increases every 6 months
> of 25 cents(half what In and Out does every 3 months), a million rules,
> more expensive food...
>
With oppurtunities for advancement and management and store ownership.

> And they are closing locations in the U.S. Loosing money because they
> are profit and shareholder driven. I'm amazed that they don't have a
> union. The poor slobs working there certainly need one.
>
They are closing stores because they oversaturated the market. It's the
first time in their history that they ever lost money.

Michael Mckelvy

October 19th 03, 01:15 AM

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
> >
> > Obie said:
> >
> >
> >>Trader Joe's(small chain in California) has literally half the markup of
> >>Vons/Safeway and yet is planning on expanding 100 stores in the next
three years.
> >>
> >>Even with the current pay, the companies are still making money hand
over fist.
> >
> >
> > They don't pay union wages, do they. And they only sell packaged
> > goods, which require less labor to display. No meat to cut, no produce
> > to uncrate and place in neat piles.
>
> Actually, they do have a bakery section and produce section. The meat is
> pre-packaged, but it's not something they sell a lot of - it's there
> mostly as specialty items like sausage and imported cheeses the grocery
> stores don't carry.
>
> The fact is, they operate a grocery store. They pay nearly the same
> wages as the big chains. They operate on a 80-100% markup over cost,
> as opposed to the local Ralph's at 225% right next door. The same
> milk and eggs - half as much across the street. $2 a pound for butter.
> Chicken Bullion $2.69 and $4.59(Ralphs) Same exact products.
>
> Yet they make more than enough money to expand. That the large
> chains are squabbling over a little pay when they are turning
> billions in profits per year is silly.
>
It wouold be if it were true they were making billions.
Where are the figures for their profits, or are you just regurgitating the
union rhetoric?

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 19th 03, 01:43 AM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
> Unions are never required. Every employee has the right to take what is
> offered or go elsewhere. There is no hint of these chains being
unethical.
>

If there were no unions, the worker would still have the right to go
elsewhere; but only to another nonunion environemnt where he will
be treated just as shabbily.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Michael Mckelvy

October 19th 03, 03:07 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Unions are never required. Every employee has the right to take what is
> > offered or go elsewhere. There is no hint of these chains being
> unethical.
> >
>
> If there were no unions, the worker would still have the right to go
> elsewhere; but only to another nonunion environemnt where he will
> be treated just as shabbily.
>
By what standard?

90% of the workforce is non-union.

The grocery clerks enjoy a much higher standard than most FULL TIME
employees.

If they are unhappy with their lot they need to get more education and
different jobs.
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 19th 03, 03:25 AM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Unions are never required. Every employee has the right to take what
is
> > > offered or go elsewhere. There is no hint of these chains being
> > unethical.
> > >
> >
> > If there were no unions, the worker would still have the right to go
> > elsewhere; but only to another nonunion environemnt where he will
> > be treated just as shabbily.
> >
> By what standard?
>
> 90% of the workforce is non-union.
>
> The grocery clerks enjoy a much higher standard than most FULL TIME
> employees.
>
> If they are unhappy with their lot they need to get more education and
> different jobs.

Easily said, not always so easily done.

That there are unions, and laws allowing unions, is the reason
wages are decent, even for non union companies.
Many non union companies offer wages higher than union rates,
just to keep the unions out. Those companies
are more afraid of the unions getting into work rules
and other aspects of managment prerogatives than
they are afraid of paying higher wages and benefits.

But, were it not for fear of unions, management would
not be so generous.

Management represents ownership. Ownership is a
conglomeration of many stock holding investors each owning a small interest
in the
business. Management represents a lot of amassed economic power.
Workers can only deal with the power of management on an equitable basis
if they are organized into one massed entity (the union), such as the
individual
stockholder interests are organized into one massed entity (management).

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Michael Mckelvy

October 19th 03, 07:02 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Unions are never required. Every employee has the right to take
what
> is
> > > > offered or go elsewhere. There is no hint of these chains being
> > > unethical.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If there were no unions, the worker would still have the right to go
> > > elsewhere; but only to another nonunion environemnt where he will
> > > be treated just as shabbily.
> > >
> > By what standard?
> >
> > 90% of the workforce is non-union.
> >
> > The grocery clerks enjoy a much higher standard than most FULL TIME
> > employees.
> >
> > If they are unhappy with their lot they need to get more education and
> > different jobs.
>
>
> Easily said, not always so easily done.
>
> That there are unions, and laws allowing unions, is the reason
> wages are decent, even for non union companies.

Prove it.

> Many non union companies offer wages higher than union rates,
> just to keep the unions out. Those companies
> are more afraid of the unions getting into work rules
> and other aspects of managment prerogatives than
> they are afraid of paying higher wages and benefits.
>
No, they are afraid of the endless bull**** about who isn't going to do
what.

The unions have a long history of corruption and mismangement of things like
pension funds.

The only reason the Teamsters exist is because of Mafia connections and
Mafia muscle.

They only succeed in keeping people who are willing to work out.

They never cease in trying to get more money for less work.

Grocery clerks are unsilled labor and are already being replaced. It takes
about 4 hours of training and poof you're a cashier. Those on strike are
going to lose in the end. Labor is a product to be sold to the highest
bidder.

Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what you're
worth in the marketplace.

> But, were it not for fear of unions, management would
> not be so generous.
>
> Management represents ownership. Ownership is a
> conglomeration of many stock holding investors each owning a small
interest
> in the
> business. Management represents a lot of amassed economic power.
> Workers can only deal with the power of management on an equitable basis
> if they are organized into one massed entity (the union), such as the
> individual
> stockholder interests are organized into one massed entity (management).
>
Oh, gang war. Bull****. People with skills in demand get paid well, people
with skills that are readily available get paid less.
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Joseph Oberlander

October 19th 03, 09:09 AM

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

>>Many non union companies offer wages higher than union rates,
>>just to keep the unions out. Those companies
>>are more afraid of the unions getting into work rules
>>and other aspects of managment prerogatives than
>>they are afraid of paying higher wages and benefits.
>>
>
> No, they are afraid of the endless bull**** about who isn't going to do
> what.

Reguardless, fear is all that most large corporations understand.

Like the second ammendment - just KNOWING that the people were given the
express (potential)ability to overthrow you does wonders to keep a
healthy balance of power and respect on both sides.

> Grocery clerks are unsilled labor and are already being replaced. It takes
> about 4 hours of training and poof you're a cashier. Those on strike are
> going to lose in the end. Labor is a product to be sold to the highest
> bidder.

Actually, no. More like 2 weeks. You must be fast, you must know how to
deal with errors, scan checks, deal with food stamps and WIC(one mistake
here legally requires you to be written up - two is mandated fired).
Then there's all the codes for produce and meat and...

It's not like taking orders for pizzas anymore. Then ethere's the butchers
and bakery. They aren't even trying to replace them it's such specialized work.

> Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what you're
> worth in the marketplace.

True, but since the companies have an attitude of "we owe you nothing
other than a paycheck and you owe us everything(including your intelectual
property) in return", it's not surprizing that unions are so popular in the U.S.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 19th 03, 11:16 AM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Unions are never required. Every employee has the right to take
> what
> > is
> > > > > offered or go elsewhere. There is no hint of these chains being
> > > > unethical.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If there were no unions, the worker would still have the right to go
> > > > elsewhere; but only to another nonunion environemnt where he will
> > > > be treated just as shabbily.
> > > >
> > > By what standard?
> > >
> > > 90% of the workforce is non-union.
> > >
> > > The grocery clerks enjoy a much higher standard than most FULL TIME
> > > employees.
> > >
> > > If they are unhappy with their lot they need to get more education and
> > > different jobs.
> >
> >
> > Easily said, not always so easily done.
> >
> > That there are unions, and laws allowing unions, is the reason
> > wages are decent, even for non union companies.
>
> Prove it.

Common sense. It follows from the precepts of Capitalism,
competition and human nature.

>
> > Many non union companies offer wages higher than union rates,
> > just to keep the unions out. Those companies
> > are more afraid of the unions getting into work rules
> > and other aspects of managment prerogatives than
> > they are afraid of paying higher wages and benefits.
> >
> No, they are afraid of the endless bull**** about who isn't going to do
> what.
>

A more crude way of saying exactly what I just said.

> The unions have a long history of corruption and mismangement of things
like
> pension funds.
>

So, corporations also have a long history of corruption, mismanagement,
stockholder fraud, bribery, and price fixing.

> The only reason the Teamsters exist is because of Mafia connections and
> Mafia muscle.
>
> They only succeed in keeping people who are willing to work out.
>

Using your analogy, they can go find another job is one of the
90% (according to you) non union workplaces.

> They never cease in trying to get more money for less work.
>

Hence the 40 hour work week and a decent standard of living in the USA.
You are the beneficiary of a century of American unionism.

> Grocery clerks are unsilled labor and are already being replaced. It
takes
> about 4 hours of training and poof you're a cashier. Those on strike are
> going to lose in the end. Labor is a product to be sold to the highest
> bidder.
>

Like the slaves of yore.

> Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what you're
> worth in the marketplace.
>

What you are worth is a matter of what you are able
to negotiate.

> > But, were it not for fear of unions, management would
> > not be so generous.
> >
> > Management represents ownership. Ownership is a
> > conglomeration of many stock holding investors each owning a small
> interest
> > in the
> > business. Management represents a lot of amassed economic power.
> > Workers can only deal with the power of management on an equitable basis
> > if they are organized into one massed entity (the union), such as the
> > individual
> > stockholder interests are organized into one massed entity (management).
> >
> Oh, gang war. Bull****. People with skills in demand get paid well,
people
> with skills that are readily available get paid less.

It's trogladytes like you that prevent me from taking the last step
in severing myself from the Democratic party and actually registering
as a Republican.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

pyjamarama

October 19th 03, 04:04 PM

Joseph Oberlander > wrote in message t>...
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>
> >>Many non union companies offer wages higher than union rates,
> >>just to keep the unions out. Those companies
> >>are more afraid of the unions getting into work rules
> >>and other aspects of managment prerogatives than
> >>they are afraid of paying higher wages and benefits.
> >>
> >
> > No, they are afraid of the endless bull**** about who isn't going to do
> > what.
>
> Reguardless, fear is all that most large corporations understand.
>
> Like the second ammendment - just KNOWING that the people were given the
> express (potential)ability to overthrow you does wonders to keep a
> healthy balance of power and respect on both sides.
>
> > Grocery clerks are unsilled labor and are already being replaced. It takes
> > about 4 hours of training and poof you're a cashier. Those on strike are
> > going to lose in the end. Labor is a product to be sold to the highest
> > bidder.
>
> Actually, no. More like 2 weeks. You must be fast, you must know how to
> deal with errors, scan checks, deal with food stamps and WIC(one mistake
> here legally requires you to be written up - two is mandated fired).
> Then there's all the codes for produce and meat and...
>
> It's not like taking orders for pizzas anymore. Then ethere's the butchers
> and bakery. They aren't even trying to replace them it's such specialized work.
>
> > Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what you're
> > worth in the marketplace.
>
> True, but since the companies have an attitude of "we owe you nothing
> other than a paycheck and you owe us everything(including your intelectual
> property) in return", it's not surprizing that unions are so popular in the U.S.

"unions are so popular in the U.S.?"

This here U.S.?

Union membership has been in a 40 year downward death spiral and if
you remove federal employees from the mix, only about 8% of private
sector U.S. workers are union.

That strikes you as "popular?"

What would you call the other 92%? Really popular?

Michael Mckelvy

October 19th 03, 06:57 PM

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>
> >>Many non union companies offer wages higher than union rates,
> >>just to keep the unions out. Those companies
> >>are more afraid of the unions getting into work rules
> >>and other aspects of managment prerogatives than
> >>they are afraid of paying higher wages and benefits.
> >>
> >
> > No, they are afraid of the endless bull**** about who isn't going to do
> > what.
>
> Reguardless, fear is all that most large corporations understand.
>
> Like the second ammendment - just KNOWING that the people were given the
> express (potential)ability to overthrow you does wonders to keep a
> healthy balance of power and respect on both sides.
>
> > Grocery clerks are unsilled labor and are already being replaced. It
takes
> > about 4 hours of training and poof you're a cashier. Those on strike
are
> > going to lose in the end. Labor is a product to be sold to the highest
> > bidder.
>
> Actually, no. More like 2 weeks. You must be fast, you must know how to
> deal with errors, scan checks, deal with food stamps and WIC(one mistake
> here legally requires you to be written up - two is mandated fired).
> Then there's all the codes for produce and meat and...
>
> It's not like taking orders for pizzas anymore. Then ethere's the
butchers
> and bakery. They aren't even trying to replace them it's such specialized
work.
>
> > Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what you're
> > worth in the marketplace.
>
> True, but since the companies have an attitude of "we owe you nothing
> other than a paycheck and you owe us everything(including your intelectual
> property) in return", it's not surprizing that unions are so popular in
the U.S.
>

They are not popular except with the very bottom end of the intellectual
scale. Those with the least skill are doing the most complaining and
expecting the most pay and benefits.

Of the entire workforce only 10-15% of it is unionized, this hardly
qualifies as popular.

Michael Mckelvy

October 19th 03, 07:02 PM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > Unions are never required. Every employee has the right to take
> > what
> > > is
> > > > > > offered or go elsewhere. There is no hint of these chains being
> > > > > unethical.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If there were no unions, the worker would still have the right to
go
> > > > > elsewhere; but only to another nonunion environemnt where he will
> > > > > be treated just as shabbily.
> > > > >
> > > > By what standard?
> > > >
> > > > 90% of the workforce is non-union.
> > > >
> > > > The grocery clerks enjoy a much higher standard than most FULL TIME
> > > > employees.
> > > >
> > > > If they are unhappy with their lot they need to get more education
and
> > > > different jobs.
> > >
> > >
> > > Easily said, not always so easily done.
> > >
> > > That there are unions, and laws allowing unions, is the reason
> > > wages are decent, even for non union companies.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> Common sense. It follows from the precepts of Capitalism,
> competition and human nature.
>
> >
> > > Many non union companies offer wages higher than union rates,
> > > just to keep the unions out. Those companies
> > > are more afraid of the unions getting into work rules
> > > and other aspects of managment prerogatives than
> > > they are afraid of paying higher wages and benefits.
> > >
> > No, they are afraid of the endless bull**** about who isn't going to do
> > what.
> >
>
> A more crude way of saying exactly what I just said.
>
> > The unions have a long history of corruption and mismangement of things
> like
> > pension funds.
> >
>
> So, corporations also have a long history of corruption, mismanagement,
> stockholder fraud, bribery, and price fixing.
>
>
> > The only reason the Teamsters exist is because of Mafia connections and
> > Mafia muscle.
> >
> > They only succeed in keeping people who are willing to work out.
> >
>
>
> Using your analogy, they can go find another job is one of the
> 90% (according to you) non union workplaces.
>
> > They never cease in trying to get more money for less work.
> >
>
> Hence the 40 hour work week and a decent standard of living in the USA.
> You are the beneficiary of a century of American unionism.
>
These have nothing to do with unionism, they have everything to do with
productivity.

> > Grocery clerks are unskilled labor and are already being replaced. It
> takes
> > about 4 hours of training and poof you're a cashier. Those on strike
are
> > going to lose in the end. Labor is a product to be sold to the highest
> > bidder.
> >
>
> Like the slaves of yore.
>
Slaves had no choice clerks do.

> > Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what you're
> > worth in the marketplace.
> >
>
> What you are worth is a matter of what you are able
> to negotiate.
>
Keying cars, slamming people's hands in doors and other acts of vandalism
are your idea of negotiation?
>
> > > But, were it not for fear of unions, management would
> > > not be so generous.
> > >
> > > Management represents ownership. Ownership is a
> > > conglomeration of many stock holding investors each owning a small
> > interest
> > > in the
> > > business. Management represents a lot of amassed economic power.
> > > Workers can only deal with the power of management on an equitable
basis
> > > if they are organized into one massed entity (the union), such as the
> > > individual
> > > stockholder interests are organized into one massed entity
(management).
> > >

Complete nonsense, 90% of the workforce does very well without unions, they
are able to aquire skills and negotiate on their own merits.

> > Oh, gang war. Bull****. People with skills in demand get paid well,
> people
> > with skills that are readily available get paid less.
>
>
> It's trogladytes like you that prevent me from taking the last step
> in severing myself from the Democratic party and actually registering
> as a Republican.
>
Unwarranted personal attack noted.

Don't let me stop you, I'm not a Republican.
I'm also not a Democrat.
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 19th 03, 08:25 PM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...

>
> They are not popular except with the very bottom end of the intellectual
> scale. Those with the least skill are doing the most complaining and
> expecting the most pay and benefits.
>
> Of the entire workforce only 10-15% of it is unionized, this hardly
> qualifies as popular.
>
>

It was a sad day when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Procalmation.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 19th 03, 08:33 PM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > Hence the 40 hour work week and a decent standard of living in the USA.
> > You are the beneficiary of a century of American unionism.
> >
> These have nothing to do with unionism, they have everything to do with
> productivity.
>

You are absolutley flat out wrong.

> > > Grocery clerks are unskilled labor and are already being replaced. It
> > takes
> > > about 4 hours of training and poof you're a cashier. Those on strike
> are
> > > going to lose in the end. Labor is a product to be sold to the
highest
> > > bidder.
> > >
> >
> > Like the slaves of yore.
> >
> Slaves had no choice clerks do.
>

Not if they are merely a product to be bid, as you allege.

> > > Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what
you're
> > > worth in the marketplace.
> > >
> >
> > What you are worth is a matter of what you are able
> > to negotiate.
> >
> Keying cars, slamming people's hands in doors and other acts of vandalism
> are your idea of negotiation?

No
Neither are extreme management tactics.
It happens

> Complete nonsense, 90% of the workforce does very well without unions,
they
> are able to aquire skills and negotiate on their own merits.
>

The environment which allows this has evovlved, in large part, because
of unionism.

> > > Oh, gang war. Bull****. People with skills in demand get paid well,
> > people
> > > with skills that are readily available get paid less.
> >
> >
> > It's trogladytes like you that prevent me from taking the last step
> > in severing myself from the Democratic party and actually registering
> > as a Republican.
> >
> Unwarranted personal attack noted.
>

The statement is warranted, and not an attack
Your brand of. Neanderthal conservatism is noted.

> Don't let me stop you, I'm not a Republican.
> I'm also not a Democrat.

I hate to ask what you are.
I have my suspicions you lean towards Fascism.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Michael Mckelvy

October 19th 03, 09:04 PM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > They are not popular except with the very bottom end of the intellectual
> > scale. Those with the least skill are doing the most complaining and
> > expecting the most pay and benefits.
> >
> > Of the entire workforce only 10-15% of it is unionized, this hardly
> > qualifies as popular.
> >
> >
>
> It was a sad day when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Procalmation.
>
>
Your equating non-union with slavery shows a major disconnect with reality.
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael Mckelvy

October 19th 03, 09:12 PM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >
> > > Hence the 40 hour work week and a decent standard of living in the
USA.
> > > You are the beneficiary of a century of American unionism.
> > >
> > These have nothing to do with unionism, they have everything to do with
> > productivity.
> >
>
> You are absolutley flat out wrong.
>
>
Prove it.

> > > > Grocery clerks are unskilled labor and are already being replaced.
It
> > > takes
> > > > about 4 hours of training and poof you're a cashier. Those on
strike
> > are
> > > > going to lose in the end. Labor is a product to be sold to the
> highest
> > > > bidder.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Like the slaves of yore.
> > >
> > Slaves had no choice clerks do.
> >
>
> Not if they are merely a product to be bid, as you allege.
>

If you don't like the conditions where you work you are free to get more
training or education in order to gain advancement. Slaves had no such
option.

You seem to be syaing that 90% of the workforce are slaves.

> > > > Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what
> you're
> > > > worth in the marketplace.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What you are worth is a matter of what you are able
> > > to negotiate.
> > >
> > Keying cars, slamming people's hands in doors and other acts of
vandalism
> > are your idea of negotiation?
>
> No
> Neither are extreme management tactics.
> It happens
>
It happend only when unionists are on strike and not getting their way. The
Teamsters have a very long history of this.

What is extreme about trying to keep your business competitive by reducing
labor costs?
>
> > Complete nonsense, 90% of the workforce does very well without unions,
> they
> > are able to aquire skills and negotiate on their own merits.
> >
>
> The environment which allows this has evovlved, in large part, because
> of unionism.
>
>
Popular myth.

> > > > Oh, gang war. Bull****. People with skills in demand get paid
well,
> > > people
> > > > with skills that are readily available get paid less.
> > >
> > >
> > > It's trogladytes like you that prevent me from taking the last step
> > > in severing myself from the Democratic party and actually registering
> > > as a Republican.
> > >
> > Unwarranted personal attack noted.
> >
>
> The statement is warranted, and not an attack
> Your brand of. Neanderthal conservatism is noted.
>
Once again name calling, the act of someone without a case.

I'm not a conservative, not a Republican, just somebody who has worked for
in a union shop and who is aware that they do more harm than good.
>
> > Don't let me stop you, I'm not a Republican.
> > I'm also not a Democrat.
>
> I hate to ask what you are.
> I have my suspicions you lean towards Fascism.
>
Anybody who disagrees with a Liberal must be a Fascist?

Did you graduate from the Trotsky school of intellectual dishonesty?
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 19th 03, 10:17 PM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > > They are not popular except with the very bottom end of the
intellectual
> > > scale. Those with the least skill are doing the most complaining and
> > > expecting the most pay and benefits.
> > >
> > > Of the entire workforce only 10-15% of it is unionized, this hardly
> > > qualifies as popular.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > It was a sad day when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Procalmation.
> >
> >
> Your equating non-union with slavery shows a major disconnect with
reality.

No, I am equating you with antiquated thinking, even for a reactionary right
winger.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 19th 03, 10:29 PM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hence the 40 hour work week and a decent standard of living in the
> USA.
> > > > You are the beneficiary of a century of American unionism.
> > > >
> > > These have nothing to do with unionism, they have everything to do
with
> > > productivity.
> > >
> >
> > You are absolutley flat out wrong.
> >
> >
> Prove it.
>
>

Reductions in the work week were won in ealry union contracts,
for example, by the ILGWU

> If you don't like the conditions where you work you are free to get more
> training or education in order to gain advancement. Slaves had no such
> option.
>

That's a nice story book dream, reality is often quite different.
BTW, unionized workplaces frequently have such arrangements
in cooperatrive ventures with management.

> You seem to be syaing that 90% of the workforce are slaves.
>
> > > > > Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what
> > you're
> > > > > worth in the marketplace.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What you are worth is a matter of what you are able
> > > > to negotiate.
> > > >
> > > Keying cars, slamming people's hands in doors and other acts of
> vandalism
> > > are your idea of negotiation?
> >
> > No
> > Neither are extreme management tactics.
> > It happens
> >
> It happend only when unionists are on strike and not getting their way.
The
> Teamsters have a very long history of this.
>

No, management has their own bag of dirty tricks.

> What is extreme about trying to keep your business competitive by reducing
> labor costs?
> >
> > > Complete nonsense, 90% of the workforce does very well without unions,
> > they
> > > are able to aquire skills and negotiate on their own merits.
> > >
> >
> > The environment which allows this has evovlved, in large part, because
> > of unionism.
> >
> >
> Popular myth.

No, its true. This is acknowledged by main stram historians,

>
> > > > > Oh, gang war. Bull****. People with skills in demand get paid
> well,
> > > > people
> > > > > with skills that are readily available get paid less.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's trogladytes like you that prevent me from taking the last step
> > > > in severing myself from the Democratic party and actually
registering
> > > > as a Republican.
> > > >
> > > Unwarranted personal attack noted.
> > >
> >
> > The statement is warranted, and not an attack
> > Your brand of. Neanderthal conservatism is noted.
> >
> Once again name calling, the act of someone without a case.
>

Your arguments speak for themselves, relevant to Neanderthal views.

> I'm not a conservative, not a Republican, just somebody who has worked for
> in a union shop and who is aware that they do more harm than good.
> >

You lie about not being a conservative. This is in consideration of
my having heard your views on other political subjects otehr than
unionism.

> > > Don't let me stop you, I'm not a Republican.
> > > I'm also not a Democrat.
> >
> > I hate to ask what you are.
> > I have my suspicions you lean towards Fascism.
> >
> Anybody who disagrees with a Liberal must be a Fascist?
>

No, and I am not a Liberal.
I voted for George Bush.
I support our President's war on terror.
I support his tax cutting economic policies.

I would calssify you as a Neanderthal reactionary conservative, with
leanings
towards Fascism. That is NOT because you disagree with me. And certainly
not because I am a Liberal

> Did you graduate from the Trotsky school of intellectual dishonesty?

Talk about personal attacks!!

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Michael Mckelvy

October 20th 03, 12:13 AM

Michael Mckelvy

October 20th 03, 12:18 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hence the 40 hour work week and a decent standard of living in the
> > USA.
> > > > > You are the beneficiary of a century of American unionism.
> > > > >
> > > > These have nothing to do with unionism, they have everything to do
> with
> > > > productivity.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You are absolutley flat out wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > Prove it.
> >
> >
>
> Reductions in the work week were won in ealry union contracts,
> for example, by the ILGWU
>
>
> > If you don't like the conditions where you work you are free to get more
> > training or education in order to gain advancement. Slaves had no such
> > option.
> >
>
> That's a nice story book dream, reality is often quite different.
> BTW, unionized workplaces frequently have such arrangements
> in cooperatrive ventures with management.
>
>
> > You seem to be syaing that 90% of the workforce are slaves.
> >
> > > > > > Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for
what
> > > you're
> > > > > > worth in the marketplace.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What you are worth is a matter of what you are able
> > > > > to negotiate.
> > > > >
> > > > Keying cars, slamming people's hands in doors and other acts of
> > vandalism
> > > > are your idea of negotiation?
> > >
> > > No
> > > Neither are extreme management tactics.
> > > It happens
> > >
> > It happend only when unionists are on strike and not getting their way.
> The
> > Teamsters have a very long history of this.
> >
>
> No, management has their own bag of dirty tricks.
>
>
> > What is extreme about trying to keep your business competitive by
reducing
> > labor costs?
> > >
> > > > Complete nonsense, 90% of the workforce does very well without
unions,
> > > they
> > > > are able to aquire skills and negotiate on their own merits.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The environment which allows this has evovlved, in large part, because
> > > of unionism.
> > >
> > >
> > Popular myth.
>
> No, its true. This is acknowledged by main stram historians,
>
> >
> > > > > > Oh, gang war. Bull****. People with skills in demand get paid
> > well,
> > > > > people
> > > > > > with skills that are readily available get paid less.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's trogladytes like you that prevent me from taking the last
step
> > > > > in severing myself from the Democratic party and actually
> registering
> > > > > as a Republican.
> > > > >
> > > > Unwarranted personal attack noted.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The statement is warranted, and not an attack
> > > Your brand of. Neanderthal conservatism is noted.
> > >
> > Once again name calling, the act of someone without a case.
> >
>
> Your arguments speak for themselves, relevant to Neanderthal views.
>
>
> > I'm not a conservative, not a Republican, just somebody who has worked
for
> > in a union shop and who is aware that they do more harm than good.
> > >
>
> You lie about not being a conservative. This is in consideration of
> my having heard your views on other political subjects otehr than
> unionism.
>
>
> > > > Don't let me stop you, I'm not a Republican.
> > > > I'm also not a Democrat.
> > >
> > > I hate to ask what you are.
> > > I have my suspicions you lean towards Fascism.
> > >
> > Anybody who disagrees with a Liberal must be a Fascist?
> >
>
> No, and I am not a Liberal.
> I voted for George Bush.
> I support our President's war on terror.
> I support his tax cutting economic policies.
>
> I would calssify you as a Neanderthal reactionary conservative, with
> leanings
> towards Fascism. That is NOT because you disagree with me. And certainly
> not because I am a Liberal
>
> > Did you graduate from the Trotsky school of intellectual dishonesty?
>
> Talk about personal attacks!!
>
>
>
Notice there is no name calling.

Mainstream is not always a synonymn for accurate.

Keeping the Nation at Risk: How the Teacher Unions Block Reforms

Advanced Search
Help

Books
Policy Studies
Cato Policy Report
Cato Journal
Regulation Magazine
Cato Handbook for Congress
Cato Supreme Court Review
Congressional Testimony
Legal Briefs
Cato Audio
Cato's Letters
To Be Governed...
Events Archive

Make a Contribution
About Sponsorship
Alternative Giving Methods
Levels and Benefits

Pocket Constitution

Email Updates

Cato Audio

Cato Store

Cato on Your PDA

Cato University

El Cato

April 28, 2003
Keeping the Nation at Risk: How the Teacher Unions Block Reforms
by Myron Lieberman and David Salisbury
Myron Lieberman is chairman of the Education Policy Institute and
author
of a recent Cato Policy Analysis, "Liberating Teachers: Toward Market
Competition in Teacher Representation." David Salisbury is director of
the
Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute.
Twenty years ago this month, an ad hoc commission established by
then-Education Secretary Terrell H. Bell released a report entitled A
Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform. The report
quickly
became the most widely discussed educational reform blueprint in
American
history. One sentence in the report summarized the commission's take
on
the status of American education: "If an unfriendly power had
attempted to
impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists
today,
we might well have viewed it as an act of war."
Although the report generated a landslide of attention and multiple
reform
efforts, our education system is still in crisis. We have not solved
the
problems identified in the report because the teacher unions have
consistently blocked meaningful reforms.
Recent reports provide fresh evidence of our continuing educational
emergency. The U.S. Commission on National Security lately lamented
the
fact that U.S. students lag behind other countries in scientific
knowledge
and mathematics. Most recently, the Hoover Institution's Koret Task
Force
on K-12 Education released its findings after a review of the state of
American education 20 years since A Nation at Risk. The Task Force
found
that the performance of U.S. public schools remains stagnant. For
instance, about 80 million first graders "have walked into schools
where
they have scant chance of learning more than the youngsters whose
plight
troubled the Commission in 1983."
Certainly, we have seen changes in our schools during the last 20
years.
Teacher salaries have been raised, student-teacher ratios have been
reduced, annual per-pupil spending has increased by about 40 percent
(from
$4,700 per student to $6,600), and total annual expenditures have
grown by
nearly 60 percent in constant dollars, from about $180 billion to $280
billion.
Note, however, that those changes were supported by the teacher
unions.
The unions welcome reforms that lead to higher salaries and smaller
classes for teachers and more dues-revenue for the unions. At the same
time, the teacher unions oppose reforms that would empower parents or
allow private schools to compete on a level playing field for
students.
During the same 20 years, reformers have fought desperately for
reforms
that would give parents more power, or provide any support for parents
who
prefer a private to a public school. However, only a few states now
have a
significant number of charter schools and even fewer allow parents a
choice between a private and public school.
Everywhere pro-parent measures have passed, reformers have faced
intense
opposition by the teacher unions. With over 3 million members and
dues-revenues that exceed $1 billion a year, the unions are an
empire-like
force. Through strong-armed political tactics and hefty financial and
in-kind support to candidates who support teacher union positions, the
unions are a virtually insurmountable obstacle to reforms that are
essential to educational improvement.
A product of political compromise, A Nation at Risk carefully avoided
the
issue of teacher union power. In his letter to Secretary Bell,
Commission
Chairman David P. Gardner wrote: "Our purpose has been to help define
the
problems affecting American education and to provide solutions, not
search
for scapegoats."
But there is a difference between a scapegoat and an organization that
actively blocks reforms. By not criticizing union efforts to block
reforms
and announcing that it was not searching for "scapegoats," the 1983
commission reinforced the status quo. The subsequent 20 years have
demonstrated that this is no way to achieve educational reform.
Today, the unions are better prepared to block constructive reforms
than
they were in 1983. For example, teacher union membership and revenues
have
escalated, and the unions' stranglehold on education policy --
typified by
the failure to include private school choice in the No Child Left
Behind
Act -- is as strong as ever.
In their report released this month, the Hoover Institution's Koret
Task
Force correctly identified the teacher unions as one of the "powerful
forces of inertia" that underlies the public education establishment.
These forces proved more powerful than the Excellence Commission could
have foreseen in 1983.
Reformers who want to see schools improve in 2003 and beyond should
not
make the mistake of underestimating the opposition they will face from
the
teacher unions. Before significant reforms to our education system can
be
widely introduced, the power of the public education establishment,
mainly
the teacher unions, to block reforms must be curbed. Twenty years of
cosmetic change in education permit no other conclusion.
This article was published in the New York Post, April 21, 2003.

Support the Cato Institute
Send this page to a friend

Printer Friendly Version

1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20001-5403
Phone (202) 842-0200 Fax (202) 842-3490
All Rights Reserved © 2003 Cato Institute

October
19,
2003

The Real War On Terrorism Is In Pakistan, Not Iraq

by Leon Hadar

[Archives]

Saudis: We Are Good Soldiers

U.S. Challenging EU Defense Policy

Latest North Korea Threat Dismissed as Bluff

[Archives]

Information on Cato's Nov. 20 Monetary Conference,
co-sponsored by The Economist, and featuring Alan
Greenspan.

Chris Edwards will discuss international tax competition
on
CNN tonight between 6 and 7pm ET.
Jonathan Clarke will discuss Iraq on Fox News Channel
Sunday
at 8:15am ET.

Nine Myths About The New Economy

New Economy Index Home

Introduction

SECTION I
What's New About The New Economy?

SECTION II
New Economy Outcomes: Impacts on Americans

SECTION III
Foundations for Future Growth

Explaining the Productivity Paradox

The Knowledge Economy

Nine Myths About the New Economy

Data Sources

Endnotes

The Authors

Nine Myths About The New Economy
Almost everyone now agrees that the U.S. economy has undergone
fundamental
changes in the last 15 years, whether or not they refer to these
changes
as constituting a New Economy. However, too often the discussion on
either
end of the political spectrum has been driven by inaccurate
assessments
and selective choices of data-in short, by New Economy myths.
For many on the left, the New Economy represents a new threat to
economic
justice and social cohesion. These New Economy pessimists
emphasize-and
exaggerate-the down sides of the New Economy, while underestimating
the
benefits. They blame technology and globalization for downsizing,
stagnant
wages, growing inequality, and environmental degradation. Sometimes
this
leads to internally contradictory positions. They claim that if
companies
install technology, workers are laid off, but if companies don't
install
technology, they are milking profits and not reinvesting to raise
wages.
Pessimists correctly point out that economic change creates losers as
well
as winners, but their preferred solution is too often to slow or stop
the
processes of change. Thus, they prescribe trade protection, top-down
regulation, and spending on outdated industrial-era bureaucratic
programs.
Their "land of milk and honey" is made up of large organizations with
stable employment, stable markets, and stable competition, which are
unrealistic expectations in the context of the fundamental trends in
the
New Economy.
For many on the right, the dawn of a digital era automatically means
the
twilight of government. These New Economy optimists emphasize-and
exaggerate-the upsides of the New Economy, while overlooking its
problems.
While viewing it correctly as an era with great possibilities for
growth
and creativity, some on the right seek the elimination of virtually
all
regulation of technology, oppose government funding of research and
development (excluding defense), and argue that government should
simply
"get out of the way," a stance that leaves Americans to fend for
themselves during a difficult, often wrenching transition. Their "land
of
milk and honey" is made up of small firms and individual entrepreneurs
in
dynamic markets; higher income inequality that encourages hard work; a
vastly reduced role for government, including reduced roles in
technology,
education, and skill development; and little effort to expand the
winner's
circle so that all Americans share in the benefits.
New Economy Pessimists' Myths:
MYTH #1 The New Economy has facilitated the dramatic
deindustrialization
of America.
REALITY Manufacturing has not disappeared, it has been reinvented.
Between 1987 and 1996, inflation-adjusted manufacturing output in the
United States increased 27 percent. But because of investments in
technology, training, and new forms of work organization, U.S. firms
were
able to improve productivity even faster, which meant that
manufacturing
employment declined by only 1.4 percent.
MYTH #2 In the New Economy, globalization and corporate greed have
combined to produce stagnant wages for most American workers.
REALITY Slow growth in real wages is a result of slow growth in
economy-wide productivity.
While income inequality is linked to technological change,
immigration,
and the decline of unionism, total wage income in the economy is tied
to
productivity growth. From 1963 to 1973, business productivity grew 35
percent while wages grew 31 percent. Between 1985 and 1995,
productivity
grew 9 percent, while wages grew only 6 percent.48 Without faster
productivity growth, faster wage growth is impossible. Some argue that
wages have stagnated because corporate profits grew. In fact, if all
of
the increase in the share of national income going to corporate
dividends
went instead to wages, the latter would have increased only marginally
faster between 1978 and 1997-20 percent instead of 16 percent.
MYTH #3 In the New Economy, most new jobs are low-wage jobs.
REALITY Low-wage jobs are growing, but higher-wage jobs are growing
even
faster.
Between 1989 and 1998, high-paying jobs grew 20 percent, while
low-paying
jobs grew 10 percent. Middle-paying jobs showed no growth.
MYTH #4 Technological change kills more jobs than it creates.
REALITY Technology changes the composition of jobs and raises
productivity
and incomes, but it does not raise the natural rate of unemployment.
On
the contrary, the dynamic New Economy has reduced unemployment rates
to a
25 year low.
New technologies (e.g., tractors, disease resistant crops, etc.)
spurred
the decline in agricultural jobs. However, as food became cheaper
(American consumers spend less of their income on food than any other
nation) consumers spent their increased real income on other things
(e.g.,
cars, appliances, entertainment), creating employment in other
sectors.
The 30-year low for unemployment after the wave of corporate
downsizing
and technology introduction makes it clear that technology doesn't
reduce
the total number of jobs in the economy. As new information
technologies
begin to raise productivity growth rates, this same positive dynamic
will
continue, leading to higher incomes, not fewer jobs.
MYTH #5 Corporate reengineering has meant the downsizing of large
numbers
of middle class, managerial jobs.
REALITY In the last nine years, three million new managerial jobs have
been added (14.8 million in 1989 to 18 million in 1998).49
Despite the fact that New Economy organizations flatten hierarchies,
the
New Economy spurs greater demand for more managers who focus on
quality,
innovation, design, marketing, and finance.
New Economy Optimist's Myths:
MYTH #1 The U.S. economy is in the midst of unprecedented economic
boom
that began in the early 1980s.
REALITY Growth in per capita GDP, productivity, and wages since the
1980s
have lagged behind growth rates in the 1960s and early 1970s.
While job growth was stronger in the 1980s and 1990s than in the 1960s
and
1970s, productivity and per-capita GDP grew about half as fast.
MYTH #2 Income inequality is not a serious problem.
REALITY Between 1980 and 1996, real incomes went up 58 percent for the
wealthiest 5 percent of American households, but less than 4 percent
for
the lowest 60 percent.
Household income inequality has increased and has made it more
difficult
for many Americans to achieve the American dream. The strength of
America's economy has historically been that most Americans have felt
that
they can prosper if they get an education, work hard, and play by the
rules. If this compact is broken, our social fabric will start to
disintegrate.
MYTH #3 The dispersing tendencies of the New Economy mean the death of
large corporations and the twilight of government.
REALITY Large corporations and government are reinventing themselves
and
still play key roles in the economy, to say the least.
Because information technology lets firms reach larger markets and
take
advantage of economies of scale, the average size of firms in the New
Economy is growing, not shrinking. Moreover, just as the Internet did
not
mean the end of large companies like IBM, it also does not bode the
end of
government. Rather, it creates a requirement that governments
re-engineer
themselves to be faster, more flexible, and smarter.
MYTH #4 In the New Economy, a significantly growing share of the
workforce
are self-employed entrepreneurs.
REALITY Entrepreneurs represent about the same share of the workforce
as
ever.
Between 1975 and 1994, self-employment as a share of total employment
remained level at approximately 8.7 percent (10.6 million workers)-an
all-time low.

Index Home | Introduction
SECTION I | SECTION II | SECTION III
Productivity Paradox | Knowledge Economy
Nine Myths | Data Sources | Endnotes | The Authors

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)
Technology, Innovation, and New Economy Project
600 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E., Suite 400, Washington DC 20003
Phone: (202) 546-0007

www.ppionline.org

The Redistribution of Wealth - Labor Union Style
Theoretical/Philosophical Issues | Politics/Government | Personal
Freedom Issues | Regulations | Countries and Regions | Thinkers | Free
Market Organizations | Do It Yourself | None of The Above |
Home > Politics and Government > ; Unions and Other
Organizations
>

Email login:

Password:

Search for:
BooksMagazinesDVD & VideoMusicMapsOut of Print
BooksBritish
BooksBritish MagazinesBritish DVD & VideoBritish Music
Keywords:

The Redistribution of Wealth -
Labor Union Style
Robert G. Anderson
The redistribution of wealth as well as the creation of wealth is a
natural development of the market process. Voluntary exchanges among
individuals as producers and consumers constantly bring about the
creation and redistribution of wealth.
The advancement in the material well-being of individuals that
results
from a developing social division of labor is one of the great
blessings
of a free market society. The specialization of individuals
producing
goods and services for trade in the marketplace has enhanced labor
output far beyond anything that was attained by individuals who
produced
exclusively for their own direct consumption.
With the market price system as their guide, entrepreneurs respond
to
their assessment of consumer desires by bringing together capital
and
labor in the production of goods and services. The future behavior
of
the consumers in the marketplace ultimately rewards or penalizes
these
entrepreneurs for their decisions. If the entrepreneur's judgment in
the
productive employment of capital and labor is correct, as evidenced
by
subsequent consumer buying, profits result. A lack of consumer
buying,
however, reflects losses to the entrepreneur for his erroneous
employment of these productive resources.
The natural market process is the motivating force for all
productive
effort, and countless daily activities of this type result in an
orderly
market price system. Such voluntary behavior by producers and
consumers
responding to market prices not only creates new wealth but results
in
the constant redistribution of wealth within a free society.
Competitive Allocation
There can be no reasonable objection to such redistribution of
wealth
when it results from voluntary exchange in a competitive
marketplace;
quite the contrary, such market processes are continually directing
productive resources to their highest use and thus bringing about
the
greatest material progress.
The redistribution of wealth by labor unions, however, differs
profoundly from the market process. Unlike the transfer of wealth in
a
voluntary exchange between a producer and consumer, the shift of
wealth
by labor unions is accomplished involuntarily, by force and
intimidation. Furthermore, the magnitude of the wealth transferred
by
labor unions as well as the extent of the burden upon those deprived
can
never be calculated. These are unseen effects of the labor union's
impact on the market.
An understanding of this distinction requires an awareness of
labor's
role in the marketplace. Contrary to the popular misconception that
conflict prevails between labor and capital in productive
employment,
these independent factors of production actually complement one
another.
A joining together of capital and labor by the entrepreneur stems
from
the exercise of his foresight in the anticipation of future consumer
behavior, and the two factors work together for the benefit of
consumers.
The Active Force
It is competition among entrepreneurs for capital and labor, not
competition between capital and labor, that is the active force in
the
free market. Within the context of a particular productive effort,
capital and labor join together in producing the output of goods and
services for the benefit of consumers. The ultimate valuation of
these
goods and services by consumers in turn establishes the value upon
the
specific productive factors employed.
It is true that capital frequently displaces labor in productive
activity, as new and better machinery is invented. But far from a
destructive, competitive force harming labor, such labor saving
devices
are the primary ingredient for material progress. Increases in both
the
quantity and quality of productive capital-tools and machinery
contribute to an increase in labor's productivity.
The value of labor is dependent upon "getting more goods out of the
woods in a given period of time." When capital is employed in
production
the output of labor is enhanced. While greater work effort can
increase
production, the history of man's material progress has primarily
occurred through the use of capital-more efficient tools. It is an
obvious truism that a man working with a machine can produce more
than a
man with his bare hands, and on a greater scale the observation that
the
great consuming nations are the great producing nations is directly
related to their abundance of capital.
It is equally true that labor competes with labor. Just as
entrepreneurs
bid against one another for productive labor, so too does worker bid
against worker for productive employment. This competition among
entrepreneurs, and among workers in the labor market, is a continual
force that directs productive resources to their highest and most
efficient use.
Competition therefore, rather than being destructive, can thus be
seen
as a guiding force toward the attainment of efficiency in the
employment
of productive resources. The substitution of capital for labor,
which
increases the productivity of labor, makes the labor correspondingly
more valuable to competing entrepreneurs. This combination of
greater
capital employment coupled with competing entrepreneurs seeking
competing workers, results in ever-increasing benefits for labor.
The Exploitation Theory
The historical evolution of the union in the labor market had its
intellectual roots in Marxian theories of exploitation. Arguing from
the
defunct labor theory of value as its premise, the exploitation
theory
held that an inherent conflict existed between labor and capital.
The
labor theory of value erroneously assumed that the source of
economic
value was labor input. The returns paid to capital and the
entrepreneur,
therefore, were necessarily assumed to come from an exploitation of
the
labor employed in production. Interest and profits were considered
"unearned," and the increment paid to them created "surplus value,"
a
capitalist accumulation of productive resources in fewer and fewer
hands.
Modern marginal utility theory as well as actual experience in the
labor
market has totally demolished this fallacious labor theory of value
and
its erroneous conclusions. It is now well-recognized that the true
source of value is subjective, that it is the individual tastes,
preferences, likes and dislikes of consumers which give economic
value
to productive resources. The reason that productive resources have
value
is because of the contribution they make in satisfying the desires
and
demands of consumers.
Entrepreneurs try to anticipate what these future consumer values
will
be and to direct market resources into productive activity to
ultimately
meet these values. The pursuit of profit is the motivating force for
this risk-taking activity. This return of profits to the successful
entrepreneur resulted from his bringing together independent factors
of
production into a complementary state, today. To this end, the
factors
land, labor, and capital were drawn together for the present benefit
of
consumers.
Contributing Factors
While labor is an important part of productive activity, it is
certainly
not the sole contributing factor to productive output. Compensation
to
the entrepreneur and to the owners of capital and land for their
roles
in bringing about desired goods and services for the consumer must
also
be paid. What this payment will be to each contributing factor of
production is consumer-determined by the resources they willingly
exchange for the end-product of the productive enterprise.
The rent for land, the interest for capital, the wages for labor,
and
the profits for entrepreneurs are determined by market forces. That
is,
the given supply of each factor of production relative to the demand
for
this factor determines its market price. And since it is the final
judgment of the consumers on the worth of the productive output
which
gives value to these productive resources, the greater the quality
and
quantity of output that these productive resources can generate, the
more valuable they are in terms of market prices.
It is for this reason that an increasing abundance of land, capital,
and
successful entrepreneurs improves the returns to labor. As the total
supply of these other productive factors increases, relative to the
supply of labor, the greater will be labor's share of the total
returns.
The higher and higher wages earned by labor, therefore, have evolved
from the greater productive output made possible by a declining cost
of
interest, rent, and entrepreneurial expertise as the supply of each
of
these has increased.
While the concept of labor unions originated in a labor/capital
conflict
theory that has long since been refuted, and the advancement of
living
standards can be directly identified with the market process, the
labor
union continues to exist today as an imposing force.
The historical growth of unions to their present influence in the
labor
market has little, if anything, to do with their economic role. An
understanding of labor union growth requires an understanding of how
the
power of legal, government-sanctioned monopolies can displace the
market
force of competition.
The role of law in a market society is to protect life and property.
This function is vital to the preservation of peace and harmony
among
the members of society. Such a role demands equality before the law
if
legal justice is to prevail. To violate this principle of
universality
guarantees injustice.
Special Powers of Coercion Promote Growth of Unions
It is an historical fact that the growth and presence of labor
unions
can be traced directly to violations of these legal concepts. Prior
to
1930 fewer than four million members of the labor force were
unionized
in the United States. Beginning with the passage of the
Norris-LaGuardia
Act in 1933, and the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, unions
acquired special-interest legal advantages denied to any other
institutions or individuals. There is no question that a definite
correlation can be found between the preferential legal treatment
accorded unions at that time, and the twenty-one million union
workers
in today's United States labor force.
The growth of union membership during the past forty years would
never
have been possible without these special powers of coercion.
Competitive
free-market labor long ago would have displaced this inefficient
structuring of unionized labor had not unions possessed their legal
advantages. Modem unionism has been the offspring of a statist
society
of legal privileges.
It must be pointed out that modern unionism is not synonymous with a
voluntary association of workers. It is frequently argued that
unions
are simply a cooperative arrangement of workers engaging in
collective
negotiation with their employer or employers. To believe that this
is
all that constitutes modern unionism would be exceedingly naive
because
it ignores reality.
Certainly there can be no moral objection to workers creating a
voluntary, private association as their representative in employment
negotiations with their employers. From an economic viewpoint,
however,
such a collective approach can never serve the individual workers
interests as effectively as he can serve himself. The
collectivization
of individual workers is not consistent with the competitive
conditions
that exist between workers for available jobs offered by employers.
The
establishment of a union of workers must subordinate the interests
of
the individual worker to the group.
It became obvious very early in the history of the labor union
movement
that the competing threat from workers in the free labor market
would
lead to the demise of unionism. The survival of labor unions in a
competitive labor market would prove impossible as long as freedom
of
entry by new workers was allowed in the union labor market.
Furthermore,
the more productive workers within the union itself would inevitably
discover the price they were paying as members of the collective
group.
Violence and Privilege
The survival of unions was dependent upon the use of both private
violence and legislated favoritism. It is no accident that the
entire
history of union growth is marked with examples of violence. To
survive
and grow, unions systematically resorted to physical attacks on
persons
and property. Efforts at retaliation by employers led to mass
conflict.
Public opinion, swayed by a belief in labor/capital conflict
theories,
passively tolerated and sanctioned this union violence.
As long as the general belief was that outbreaks of violence were
caused
by employers fighting to preserve their power over exploited
workers,
the political climate was established for the creation of pro-union
legislation. Union propaganda had successfully molded public opinion
into believing that unions were the means by which working
conditions
were improved.
It is a simple truism that ideas determine actions. While truth will
ultimately prevail in the intellectual battle of ideas, the belief
in
fallacious ideas meanwhile will chart our directions, and lead us to
the
disastrous consequences of these erroneous ideas. And so it has been
with the labor theory of value and its concomitant conclusion of
exploited labor under capitalism.
Arguing from these intellectual errors, the union was seen as a
device
to combat socialism and preserve capitalism from its inherent,
self-generated defects. Believing that the individual worker was
defenseless against the exploitation of the employer, the union has
presented itself as a "progressive friend" of labor. By banding
together, the workers would be a "countervailing power" within the
labor/ capital conflict environment that was believed to exist, Such
fallacious beliefs have, indeed, caused needless turmoil among men
and
destruction of property. Armed with the passive support of public
opinion and enabling legislation, unions have inflicted massive
violence
upon persons and property in their attainment of monopoly power in
the
labor market.
It is imperative to recognize the true nature of modern unionism.
The
union today is a legal cartel. It is as reactionary an institution
as
the guild of medieval times, but more insidious in its violence. Its
violence against competing workers (scabs), and its intimidation
against
employers (strike), are matters of historical fact. The ominous
presence
of union labor today is mute testimony to the triumph of monopoly
violence over peaceful competition.
The economic impact of the union as a legal cartel is no different
from
that of any other monopoly. Its preservation of power is dependent
upon
government legal protection, and/or private violence. The power of
the
labor union is particularly significant because it relies on both of
these sources-all the power the law allows plus what can be usurped
through private violence.
Granted legal immunity from the judicial injunction, and exempted
from
jury trial in the United States, the legal power of the union
against
employers is awesome. By the execution of the strike and the illegal
use
of private violence to restrict replacement of striking workers, a
union
can effectively enforce its monopolistic wage demands against an
employer.
A Progressive Force?
The redistribution of wealth by legal plunder or private violence is
nothing new in the history of mankind. What is new, however, is to
refer
to unions as a "progressive" force as they engage in the destruction
of
the peace and harmony of the capitalist order.
The growth of union power in the private labor market was in direct
proportion to its effective use of the law and private violence. The
abdication by professional managers of responsibility to corporate
owners of broadly-held stock companies made the task of unions even
easier. Rather than resist and risk bad publicity by replacing
striking
workers with new workers, the professional managers of large
corporate
employers yielded to union demands for higher wages. The unions thus
succeeded in acquiring for their workers a wage rate higher than
would
have been attainable under conditions of a free, competitive labor
market.
This situation can be clearly seen wherever labor unions are present
in
a labor market. Union wage rates are significantly higher than the
wages
paid for similar labor that has not been unionized. The tragedy has
been
to ascribe this differential to the union's ability to raise the
general
wage rates of all labor, rather than to the use of their monopoly
power
in raising the wages of just some of the union workers in the labor
force.
The direct economic impact of a legal cartel is clearly visible. By
forcefully preventing entry of any competitive supplier, the cartel
is
able to command a monopoly price for its services. The result is
that
the consumer of goods and services offered by a cartel is prevented
from
acquiring alternative goods and services from competitive sources.
This is precisely the case with employers acquiring union labor. The
supply of workers bidding for the jobs offered by employers is
restricted by the union. Furthermore, no individual is permitted to
negotiate directly for himself with an employer of union labor. The
employer is forced to negotiate exclusively with the union for his
labor
requirements. Irrespective of market labor supply factors that would
contribute to the determination of a market wage rate, the employer
is
forced to negotiate fixed wage rates with the union.
Above-Market Wage Rates
The legal advantages and private violence of the union are exercised
in
acquiring wage rates higher than would be paid by the market. The
employer, in the interests of short-run peace and a return to
productive
activity, is intimidated into accepting the wage demands of the
union.
Regardless of any changes in the market forces of supply and demand,
the
employers are bound to their fixed wages with the union.
While the union, in the exercise of its powers as a cartel, succeeds
in
acquiring the payment of wage rates above the prevailing market
rate, it
cannot insulate itself from the inexorable forces of economic law
that
must follow from such action. Other consequences, less visible and
unseen by many, inevitably result from such forceful intervention in
the
market.
The most obvious market response is that the quantity of labor
demanded,
as with any economic good, will be less at a higher price than at a
lower price. Many consumers will be unwilling to voluntarily
exchange
the greater resources required at the higher price. How many
consumers
will refuse to exchange is dependent upon the subjective valuations
of
the consumers for the particular economic good. While this knowledge
can
never be known with certainty, the magnitude of these marginal
consumers
is the determining factor in establishing what the economist calls
elasticity or inelasticity of demand. Economic theory can only
inform
us, however, that all things being equal, fewer consumers will
exchange
at a higher price than at a lower price. The quantity of the change
is
dependent upon the price change and the values of the consumers.
The Employer as Consumer
In the labor market it is the employer who is the consumer. When the
price of labor (wages) is increased, the quantity of labor demanded
by
employers will decline. The extent of the decline, as with any
economic
good, is determined by the amount of the increase in the price of
labor
and the number of marginal employers (consumers) in the particular
labor
market. The higher that wages are forced above the market rate, the
greater the decline in demand for the labor by these consuming
employers. President Calvin Coolidge put it well, "as more and more
workers lose their jobs, unemployment results!"
The surplus labor, unemployment, is an inevitable result when
employers
become unable to recover from consumers the higher cost of their
productive output. The force of the unions can increase wage rates,
but
that same force cannot be imposed upon the buying decisions of the
consumer. As employers raise their asking prices to cover the
union-imposed labor costs, many consumers will cease to buy the
goods
and services offered. The resultant decline in consumer buying
requires
a curtailment of production from the level that had prevailed.
For some employers, this necessity for reducing production levels
may
prove fatal. At lowered levels of production the employer may be
operating so far below his breakeven point that he has no
alternative
but to cease production entirely. More typically, it will mean a
reduction in unit efficiency for employers, as the more efficient
employers are transformed into less efficient employers. The decline
of
their efficiency in production means that fewer workers are
required.
At the higher wages acquired through union force, both the
unemployed
and those within the free labor market are attracted to the higher
paying jobs in the union labor market. However, this additional
supply
of labor can have no competitive impact on the union labor market.
The
employers are bound to their fixed union wage scale and are
forbidden to
employ competing labor at lower wages.
Unemployment
The failure of the union-imposed wages to adjust to the competitive
conditions of the market leads to both unemployment and a distortion
of
labor allocation. The magnitude of the unemployment and distortion
is
dependent upon the difference between union-imposed wages and the
market
wage. The unions are well aware of this consequence and their
propaganda
constantly seeks to conceal their role as its cause. Their public
image
as the "friend of labor" forces them to perpetuate the myths that
unemployment and the misallocation of labor is caused by the
capitalist
business cycle and greedy, profit-seeking employers.
While the rhetoric of the union claims no limit to what it can
accomplish for the worker in terms of higher wages, the economic
limitations of massive unemployment from exorbitant wage demands is
understood. The long-term survival of the union depends upon a large
membership, and the preservation of a large membership of workers
requires the economic survival of the employers. It is a constant
balancing act, therefore, as the union demands wages above the
market,
but not so high as to destroy the entire market for the union labor,
and
with it, the unions themselves.
A Free Market Sector
The capacity of the union to accomplish this feat, almost with
impunity,
lies in an institutional requirement that is essential to union
success.
The union must have a concurrent free labor market existing beside
it. A
competitive labor market that responds to changing forces of supply
and
demand is needed to absorb the unemployed that are driven out of the
union labor market.
Less than one-quarter of the labor market is unionized in the United
States today. Furthermore, not all union labor is earning above
market
wage rates. It is probably a safe assumption that fewer than twenty
percent of those in the United States labor market are receiving
wage
rates above what could be acquired under free market conditions.
It is this small minority of union workers receiving above market
wage
rates that generates the insidious redistribution of wealth in the
labor
market. The Tanstaafl principle (There ain't no such thing as a free
lunch) has no better demonstration than by this example somebody
pays.
There are two groups that pay directly-those who are employed in the
free labor market, and those who consume union labor market goods
and
services. Ultimately, everyone pays indirectly in the form of a
lowered
standard of living resulting from the disruption of the productive
system and reduction of the incentive to the accumulation of
capital.
Workers who would be employed in the union labor market, if freedom
of
entry prevailed, have no choice but to compete in the free labor
market
where supply and demand forces still determine wages. Their bidding
in
competition with the existing supply of free market labor causes the
wages of free market labor to fall. The result is that wages in the
free
labor market are lowered because of the entry of the unemployed
workers
forced out of the union labor market.
This shift of wealth, higher wages to union workers at a cost of
lower
wages to free market workers, is a subtle, but nevertheless very
real,
redistribution of wealth. It is, indeed, an exploitation of labor by
labor, that is, a forced transfer of wealth from the free labor
market
to the union labor market in the form of differing wage payments.
Also harmed are the consumers of goods and services produced by
union
labor. The law of costs ultimately requires that the higher union
wages
must be borne by these consumers if production is to continue.
Future
production at the above market labor costs imposed by unions, exacts
its
toll in the form of consumer prices higher than would prevail in a
competitive market. Once again, a forced redistribution of wealth
occurs
as the consumer must pay the higher costs of union labor, but of
what
magnitude can never be known. The competitive market price in the
absence of the union labor is unknown.
While such redistribution of wealth by the force of union power
represents exploitation and injustice, the capacity of unions to
transfer wealth to themselves is limited by the ultimate consumer.
If
union wage demands become too excessive, employers are destroyed by
the
failure of consumer buying. In the so-called private sector labor
market
it is a continual balancing act that is pursued by the union.
There is, however, a new and far more effective labor market that
unions
can exploit. This is the so-called public sector labor market, the
labor
market composed of government employees.
Unlike the private labor market that survives by its capacity to
produce
goods and services that are voluntarily acquired by consumers in
willing
exchange, the public sector labor market is supported by the taxing
power of government. The law of costs does not apply to government
activities as it does to private employers in a competitive free
market.
As a matter of fact, cost has nothing to do with the price of
government
activities. More often than not, government-provided services are
offered free of price to the consumer. The costs of these government
services are generally imposed upon the taxpayer.
Monopoly, Bureaucracy, and Union Power in Public Sector
Union power in the public sector labor market is further enhanced by
the
monopoly structure of government - provided services, and the
bureaucratic system of government management. Market competition in
the
form of freedom of entry in supplying alternative sources of goods
and
services to the consumer is generally prohibited by the force of
law.
Unlike the private labor market where higher union labor costs
invite
competition from free labor market employers, the public sector
labor
market is protected by legal monopoly. Competitive alternatives to
the
consumer are denied by the force of law. Whether it is policemen,
firemen, teachers, sanitation workers or clerical government
workers,
the determination of public sector wages is more a political or
bureaucratic decision than a market-determined decision by
consumers.
Resistance to union wage demands in the public sector stems more
from
political considerations than from productivity considerations. It
is
usually the vocal outcry of the constituency, not the bureaucratic
manager, that objects to the excessive wage demands of the unions in
the
public sector. After all, the bureaucratic manager himself is a
worker
in the public sector labor market, and any union gains for his
subordinates accrue to him as well. The bureaucratic manager has
even
less incentive to resist union demands than his counterpart in the
private sector market-the professional manager of the large
corporation.

The wage costs of public sector workers, like any and all costs of
government, ultimately are borne by the taxpayers. Whereas the union
redistributes wealth to its workers from expropriating the resources
of
consumers and free market labor in the private sector, the
redistribution of wealth to the public sector worker comes primarily
from increased taxation.
Not confronted with the problems of competitive workers or unwilling
consumers, the public sector union can significantly increase the
magnitude of its wealth redistribution. The only effective
limitation to
such union power is the same force that limits the whole of
government-the private wealth of the citizenry that can be seized by
government taxation.
Government labor unions have been quick to observe this massive
increase
in their power to redistribute wealth, and naturally have urged an
expansion in public sector unionization. To this end, the growth of
government in economic affairs has opened a new source of labor
union
power in the forced redistribution of wealth.
It is a sad commentary of our age that the combination of economic
ignorance and mans blind pursuit of power has brought us to this
point.
Any reversal in this state of affairs can occur only if we improve
our
economic understanding and structure our legal institutions to
safeguard
our lives and property from such private power abuses.
The hope of the future is in changing ideas. Unions exist today as a
monument to intellectual error. They are the product of a statist
society that permits the private abuse of power in the forcible
redistribution of wealth. Any return to a free society demands the
realization that competition and freedom, not legal privilege and
violence, are the way to general prosperity for all.

At the time of the original publication, Mr. Anderson was
Executive
Secretary and Director of Seminars, The Foundation for Economic
Education.

Reprinted with permission from The Freeman, a publication of The
Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., July, 1979, Vol. 29, No.
7.

United They Fall : Unions Won't Prosper if American Corporations
Don't

Advanced Search
Help

Books
Policy Studies
Cato Policy Report
Cato Journal
Regulation Magazine
Cato Handbook for Congress
Cato Supreme Court Review
Congressional Testimony
Legal Briefs
Cato Audio
Cato's Letters
To Be Governed...
Events Archive

Make a Contribution
About Sponsorship
Alternative Giving Methods
Levels and Benefits

Pocket Constitution

Email Updates

Cato Audio

Cato Store

Cato on Your PDA

Cato University

El Cato

January 12, 2003
United They Fall : Unions Won't Prosper if American Corporations Don't
by Stephen Moore
Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth and a senior fellow
at
the Cato Institute.
Last week the machinists' union indignantly rejected the latest
contract
offer by bankrupt United Airlines, complaining that they were being
unfairly rushed into a bad deal. One could only wonder whether the
union
bosses have lost all sense of economic reality.
With $2 billion in debt and daily operating losses in the millions,
United
has to cut costs dramatically in the next several months or the
airline
will be out of business. The unions are hardly innocent victims of the
demise of United, which not that long ago was a financial titan among
airlines. In fact, the extravagant pay scales union members enjoy is
one
reason for United's swift plummet toward insolvency. Through
collective
bargaining, United pilots and mechanics have extracted pay structures
that
are by leaps and bounds the highest in the industry. Such costs have
made
the airline hopelessly uncompetitive against discount rivals like
Southwest and JetBlue. Federal officials cited out-of-control salaries
as
a primary explanation for turning down United's recent $1.8
billion-dollar
loan guarantee request.
It would appear that the pilots and mechanics will soon discover an
important lesson: The alternative to accepting reduced salaries will
be no
jobs at all.
The United labor fracas raises the question of whether unions have so
outserved their usefulness that they are now doing more harm than good
for
American workers. The unions are already losing hundreds of thousands
of
members every year, and their recent behavior suggests that labor
bosses
are intent on accelerating their own demise.
Consider, for example, the narrowly averted New York Transit strike,
in
which the union was demanding massive pay increases from an
all-but-bankrupt municipal agency. New York City is facing its worst
fiscal crisis since the late 1970s (when President Ford allegedly told
the
city to "drop dead"). Yet the comatose transit union, whose workers
already receive about 30 to 40 percent more compensation than
comparably
skilled private sector workers, demanded even more concessions from
the
city. Lord knows where the money was supposed to come from.
Then there is the headline-grabbing case of the dockworker strike on
the
West Coast this past October. The dockworkers, who with overtime can
earn
six-figure salaries, were essentially striking against the evils of
technological progress. The union's beef was with the decision to
automate
the tabulation of containers moving in and out of ports. This would be
the
economic equivalent of the accounting profession trying to block the
introduction of calculators.
"I'm not talking about Star Wars," one industry executive pleaded.
"I'm
talking about everyday technology. Think supermarket scanners. FedEx
or
UPS tracking systems. Simple information management." Said another:
"The
top ports in Asia, and in Europe, are at least a decade ahead of us.
Our
ports literally cannot keep up."
Before President Bush invoked the Taft-Hartley Act to suspend the work
stoppage, the American economy was losing an estimated $1 billion a
day in
output and, throughout the economy, thousands of union and non-union
jobs
were put at risk.
In each of these cases, the labor unions' irrational objections to
technological change and economic reality have needlessly reduced the
profitability and the competitiveness of American firms. The Luddite
attitude of "man versus machine" will not protect jobs or raise wage
scales. Just the opposite: Throughout the last century,
computerization
and technological progress have been the driving force behind the
increased productivity of workers and their higher salaries. For
example,
one study recently found that when an employee works with a computer
in
front of him, his salary is likely to be $10,000 to $20,000 higher
than if
he is without one.
One of the most baffling and self-defeating of union tactics is the $1
million TV and radio campaign by the Communications Workers of America
against Verizon, the Baby Bell of the Northeast. As even the most
casual
investor knows, the last three years have been brutally unkind to the
telecom industry. In 2000, the telecom sector contracted by 28 percent
and
bled almost $1.7 trillion in lost share values. Overall telecom
expenditures are down 45 percent this year--a cut in capital
investment of
over $30 billion. More than half a million telecom workers have lost
their
jobs. That hasn't deterred the CWA from spending members' dues
blasting
Verizon's planned cutbacks of about 3,500 jobs in the New York region.
The union complains with some validity that the firm is paying
million-dollar bonuses to management even as it executes its
downsizing
plans. Those bonuses do seem unwarranted given the wobbly financial
condition of the industry. But the larger economic reality here is
that
Verizon is losing revenue as government regulations force it to lease
phone lines to competitor companies at fire-sale rates. The firm is
losing
hundreds of thousands of phone lines to competitors, and its landline
business is surrendering market share to cell phones, e-mail, and
cable
telephony.
Meanwhile the incendiary union ads heap abuse on Verizon and
characterize
management as a gang of corporate crooks. How is this going to help
communications workers? The strategy makes about as much sense as Kobe
Bryant and Allen Iverson running TV ads encouraging fans not to go to
NBA
games. It is precisely such self-destructive union policies that have
made
new age industries, including high tech, fiercely anti-union.
Over the past 30 years, union membership as a share of the workforce
has
fallen by half. Only one in six workers today is a dues-paying union
member, and the percentage of private sector union workers is much
lower
than that.
In fact, pollster Scott Rasmussen has pointed out that on Election
Day,
three times as many voters were stock owners than union members. These
workers understand that their 401(k) plans and their IRAs are
dependent on
the profitability of American industry. This reality--that workers can
prosper only when the companies they work for do--has eluded many
union
officials.
Support the Cato Institute
Send this page to a friend

Printer Friendly Version

1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20001-5403
Phone (202) 842-0200 Fax (202) 842-3490
All Rights Reserved © 2003 Cato Institute

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 20th 03, 12:56 AM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...

They really are just more of the same arguments, from the same doctrianire
voices.
They ignore U.S. history from 1850 to 1950.
Historically, Unionism has improved the wages and working conditions
of the American worker.
Although you are not a union member, and neither am I, unionism
has created the environment which allows you to enjoy
a good standard of living, a reasonable and safe work environment, and many
of
the legal protections you now enjoy.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Michael Mckelvy

October 20th 03, 01:49 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > They are not popular except with the very bottom end of the
> intellectual
> > > > scale. Those with the least skill are doing the most complaining
and
> > > > expecting the most pay and benefits.
> > > >
> > > > Of the entire workforce only 10-15% of it is unionized, this hardly
> > > > qualifies as popular.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > It was a sad day when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Procalmation.
> > >
> > >
> > Your equating non-union with slavery shows a major disconnect with
> reality.
>
>
> No, I am equating you with antiquated thinking, even for a reactionary
right
> winger.
>
There's nothing antiquated about realizing that the economydoes better all
around when people get appropriate compensation for the labor they perform.

It's not how much you money you make, it's how much you can buy with it.

The more it costs in labor the more it costs at the check out line.
>

>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael Mckelvy

October 20th 03, 01:51 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> They really are just more of the same arguments, from the same doctrianire
> voices.
> They ignore U.S. history from 1850 to 1950.
> Historically, Unionism has improved the wages and working conditions
> of the American worker.
> Although you are not a union member, and neither am I, unionism
> has created the environment which allows you to enjoy
> a good standard of living, a reasonable and safe work environment, and
many
> of
> the legal protections you now enjoy.
>
There is ample evidence that these things would have evloved without unions.
People want a safe environment to work in and vote with their feet when such
is not provided.
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

GeoSynch

October 20th 03, 10:41 AM

'Bolshevik' Yustabe wrote:

> Michael Mckelvy wrote:

> > Anybody who disagrees with a Liberal must be a Fascist?

> No, and I am not a Liberal.
> I voted for George Bush.
> I support our President's war on terror.
> I support his tax cutting economic policies.

Come off it, Sackman - you're spinning like a top.
Mikey made a monkey out of you on this thread.
You're arguing sheer mendacity or you're on the
verge of supporting socialism. Which is it? ;-)

GeoSynch

Lionel

October 20th 03, 11:33 AM

GeoSynch wrote:
> 'Bolshevik' Yustabe wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>
>
>>>Anybody who disagrees with a Liberal must be a Fascist?
>
>
>>No, and I am not a Liberal.
>>I voted for George Bush.
>>I support our President's war on terror.
>>I support his tax cutting economic policies.
>
>
> Come off it, Sackman - you're spinning like a top.
> Mikey made a monkey out of you on this thread.
> You're arguing sheer mendacity or you're on the
> verge of supporting socialism. Which is it? ;-)
>
>
> GeoSynch
>
>
I don't think that socialism never brings to much trouble in USA so
please Geo keep on speaking what you really know.

Lionel

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 20th 03, 01:19 PM

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> 'Bolshevik' Yustabe wrote:
>
> > Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>
> > > Anybody who disagrees with a Liberal must be a Fascist?
>
> > No, and I am not a Liberal.
> > I voted for George Bush.
> > I support our President's war on terror.
> > I support his tax cutting economic policies.
>
> Come off it, Sackman - you're spinning like a top.
> Mikey made a monkey out of you on this thread.
> You're arguing sheer mendacity or you're on the
> verge of supporting socialism. Which is it? ;-)
>
>
> GeoSynch
>

The concept of unionism is not Socialism.
Although, in the past, Socialists have tried to infiltrate unions,
sometimes successfully. At its core, unionism is basedupon
capitalistic principals.

Coprorations are a conglomeration of individual investm,ents
amassed to form one large enterprise, larger than on any of the
individual investors could intiate. This brings economy
of scale, and masses the corporate entity's
economic power.

The labor union does the same thing for the employee.

BTW, I am slightly right of center!!
GeoSynch calls me a Bolshevik, and Sanders calls me a Reactionary!!!

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Lionel

October 20th 03, 01:38 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "GeoSynch" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>'Bolshevik' Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>>
>>>>Anybody who disagrees with a Liberal must be a Fascist?
>>
>>>No, and I am not a Liberal.
>>>I voted for George Bush.
>>>I support our President's war on terror.
>>>I support his tax cutting economic policies.
>>
>>Come off it, Sackman - you're spinning like a top.
>>Mikey made a monkey out of you on this thread.
>>You're arguing sheer mendacity or you're on the
>>verge of supporting socialism. Which is it? ;-)
>>
>>
>>GeoSynch
>>
>
>
>
> The concept of unionism is not Socialism.
> Although, in the past, Socialists have tried to infiltrate unions,
> sometimes successfully.

The above reminds me the old American's paranoia. I thought that it was
now only Muslims and French ! (LOL)
Need more Rosenberg ?

I don't like what I'm going to say but it's not more stupdid than what
you have said :
The mafia has also successfully infiltrate the unions sometimes... ;o)

GeoSynch

October 21st 03, 04:37 AM

Lionel wrote:

> I don't think that socialism never brings to much trouble in USA so
> please Geo keep on speaking what you really know.

So, how are you getting along with all those Muslims who have in
recent years seemingly invaded your country?

I hear they like to overturn cars just for the fun of it.

GeoSynch

GeoSynch

October 21st 03, 05:14 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> The concept of unionism is not Socialism.

See the 2nd paragraph of this link of the Democratic Socialists of America:
http://dsausa.org/about/history.html

"Socialists were influential in the leadership of some major American Federation
of Labor (AFL) unions, as well as in independent unions such as the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers. Socialist and non-Socialist radicals in the Industrial Workers
of the World (IWW) pioneered in the organization of unions among immigrant
workers in mass production industries..."

Or how about this little gem from the Socialist Labor Party http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

"Under socialism, all authority will originate from the workers, integrally united in
Socialist Industrial Unions."

> Although, in the past, Socialists have tried to infiltrate unions,
> sometimes successfully. At its core, unionism is basedupon
> capitalistic principals.

You may have listened a little too much to Joan Baez singin' 'bout Joe Hill lately. ;-)

> Coprorations are a conglomeration of individual investm,ents
> amassed to form one large enterprise, larger than on any of the
> individual investors could intiate. This brings economy
> of scale, and masses the corporate entity's
> economic power.

You seem to be trying to say that *all* corporations are trying to corner the market
on labor. If they *ALL* concertedly acted in such an oligopolistic manner, then
there would be some truth to what you allude to. But the truth of the matter is that
most all corporations - just like most all individuals - act in their own best self-interest.

This creates a marketplace of jobs where the individual can choose to work at the
job that best suits his circumstances: education, skills, locale and other such considerations.

If, after all, over 90% of the non-governmental workforce is *not* unionized, why
would not all these individuals acting in their own best interests *not* be clamoring to
create or join a union?

Unions, with their exclusionary practices, impose an unwarranted societal cost; for instance,
when the pandering Gray Davis recently signed the bill that guaranteed that crossing guards
and other such union members would receive pensions equivalent to 80% to 90% of their
salaries, just who do you think is ultimately going to have to foot the bill for that?

> The labor union does the same thing for the employee.

From an economic standpoint, unions drive up the cost of goods and services beyond what
their equilibrium price would be in the marketplace based on supply and demand.

> BTW, I am slightly right of center!!

Well, at least you have sense enough not to be to the left of it. :-)

> GeoSynch calls me a Bolshevik, and Sanders calls me a Reactionary!!!

You may take solace no one's called you Trotsky yet!

GeoSynch

Lionel

October 21st 03, 06:58 AM

GeoSynch wrote:

> Lionel wrote:
>
>
>>I don't think that socialism never brings to much trouble in USA so
>>please Geo keep on speaking what you really know.
>
>
> So, how are you getting along with all those Muslims who have in
> recent years seemingly invaded your country?
>
> I hear they like to overturn cars just for the fun of it.
>
>
> GeoSynch
>
>
Sincerely ? Very badly.
We are very badly getting along with them.

Lionel

GeoSynch

October 21st 03, 10:20 AM

Lionel wrote:

> > So, how are you getting along with all those Muslims who have in
> > recent years seemingly invaded your country?

> > I hear they like to overturn cars just for the fun of it.

> Sincerely ? Very badly.
> We are very badly getting along with them.

Thank you for an honest answer about that,
something that seems to be in short supply around here.

GeoSynch

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 21st 03, 12:33 PM

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > The concept of unionism is not Socialism.
>
> See the 2nd paragraph of this link of the Democratic Socialists of
America:
> http://dsausa.org/about/history.html
>
> "Socialists were influential in the leadership of some major American
Federation
> of Labor (AFL) unions, as well as in independent unions such as the
Amalgamated
> Clothing Workers. Socialist and non-Socialist radicals in the Industrial
Workers
> of the World (IWW) pioneered in the organization of unions among immigrant
> workers in mass production industries..."
>
> Or how about this little gem from the Socialist Labor Party
http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm
>
> "Under socialism, all authority will originate from the workers,
integrally united in
> Socialist Industrial Unions."
>
> > Although, in the past, Socialists have tried to infiltrate unions,
> > sometimes successfully. At its core, unionism is basedupon
> > capitalistic principals.
>
> You may have listened a little too much to Joan Baez singin' 'bout Joe
Hill lately. ;-)
>
> > Coprorations are a conglomeration of individual investm,ents
> > amassed to form one large enterprise, larger than on any of the
> > individual investors could intiate. This brings economy
> > of scale, and masses the corporate entity's
> > economic power.
>
> You seem to be trying to say that *all* corporations are trying to corner
the market
> on labor. If they *ALL* concertedly acted in such an oligopolistic manner,
then
> there would be some truth to what you allude to. But the truth of the
matter is that
> most all corporations - just like most all individuals - act in their own
best self-interest.
>
> This creates a marketplace of jobs where the individual can choose to work
at the
> job that best suits his circumstances: education, skills, locale and other
such considerations.
>
> If, after all, over 90% of the non-governmental workforce is *not*
unionized, why
> would not all these individuals acting in their own best interests *not*
be clamoring to
> create or join a union?
>
> Unions, with their exclusionary practices, impose an unwarranted societal
cost; for instance,
> when the pandering Gray Davis recently signed the bill that guaranteed
that crossing guards
> and other such union members would receive pensions equivalent to 80% to
90% of their
> salaries, just who do you think is ultimately going to have to foot the
bill for that?
>
> > The labor union does the same thing for the employee.
>
> From an economic standpoint, unions drive up the cost of goods and
services beyond what
> their equilibrium price would be in the marketplace based on supply and
demand.
>
> > BTW, I am slightly right of center!!
>
> Well, at least you have sense enough not to be to the left of it. :-)
>
> > GeoSynch calls me a Bolshevik, and Sanders calls me a Reactionary!!!
>
> You may take solace no one's called you Trotsky yet!
>
>
> GeoSynch
>
>

I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
So did organized crime
Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
some corporations.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nexus 6

October 21st 03, 05:46 PM

> I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> So did organized crime
> Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
> some corporations.

Funny how that doesn't bother the
government-supported-"free"-marketeers. :)

Nexus 6

Michael Mckelvy

October 22nd 03, 03:23 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:Jrdlb.1834$d87.727@okepread05...
>
> > I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> > So did organized crime
> > Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
> > some corporations.
>
> Funny how that doesn't bother the
> government-supported-"free"-marketeers. :)
>
> Nexus 6
>
OSAF!

GeoSynch

October 22nd 03, 03:35 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> So did organized crime
> Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
> some corporations.

Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?

GeoSynch

GeoSynch

October 22nd 03, 03:36 AM

Nexus 6 dribbled:

> > I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> > So did organized crime
> > Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
> > some corporations.

> Funny how that doesn't bother the
> government-supported-"free"-marketeers. :)

Nice idiotic response.

GeoSynch

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 22nd 03, 05:15 AM

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
. net...
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> > So did organized crime
> > Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
> > some corporations.
>
> Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?
>
>
> GeoSynch
>

A nunber of building trade companies in NYC.
particularly in concrete and windows.
Trash haulers, many different cities
Trucking companies
some import/export companies

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

George M. Middius

October 22nd 03, 05:43 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > > Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
> > > some corporations.

> > Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?

> A nunber of building trade companies in NYC.
> particularly in concrete and windows.
> Trash haulers, many different cities
> Trucking companies
> some import/export companies

dock workers

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 05:56 AM

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:Jrdlb.1834$d87.727@okepread05...
>
>>>I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
>>>So did organized crime
>>>Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
>>>some corporations.
>>
>>Funny how that doesn't bother the
>>government-supported-"free"-marketeers. :)
>>
>>Nexus 6
>>
>
> OSAF!

<chuckle>

Gets you every time, Mikey. :)

Good to see ya.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 05:57 AM

GeoSynch wrote:

> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>
>>I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
>>So did organized crime
>>Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
>>some corporations.
>
>
> Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?

Enron, Worldcom, etc.

Organized, and criminal in the extreme.

Make the Mob look like ****ing amateurs.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 06:00 AM

GeoSynch wrote:

> Nexus 6 dribbled:
>
>
>>>I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
>>>So did organized crime
>>>Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
>>>some corporations.
>
>
>>Funny how that doesn't bother the
>>government-supported-"free"-marketeers. :)
>
>
> Nice idiotic response.

Right on the money, in my opinion, which it is.

As is your nonsensical reply, lovingly expressed, or
expectorated.

Rush's absence leaving you without a catch phrase or two to
parrot?

Perhaps Mr. "Polk Award" O'Reilly can come to your rescue.

Or you could consult "Jack-Boots-Comin'-To-Get-Me" Liddy for
a witty riposte.

Dogma4e

October 22nd 03, 06:45 AM

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 02:35:09 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> wrote:

>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>> I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
>> So did organized crime
>> Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
>> some corporations.
>
>Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?
>
>
>GeoSynch
>
>
Ever hear of Aramark? Or Waste Management? Look suspiciously at
general contacting firms that "win" state road contracts. Especially
bridge and tunnel works. Of course, there's always trucking and
stevedores, too.

GeoSynch

October 22nd 03, 07:17 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> > > I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> > > So did organized crime
> > > Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
> > > some corporations.

> > Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?

> A nunber of building trade companies in NYC.
> particularly in concrete and windows.
> Trash haulers, many different cities
> Trucking companies
> some import/export companies

OK, but they're all small potatos, relatively speaking, and they have little or no
impact on the prices for goods and services you or anybody else would have
to pay in general, whereas the unionized grocery worker strike will directly
impact you, because the prices you'll pay for your groceries will increase
and also some of your favorite items you can usually count on being on sale
won't be.

GeoSynch

GeoSynch

October 22nd 03, 07:27 AM

Nexus 6 clucked:

> Right on the money, in my opinion, which it is.

Your opinion ain't worth a farthing.

> As is your nonsensical reply, lovingly expressed, or
> expectorated.

How droll.

> Rush's absence leaving you without a catch phrase or two to
> parrot?

I don't listen to Rush or AM radio.

> Perhaps Mr. "Polk Award" O'Reilly can come to your rescue.

I prefer watching Chris Matthews "Hardball" than the smug O'Reilly.

> Or you could consult "Jack-Boots-Comin'-To-Get-Me" Liddy for
> a witty riposte.

Whereas you prefer the psychotic, angry, guilty white male liberals
like Al Franken, Michael Moore or the other forgettable ones.

It's a great day today, as the culture of death is being beaten back:
Terry Schiavo will not be cruelly starved and dehydrated to death.
That hideous infanticide procedure called partial birth abortion is
finally going to be outlawed. Oh yeah, it's a great day for life!

GeoSynch

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 08:03 AM

GeoSynch wrote:

> Nexus 6 clucked:
>
>
>>Right on the money, in my opinion, which it is.
>
>
> Your opinion ain't worth a farthing.

Prove that it isn't, and convert that into good ol' US
greenbacks while you're at it!

>
>
>>As is your nonsensical reply, lovingly expressed, or
>>expectorated.
>
>
> How droll.

How limp!

>
>
>>Rush's absence leaving you without a catch phrase or two to
>>parrot?
>
>
> I don't listen to Rush or AM radio.

Hallelujah!

>
>
>>Perhaps Mr. "Polk Award" O'Reilly can come to your rescue.
>
>
> I prefer watching Chris Matthews "Hardball" than the smug O'Reilly.

Matthews.

What a tool.

>
>
>>Or you could consult "Jack-Boots-Comin'-To-Get-Me" Liddy for
>>a witty riposte.
>
>
> Whereas you prefer the psychotic, angry, guilty white male liberals
> like Al Franken, Michael Moore or the other forgettable ones.

They are a tad angry, but certainly not psychotic. It is
good to hear you are not a talk radio head - that **** is
very bad for the soul.

>
> It's a great day today, as the culture of death is being beaten back:
> Terry Schiavo will not be cruelly starved and dehydrated to death.

"Culture of death?"

A woman who didn't want to live as a bit if human wreckage
being forced into it is "life?"

> That hideous infanticide procedure called partial birth abortion is
> finally going to be outlawed. Oh yeah, it's a great day for life!

It's a great day for religious whackos, to be sure.

Halle-****in'-lujah!

Nexus 666

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 22nd 03, 11:04 AM

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > > > I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> > > > So did organized crime
> > > > Of course, organized crime has been even more successful
infiltrating
> > > > some corporations.
>
> > > Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?
>
> > A nunber of building trade companies in NYC.
> > particularly in concrete and windows.
> > Trash haulers, many different cities
> > Trucking companies
> > some import/export companies
>
> OK, but they're all small potatos, relatively speaking, and they have
little or no
> impact on the prices for goods and services you or anybody else would have
> to pay in general, whereas the unionized grocery worker strike will
directly
> impact you, because the prices you'll pay for your groceries will increase
> and also some of your favorite items you can usually count on being on
sale
> won't be.
>
>
> GeoSynch
>
>

Ever hear of taxes, man? You do pay them. don't you?
Lot's of the mob corrupton bears on public projects.
Increased building costs = increased rents= increased product and services
costs. The amounf of money lost to mod corruption in businessed dwarfs what
you are talkng about in the union situation, in which BTW, the conract
egotiations would still be an issue with a clean union. You haven't even
shown the loss of one thin dime.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 22nd 03, 11:07 AM

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Nexus 6 clucked:
>
> > Right on the money, in my opinion, which it is.
>
> Your opinion ain't worth a farthing.
>
> > As is your nonsensical reply, lovingly expressed, or
> > expectorated.
>
> How droll.
>
> > Rush's absence leaving you without a catch phrase or two to
> > parrot?
>
> I don't listen to Rush or AM radio.
>
> > Perhaps Mr. "Polk Award" O'Reilly can come to your rescue.
>
> I prefer watching Chris Matthews "Hardball" than the smug O'Reilly.
>
> > Or you could consult "Jack-Boots-Comin'-To-Get-Me" Liddy for
> > a witty riposte.
>
> Whereas you prefer the psychotic, angry, guilty white male liberals
> like Al Franken, Michael Moore or the other forgettable ones.
>
> It's a great day today, as the culture of death is being beaten back:
> Terry Schiavo will not be cruelly starved and dehydrated to death.
> That hideous infanticide procedure called partial birth abortion is
> finally going to be outlawed. Oh yeah, it's a great day for life!
>
>
> GeoSynch
>
>

Looks like she will be cruelly fed to be forced to live a life as a
vegetable, a life she has previously expressed she did nt want to live/

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

George M. Middius

October 22nd 03, 11:21 AM

Nexus 6 said to StynchBlob:

> "Culture of death?"
>
> A woman who didn't want to live as a bit if human wreckage
> being forced into it is "life?"

Ask Blobbo what it has to say about capital punishment.

Lionel

October 22nd 03, 01:13 PM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Nexus 6 said to StynchBlob:
>
>
>>"Culture of death?"
>>
>>A woman who didn't want to live as a bit if human wreckage
>>being forced into it is "life?"
>
>
> Ask Blobbo what it has to say about capital punishment.
>
>
I am totally against capital punishment, I prefer eugenism...
....Prevention is better than cure. ;-)

Michael Mckelvy

October 22nd 03, 06:18 PM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "GeoSynch" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >
> > > I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> > > So did organized crime
> > > Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
> > > some corporations.
> >
> > Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?
> >
> >
> > GeoSynch
> >
>
>
> A nunber of building trade companies in NYC.
> particularly in concrete and windows.
> Trash haulers, many different cities
> Trucking companies
> some import/export companies
>
Which goes right along with the Teamsters love affair with the mob.

>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael Mckelvy

October 22nd 03, 06:20 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:d9olb.2180$d87.1194@okepread05...
>
>
> GeoSynch wrote:
>
> > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> >>So did organized crime
> >>Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
> >>some corporations.
> >
> >
> > Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?
>
> Enron, Worldcom, etc.
>
> Organized, and criminal in the extreme.
>
> Make the Mob look like ****ing amateurs.
>
> Nexus 6

And the bosses will all be going to jail, except maybe Terry McCauliffe.

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 06:37 PM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Nexus 6 said to StynchBlob:
>
>
>>"Culture of death?"
>>
>>A woman who didn't want to live as a bit if human wreckage
>>being forced into it is "life?"
>
>
> Ask Blobbo what it has to say about capital punishment.

I'm feeling psychic today:

"Kill 'em all and let Gawd sort 'em out."

Am I close?

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 06:37 PM

Lionel wrote:

> I am totally against capital punishment, I prefer eugenism...
> ...Prevention is better than cure. ;-)

That seems an historically untenable position for a Frenchman.

Nexus 6

Michael Mckelvy

October 22nd 03, 06:41 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:wcolb.2181$d87.495@okepread05...
>
>
> GeoSynch wrote:
>
> > Nexus 6 dribbled:
> >
> >
> >>>I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> >>>So did organized crime
> >>>Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
> >>>some corporations.
> >
> >
> >>Funny how that doesn't bother the
> >>government-supported-"free"-marketeers. :)
> >
> >
> > Nice idiotic response.
>
> Right on the money, in my opinion, which it is.
>
Proof?

> As is your nonsensical reply, lovingly expressed, or
> expectorated.
>
> Rush's absence leaving you without a catch phrase or two to
> parrot?
>
>
> Perhaps Mr. "Polk Award" O'Reilly can come to your rescue.
>
> Or you could consult "Jack-Boots-Comin'-To-Get-Me" Liddy for
> a witty riposte.
>
>

Michael Mckelvy

October 22nd 03, 06:43 PM

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Nexus 6 clucked:
>
> > Right on the money, in my opinion, which it is.
>
> Your opinion ain't worth a farthing.
>
> > As is your nonsensical reply, lovingly expressed, or
> > expectorated.
>
> How droll.
>
> > Rush's absence leaving you without a catch phrase or two to
> > parrot?
>
> I don't listen to Rush or AM radio.
>
> > Perhaps Mr. "Polk Award" O'Reilly can come to your rescue.
>
> I prefer watching Chris Matthews "Hardball" than the smug O'Reilly.
>
> > Or you could consult "Jack-Boots-Comin'-To-Get-Me" Liddy for
> > a witty riposte.
>
> Whereas you prefer the psychotic, angry, guilty white male liberals
> like Al Franken, Michael Moore or the other forgettable ones.
>
> It's a great day today, as the culture of death is being beaten back:
> Terry Schiavo will not be cruelly starved and dehydrated to death.

It's better to let someone whose brainwaves are a flat line live? I'm not
so sure.

> That hideous infanticide procedure called partial birth abortion is
> finally going to be outlawed. Oh yeah, it's a great day for life!
>
Without a provision for the health of the mother. Likely to overturned.

>
> GeoSynch
>
>

George M. Middius

October 22nd 03, 06:44 PM

Nexus 6 said:

> > I am totally against capital punishment, I prefer eugenism...
> > ...Prevention is better than cure. ;-)
>
> That seems an historically untenable position for a Frenchman.

Is that an incest joke?

Lionel

October 22nd 03, 06:56 PM

Nexus 6 wrote:

>
>
> Lionel wrote:
>
>
>> I am totally against capital punishment, I prefer eugenism...
>> ...Prevention is better than cure. ;-)
>
>
> That seems an historically untenable position for a Frenchman.
>
> Nexus 6
>

You are right but I don't know any emoticon for :
"I'm sadly joking"

Lionel

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 07:05 PM

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:d9olb.2180$d87.1194@okepread05...
>
>>
>>GeoSynch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
>>>>So did organized crime
>>>>Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
>>>>some corporations.
>>>
>>>
>>>Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?
>>
>>Enron, Worldcom, etc.
>>
>>Organized, and criminal in the extreme.
>>
>>Make the Mob look like ****ing amateurs.
>>
>>Nexus 6
>
>
> And the bosses will all be going to jail, except maybe Terry McCauliffe.

You must be kidding.

Enron's best friend is running the big show in that big
white house.

None of them indicted, and none to see prison.

McAuliffe, for what it is worth, learned his tricks from the
legacy set by folks like Lee A****er.

Equally, Limbaugh, a staunch proponent of jail time for
addicts, will not be charged, thanks to Jebbie.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 07:14 PM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Nexus 6 said:
>
>
>>>I am totally against capital punishment, I prefer eugenism...
>>>...Prevention is better than cure. ;-)
>>
>>That seems an historically untenable position for a Frenchman.
>
>
> Is that an incest joke?

No.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 07:16 PM

Lionel wrote:

> Nexus 6 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I am totally against capital punishment, I prefer eugenism...
>>> ...Prevention is better than cure. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> That seems an historically untenable position for a Frenchman.
>>
>> Nexus 6
>>
>
> You are right but I don't know any emoticon for :
> "I'm sadly joking"

Ah.

Of course, just like every American over the age of twelve
was at Woodstock, every Frenchman alive in the 1940's was a
member of the resistance.

Nexus 6

George M. Middius

October 22nd 03, 07:38 PM

Nexus 6 said:

> >>>I am totally against capital punishment, I prefer eugenism...
> >>>...Prevention is better than cure. ;-)
> >>
> >>That seems an historically untenable position for a Frenchman.

> > Is that an incest joke?
>
> No.

We give up.

George M. Middius

October 22nd 03, 07:39 PM

George M. Middius

October 22nd 03, 07:47 PM

George M. Middius said:

> > No.
>
> We give up.

A Nazi crack, then?

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 22nd 03, 07:50 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:%Hzlb.2257$d87.729@okepread05...
>
>
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:d9olb.2180$d87.1194@okepread05...
> >
> >>
> >>GeoSynch wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> >>>>So did organized crime
> >>>>Of course, organized crime has been even more successful infiltrating
> >>>>some corporations.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?
> >>
> >>Enron, Worldcom, etc.
> >>
> >>Organized, and criminal in the extreme.
> >>
> >>Make the Mob look like ****ing amateurs.
> >>
> >>Nexus 6
> >
> >
> > And the bosses will all be going to jail, except maybe Terry McCauliffe.
>
> You must be kidding.
>
> Enron's best friend is running the big show in that big
> white house.
>
> None of them indicted, and none to see prison.
>
> McAuliffe, for what it is worth, learned his tricks from the
> legacy set by folks like Lee A****er.
>
> Equally, Limbaugh, a staunch proponent of jail time for
> addicts, will not be charged, thanks to Jebbie.
>
> Nexus 6
>

He should be treated similarly to how others in his position
have been treated. Ususally, addicts voluntarily going
in for treatment are not prosecuted for the previous crimes
of having purvhased and possesed those drugs. Possession
chrges usually are brought agaiinst those cought redhanded, posessing
drugs, or in the act of purchasing them.

I am not condoning what he did, nor am I advocating any special
treatment, but what I do not want to see is prosecutors gettiing
over-vindictive afainst him because they disagree with his politics.

I would say the same thing, were it a liberal point man like
Al Franken or James Carvile in the hot seat.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

George M. Middius

October 22nd 03, 08:00 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > Equally, Limbaugh, a staunch proponent of jail time for
> > addicts, will not be charged, thanks to Jebbie.

> He should be treated similarly to how others in his position
> have been treated.

You mean the position of having publicly called for harsh punishment
for those who do what he did? Isn't it possible that Limbaugh's
yammering may have indirectly influenced the jail sentences inflicted
on other drug users?

He should be made an example of. He abused a position of influence,
albeit an ad-hoc one, in order to deflect attention away from his own
bad behavior.

> I would say the same thing, were it a liberal point man like
> Al Franken or James Carvile in the hot seat.

Disagreed. They aren't rabble-rousers and hatemongers. In fact, it
wouldn't surprise me if Franken is on the record as supporting the
right side of the "drug issue".

Lionel

October 22nd 03, 08:04 PM

Nexus 6 wrote:
>
>
> Lionel wrote:
>
>> Nexus 6 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lionel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am totally against capital punishment, I prefer eugenism...
>>>> ...Prevention is better than cure. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That seems an historically untenable position for a Frenchman.
>>>
>>> Nexus 6
>>>
>>
>> You are right but I don't know any emoticon for :
>> "I'm sadly joking"
>
>
> Ah.
>
> Of course, just like every American over the age of twelve was at
> Woodstock, every Frenchman alive in the 1940's was a member of the
> resistance.
>

Just speaking about males, we can make the count like that :
- 250,000 killed during the "Drôle de guerre"
- 1,000,000 prisoners in Germany
- Like in all wars all around the world most males were father and try
to take care of their families trying to avoid the STO (Obligatory
Labour Service in Germany).
- Maximum 10% were in the resistance
- Minimum 10% were collaborating with nazism.

One of my Grand-Father have been wounded at "Chemin des dames" in 1917
(only one hand). In 1942 he was an alcoholic with 16 children when my
Grand-Mother died at 40 during her 17th childbirth.

My other Grand-Father was more lucky he was in Germany as POW and came
back home in 1945.

Is the above answers to your cliche ?

Lionel

Michael Mckelvy

October 22nd 03, 09:22 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 22nd 03, 09:34 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > > Equally, Limbaugh, a staunch proponent of jail time for
> > > addicts, will not be charged, thanks to Jebbie.
>
> > He should be treated similarly to how others in his position
> > have been treated.
>
> You mean the position of having publicly called for harsh punishment
> for those who do what he did?

No, that's not the way the law is supposed to work.
According to your logic, legalization advocates should
walk. Its obvious, you want him punished for his
views. You just about said it.

> Isn't it possible that Limbaugh's
> yammering may have indirectly influenced the jail sentences inflicted
> on other drug users?
>

No

> He should be made an example of. He abused a position of influence,
> albeit an ad-hoc one, in order to deflect attention away from his own
> bad behavior.
>

Hehe, sound like a description of Clinton, to me.
("Don't bother me about Monica, it detracts from my running the country")
Anyway Rush developed his hard line attitude about drugs well before he got
hooked. He didn't do it for deflection, Now the guy was in serious denial,
like all drug and alcohol abusers. Also, I have some empathy
for the situation in which he got hooked, using those
drugs to alleviate severe pain due to a medical condition.
I have seen someone close to me endure such pain, and ask to die.
So I can see where he would use those drugs for that purpose.
However, after a while, on vould easily get hooked.

Talk about lack of compassion in the right, I see as much
from the left.It sickens me, and it is a mjor reason I no longer
adhere to the program.

> > I would say the same thing, were it a liberal point man like
> > Al Franken or James Carvile in the hot seat.
>
> Disagreed. They aren't rabble-rousers and hatemongers. In fact, it
> wouldn't surprise me if Franken is on the record as supporting the
> right side of the "drug issue".

They are, as much as Limburgh is, which is not much.
There is alot of blind intolerance on the left.
You just don't see it. Actually, you tend towards exhibiting it yourself.
Now, I am not calling you a hate monger or rabble rouser,
but I think that you are, by your strongly held principals,
prone to detest individuals who hold different political opinions.

Do you want to be like Sanders, whose leftist beliefs prevent him
from maintaining a friendship with someone like me, who resides, but
moderately,
on the other side of the road?

BTW, I am:
pro choice (though I don't particularly like abortions, making them illegal
is just not workable, nor is it correct)
pro drug legalization
in favor of programs that will truly help the working poor and
those not able to work (such as accountability in schools, vouchers only
where schools are failing, no or low interest loans for small
businesses and housing, subsidized day care)
pro legalization of prostitiution
pro condoms for teenagers
etc.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 10:03 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Nexus 6 said:
>
>
>>>>>I am totally against capital punishment, I prefer eugenism...
>>>>>...Prevention is better than cure. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>That seems an historically untenable position for a Frenchman.
>
>
>>>Is that an incest joke?
>>
>>No.
>
>
> We give up.

Think "eugenics" and "Nazi occupation," and it should come
clear.

Nexus 6

Lionel

October 22nd 03, 10:19 PM

Nexus 6 wrote:

>
>
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>>
>> Nexus 6 said:
>>
>>
>>>>>> I am totally against capital punishment, I prefer eugenism...
>>>>>> ...Prevention is better than cure. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That seems an historically untenable position for a Frenchman.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Is that an incest joke?
>>>
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>>
>>
>> We give up.
>
>
> Think "eugenics" and "Nazi occupation," and it should come clear.
>

I was as late as Middius on this one !
Anyway I have already answered. Too late or too soon for me, I am nearly
sure of my ancestors. To be frankly honest I should add for this period
only.
But my ancestors race is not a problem for me. For you ?

George M. Middius

October 22nd 03, 10:27 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > > He should be treated similarly to how others in his position
> > > have been treated.
> >
> > You mean the position of having publicly called for harsh punishment
> > for those who do what he did?
>
> No, that's not the way the law is supposed to work.
> According to your logic, legalization advocates should
> walk. Its obvious, you want him punished for his
> views. You just about said it.

Yes I do. He espouses immoral and evil views. Plus he's a huge
hypocrite. I'll bet Limbaugh's "pinhead" brigade, or whatever they
call themselves, worship hypocrites.

> > Isn't it possible that Limbaugh's
> > yammering may have indirectly influenced the jail sentences inflicted
> > on other drug users?

> No

Wrong. For the same reason that the anti-gay hatemongers who
hypocritically don clerical robes are not free of guilt for violence
against gay people.

> > He should be made an example of. He abused a position of influence,
> > albeit an ad-hoc one, in order to deflect attention away from his own
> > bad behavior.

> Hehe, sound like a description of Clinton, to me.

No. Clinton never preached against infidelity or blow jobs or whatever
you think he did "wrong".

> ("Don't bother me about Monica, it detracts from my running the country")

Why should you care about anybody else's sex life? Don't be a
hypocrite.

> Anyway Rush developed his hard line attitude about drugs well before he got
> hooked. He didn't do it for deflection,

Sez you. Guaranteed he's been using some drugs or other, probably to
excess, for many, many years.

> Now the guy was in serious denial,
> like all drug and alcohol abusers. Also, I have some empathy
> for the situation in which he got hooked, using those
> drugs to alleviate severe pain due to a medical condition.

Where is the condemnation of his hypocrisy?

> I have seen someone close to me endure such pain, and ask to die.
> So I can see where he would use those drugs for that purpose.
> However, after a while, on vould easily get hooked.

Still waiting.....

> Talk about lack of compassion in the right, I see as much
> from the left.

I don't. Please enlighten us.

> > > I would say the same thing, were it a liberal point man like
> > > Al Franken or James Carvile in the hot seat.
> >
> > Disagreed. They aren't rabble-rousers and hatemongers. In fact, it
> > wouldn't surprise me if Franken is on the record as supporting the
> > right side of the "drug issue".
>
> They are, as much as Limburgh is, which is not much.
> There is alot of blind intolerance on the left.

You mean intolerance of bigotry, hypocrisy, and outright Dubya-style
lying to the electorate? I think everybody should be intolerant of
behaviors like that. Do you have some cheap excuses for Bush's (and
Cheney's and Powell's, et al) lying about the invasion of Iraq? How
about for the hate-mongering of Falwell and Robertson, et al?

> You just don't see it. Actually, you tend towards exhibiting it yourself.
> Now, I am not calling you a hate monger or rabble rouser,
> but I think that you are, by your strongly held principals,
> prone to detest individuals who hold different political opinions.

You mean like Krooger? Or Dickless? Or the Bug Eater? There are plenty
of reasons to "detest" those "people" that have little to do with
principles. (Assuming that's the word you meant.)

> Do you want to be like Sanders, whose leftist beliefs prevent him
> from maintaining a friendship with someone like me, who resides, but
> moderately, on the other side of the road?

Sure. Where do I sign up?

> BTW, I am:
> pro choice (though I don't particularly like abortions, making them illegal
> is just not workable, nor is it correct)

Good for you.

> pro drug legalization

Good on this one too.

> in favor of programs that will truly help the working poor and
> those not able to work (such as accountability in schools, vouchers only
> where schools are failing, no or low interest loans for small
> businesses and housing, subsidized day care)
> pro legalization of prostitiution
> pro condoms for teenagers

All very good. Shows you're not consumed by your blind spots.

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 10:43 PM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Nexus 6 said:
>
>
>>>>>I am totally against capital punishment, I prefer eugenism...
>>>>>...Prevention is better than cure. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>That seems an historically untenable position for a Frenchman.
>>>
>>>
>>>Is that an incest joke?
>>
>>No.
>
>
> Wait, I think I have it -- it's an abortion comment, right?

No.
>
>

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 10:43 PM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> George M. Middius said:
>
>
>>>No.
>>
>>We give up.
>
>
> A Nazi crack, then?

Yup, and a weak one at that.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 10:45 PM

>>Equally, Limbaugh, a staunch proponent of jail time for
>>addicts, will not be charged, thanks to Jebbie.
>
>
> He should be treated similarly to how others in his position
> have been treated. Ususally, addicts voluntarily going
> in for treatment are not prosecuted for the previous crimes
> of having purvhased and possesed those drugs. Possession
> chrges usually are brought agaiinst those cought redhanded, posessing
> drugs, or in the act of purchasing them.

True, and I don't actually disagree with you.

Given Limbaugh's noxiousness on the issue, it would be
karmic perfection for him to be charged and convicted, even
if he didn't spend time in jail.

>
> I am not condoning what he did, nor am I advocating any special
> treatment, but what I do not want to see is prosecutors gettiing
> over-vindictive afainst him because they disagree with his politics.

In Florida, that is beyond unlikely. His politics are well
received in that state.

>
> I would say the same thing, were it a liberal point man like
> Al Franken or James Carvile in the hot seat.

Again, we don't disagree. I just can't stand Rush Blowhard.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 10:47 PM

Lionel wrote:

> Nexus 6 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>> Nexus 6 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lionel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I am totally against capital punishment, I prefer eugenism...
>>>>> ...Prevention is better than cure. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That seems an historically untenable position for a Frenchman.
>>>>
>>>> Nexus 6
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are right but I don't know any emoticon for :
>>> "I'm sadly joking"
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah.
>>
>> Of course, just like every American over the age of twelve was at
>> Woodstock, every Frenchman alive in the 1940's was a member of the
>> resistance.
>>
>
> Just speaking about males, we can make the count like that :
> - 250,000 killed during the "Drôle de guerre"
> - 1,000,000 prisoners in Germany
> - Like in all wars all around the world most males were father and try
> to take care of their families trying to avoid the STO (Obligatory
> Labour Service in Germany).
> - Maximum 10% were in the resistance
> - Minimum 10% were collaborating with nazism.
>
> One of my Grand-Father have been wounded at "Chemin des dames" in 1917
> (only one hand). In 1942 he was an alcoholic with 16 children when my
> Grand-Mother died at 40 during her 17th childbirth.
>
> My other Grand-Father was more lucky he was in Germany as POW and came
> back home in 1945.
>
> Is the above answers to your cliche ?

Cliche?

It was joke.

Relax.

Nexus 6

Lionel

October 22nd 03, 10:47 PM

George M. Middius wrote:

> All very good. Shows you're not consumed by your blind spots.
>
>
You should add that you really don't care about anything of his enumeration.

I remember you what I have already said about you Middius :
You hate Dennis Prager just because he hates gays *but nothing else*.

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 10:51 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

>>You mean the position of having publicly called for harsh punishment
>>for those who do what he did?
>
>
> No, that's not the way the law is supposed to work.
> According to your logic, legalization advocates should
> walk. Its obvious, you want him punished for his
> views. You just about said it.

That isn't the way the law is supposed to work, but it would
be delicious to see him in prison stripes. :)

>
>
>>Isn't it possible that Limbaugh's
>>yammering may have indirectly influenced the jail sentences inflicted
>>on other drug users?
>>
>
>
> No

Yes.

He has been very influential in pushing a very hard
conservative line.

Remember the 1994 elections?

>
>
>>He should be made an example of. He abused a position of influence,
>>albeit an ad-hoc one, in order to deflect attention away from his own
>>bad behavior.
>>
>
>
> Hehe, sound like a description of Clinton, to me.
> ("Don't bother me about Monica, it detracts from my running the country")
> Anyway Rush developed his hard line attitude about drugs well before he got
> hooked. He didn't do it for deflection, Now the guy was in serious denial,
> like all drug and alcohol abusers. Also, I have some empathy
> for the situation in which he got hooked, using those
> drugs to alleviate severe pain due to a medical condition.
> I have seen someone close to me endure such pain, and ask to die.
> So I can see where he would use those drugs for that purpose.
> However, after a while, on vould easily get hooked.

There is also an issue of trafficking, and possession.

>
> Talk about lack of compassion in the right, I see as much
> from the left.It sickens me, and it is a mjor reason I no longer
> adhere to the program.

it cuts both ways. Most on the left don't have big time
radio exposure.

>>Disagreed. They aren't rabble-rousers and hatemongers. In fact, it
>>wouldn't surprise me if Franken is on the record as supporting the
>>right side of the "drug issue".
>
>
> They are, as much as Limburgh is, which is not much.

I disagree strongly with this comment.

> There is alot of blind intolerance on the left.

True.

Just as useless as that coming from the right.

> BTW, I am:
> pro choice (though I don't particularly like abortions, making them illegal
> is just not workable, nor is it correct)
> pro drug legalization
> in favor of programs that will truly help the working poor and
> those not able to work (such as accountability in schools, vouchers only
> where schools are failing, no or low interest loans for small
> businesses and housing, subsidized day care)
> pro legalization of prostitiution
> pro condoms for teenagers
> etc.

"Progessive," perhaps? :)

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 10:53 PM

>>>>>Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?
>>>>
>>>>Enron, Worldcom, etc.
>>>>
>>>>Organized, and criminal in the extreme.
>>>>
>>>>Make the Mob look like ****ing amateurs.

>>>
>>>And the bosses will all be going to jail, except maybe Terry McCauliffe.
>>
>>You must be kidding.
>>
>>Enron's best friend is running the big show in that big
>>white house.
>
>
> Lieberman?

Resident Shrub.

Be serious for just ten seconds.

>
>
>>None of them indicted, and none to see prison.
>
> Yet.

Ever.

Count on it.

>
>>McAuliffe, for what it is worth, learned his tricks from the
>>legacy set by folks like Lee A****er.
>
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiiigghhht!

it is absolutely true. A****er set the standard by which
modern political operatives behave. This doesn't make
McAuliffe a good guy - he's just as much a apart of the
problem as the Bush coterie.

>
>>Equally, Limbaugh, a staunch proponent of jail time for
>>addicts, will not be charged, thanks to Jebbie.
>>
>>Nexus 6
>
>
> When has Rush Limbaugh ever said people who become accidentally addicted to
> prescrition pain killers should go to jail?

"Accidentally addicted?"

You think heroin addicts did it intentionally?

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 10:54 PM

Lionel wrote:

> Nexus 6 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> George M. Middius wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Nexus 6 said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> I am totally against capital punishment, I prefer eugenism...
>>>>>>> ...Prevention is better than cure. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That seems an historically untenable position for a Frenchman.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Is that an incest joke?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We give up.
>>
>>
>>
>> Think "eugenics" and "Nazi occupation," and it should come clear.
>>
>
> I was as late as Middius on this one !
> Anyway I have already answered. Too late or too soon for me, I am nearly
> sure of my ancestors. To be frankly honest I should add for this period
> only.
> But my ancestors race is not a problem for me. For you ?

I haven't a clue what race your ancestors are, nor do I care
in the least.

You missed a poor joke, nothing more.

Nexus 6
>

Lionel

October 22nd 03, 10:59 PM

Nexus 6 wrote:

>>
>> Is the above answers to your cliche ?
>
>
> Cliche?
>
> It was joke.
>
> Relax.
>
> Nexus 6
>

Ok but a little bit hard to understand. Middius also glued to it. ;-)
I'm relax now.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 22nd 03, 11:10 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > > > He should be treated similarly to how others in his position
> > > > have been treated.
> > >
> > > You mean the position of having publicly called for harsh punishment
> > > for those who do what he did?
> >
> > No, that's not the way the law is supposed to work.
> > According to your logic, legalization advocates should
> > walk. Its obvious, you want him punished for his
> > views. You just about said it.
>
> Yes I do. He espouses immoral and evil views. Plus he's a huge
> hypocrite. I'll bet Limbaugh's "pinhead" brigade, or whatever they
> call themselves, worship hypocrites.
>

Newspeak. Espousing morality is now immoral.

They call themselves ditto heads.
I'll admit to being an apostrophe head.

Some of the callers are pretty darn stupid. I catch the show
at noon.

>
> > > Isn't it possible that Limbaugh's
> > > yammering may have indirectly influenced the jail sentences inflicted
> > > on other drug users?
>
> > No
>
> Wrong. For the same reason that the anti-gay hatemongers who
> hypocritically don clerical robes are not free of guilt for violence
> against gay people.
>

If they actually committed it.
Otherwise we should have hung Jerry Rubin for acts
committed by memebrs of the Weather Underground, SLA, etc.

> > > He should be made an example of. He abused a position of influence,
> > > albeit an ad-hoc one, in order to deflect attention away from his own
> > > bad behavior.
>
> > Hehe, sound like a description of Clinton, to me.
>
> No. Clinton never preached against infidelity or blow jobs or whatever
> you think he did "wrong".
>

T'was lyoing under oath.
A few posts ago in another thread you drooled at the
prospect that Arny might do the same.

> > ("Don't bother me about Monica, it detracts from my running the
country")
>
> Why should you care about anybody else's sex life? Don't be a
> hypocrite.
>

He used his position to try and worm out of responsibility for
lyiing under oath. Hillary can beter mete out punishments
for his sexual transgressions than I could.

> > Anyway Rush developed his hard line attitude about drugs well before he
got
> > hooked. He didn't do it for deflection,
>
> Sez you. Guaranteed he's been using some drugs or other, probably to
> excess, for many, many years.

I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
heard such rumors.
BTW, I have much more sympathy
for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
That's a hypocrite!

>
> > Now the guy was in serious denial,
> > like all drug and alcohol abusers. Also, I have some empathy
> > for the situation in which he got hooked, using those
> > drugs to alleviate severe pain due to a medical condition.
>
> Where is the condemnation of his hypocrisy?
>

I think he was not in his right mind at the time.
His major disappoint ment to me was his keeping it
secret for so long. But how could he tell us, when he kept denying
it to himself?

> > I have seen someone close to me endure such pain, and ask to die.
> > So I can see where he would use those drugs for that purpose.
> > However, after a while, on vould easily get hooked.
>
> Still waiting.....
>
> > Talk about lack of compassion in the right, I see as much
> > from the left.
>
> I don't. Please enlighten us.

I don't think it is possible to enlighten you in that regard.

>
> > > > I would say the same thing, were it a liberal point man like
> > > > Al Franken or James Carvile in the hot seat.
> > >
> > > Disagreed. They aren't rabble-rousers and hatemongers. In fact, it
> > > wouldn't surprise me if Franken is on the record as supporting the
> > > right side of the "drug issue".
> >
> > They are, as much as Limburgh is, which is not much.
> > There is alot of blind intolerance on the left.
>
> You mean intolerance of bigotry, hypocrisy, and outright Dubya-style
> lying to the electorate?

YES!

I think everybody should be intolerant of
> behaviors like that. Do you have some cheap excuses for Bush's (and
> Cheney's and Powell's, et al) lying about the invasion of Iraq?

I think that they told us what was told to them by
our intelligence agencies, who were suckered in
by a masterful bluff by Saddam. He got us to
believe he had the stuff, when he had already gotten rid of it.
The problem was, the bluff was intended to scare us away,
instead, it provided the impetus for us to march right in.

Remember, the whole thing was because he wouldn't
answer out questions.

> How
> about for the hate-mongering of Falwell and Robertson, et al?
>

I don't like the political behavior of the Fundamentalist Christian
movement. I find it counter to traditional American values.

>
> > You just don't see it. Actually, you tend towards exhibiting it
yourself.
> > Now, I am not calling you a hate monger or rabble rouser,
> > but I think that you are, by your strongly held principals,
> > prone to detest individuals who hold different political opinions.
>
> You mean like Krooger? Or Dickless? Or the Bug Eater? There are plenty
> of reasons to "detest" those "people" that have little to do with
> principles. (Assuming that's the word you meant.)
>

I mean like you.

> > Do you want to be like Sanders, whose leftist beliefs prevent him
> > from maintaining a friendship with someone like me, who resides, but
> > moderately, on the other side of the road?
>
> Sure. Where do I sign up?

You don't have to, you rebuffed my offer of friendship a long time ago.
>

> > BTW, I am:
> > pro choice (though I don't particularly like abortions, making them
illegal
> > is just not workable, nor is it correct)
>
> Good for you.
>
> > pro drug legalization
>
> Good on this one too.
>
> > in favor of programs that will truly help the working poor and
> > those not able to work (such as accountability in schools, vouchers only
> > where schools are failing, no or low interest loans for small
> > businesses and housing, subsidized day care)
> > pro legalization of prostitiution
> > pro condoms for teenagers
>
> All very good. Shows you're not consumed by your blind spots.
>
>

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nexus 6

October 22nd 03, 11:23 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> heard such rumors.
> BTW, I have much more sympathy
> for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> That's a hypocrite!

The two are equally hypocritical.

Where are the differences in the two cases?

> I think that they told us what was told to them by
> our intelligence agencies, who were suckered in
> by a masterful bluff by Saddam. He got us to
> believe he had the stuff, when he had already gotten rid of it.
> The problem was, the bluff was intended to scare us away,
> instead, it provided the impetus for us to march right in.

This is implausible on its face.

>
> Remember, the whole thing was because he wouldn't
> answer out questions.

Not so. The questions were answered, the neocons didn't like
those answers.

This war was in the works prior to September 11, which, btw,
is a sorry excuse to have prosecuted it.

Nexus 6

George M. Middius

October 22nd 03, 11:37 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > Yes I do. He espouses immoral and evil views. Plus he's a huge
> > hypocrite. I'll bet Limbaugh's "pinhead" brigade, or whatever they
> > call themselves, worship hypocrites.

> Newspeak. Espousing morality is now immoral.

Only a nitwit would say Limbaugh "espouses morality". He's vile and
contemptible, self-serving and short-sighted, bigoted and filled with
hate. He wants to use the government's power to interfere with
people's right to freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. He is in
favor of the proliferation of handguns and he has equated murdering
abortionists with executing criminals.

This is a seriously evil individual, and you can't tell him from a
bona-fide moralizer? For shame.

> > Wrong. For the same reason that the anti-gay hatemongers who
> > hypocritically don clerical robes are not free of guilt for violence
> > against gay people.

> If they actually committed it.

No.

> Otherwise we should have hung Jerry Rubin for acts
> committed by memebrs of the Weather Underground, SLA, etc.

Excuse me, did Jerry Rubin have a nationally syndicated radio show?
Did he claim to be a moral leader along the lines of nationally
televised preachers?

That is a very bad comparison. Rubin was a political revolutionary. He
was not, like Bimbaugh and Falwell, true wolves in sheep's clothing.

> > No. Clinton never preached against infidelity or blow jobs or whatever
> > you think he did "wrong".

> T'was lyoing under oath.

Excuse me?

> A few posts ago in another thread you drooled at the
> prospect that Arny might do the same.

Krooger? He might do what?

> > Why should you care about anybody else's sex life? Don't be a
> > hypocrite.

> He used his position to try and worm out of responsibility for
> lyiing under oath.

That's a twisted way of recounting events.

> Hillary can beter mete out punishments
> for his sexual transgressions than I could.

Now you're on the right track.

> > > Anyway Rush developed his hard line attitude about drugs well before he got
> > > hooked. He didn't do it for deflection,

> > Sez you. Guaranteed he's been using some drugs or other, probably to
> > excess, for many, many years.

> I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> heard such rumors.

You just started a rumor. You said he was a blowhard before he became
an addict and a hypocrite. No evidence of that either, is there?

> BTW, I have much more sympathy
> for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> That's a hypocrite!

Yeah, he's a schmuck of the first order.

> > Where is the condemnation of his hypocrisy?

> I think he was not in his right mind at the time.

Bull****. Why aren't you making excuses for Clinton's philandering?

> His major disappoint ment to me was his keeping it
> secret for so long. But how could he tell us, when he kept denying
> it to himself?

Address his hypocrisy, not his addiction per se.

> > > Talk about lack of compassion in the right, I see as much
> > > from the left.

> > I don't. Please enlighten us.

> I don't think it is possible to enlighten you in that regard.

That's practically an admission you're just blowing hot air.

> > > There is alot of blind intolerance on the left.
> >
> > You mean intolerance of bigotry, hypocrisy, and outright Dubya-style
> > lying to the electorate?
>
> YES!

Shameful, isn't it?

> > Do you have some cheap excuses for Bush's (and
> > Cheney's and Powell's, et al) lying about the invasion of Iraq?

> I think that they told us what was told to them by
> our intelligence agencies, who were suckered in
> by a masterful bluff by Saddam. He got us to
> believe he had the stuff, when he had already gotten rid of it.
> The problem was, the bluff was intended to scare us away,
> instead, it provided the impetus for us to march right in.

This is all BS. There was a report on 60 Minutes last week that blows
your poor-Dubya-the-dupe theory to pieces. And before you start in
about "liberal media bias", the witnesses they interviewed were
genuine intelligence analysts employed by the government who are
greatly ashamed of the conduct of our leaders.

> Remember, the whole thing was because he wouldn't
> answer out questions.

What does that mean?

> > How
> > about for the hate-mongering of Falwell and Robertson, et al?

> I don't like the political behavior of the Fundamentalist Christian
> movement. I find it counter to traditional American values.

They contribute to violence against gay people.

> > > Now, I am not calling you a hate monger or rabble rouser,
> > > but I think that you are, by your strongly held principals,
> > > prone to detest individuals who hold different political opinions.
> >
> > You mean like Krooger? Or Dickless? Or the Bug Eater? There are plenty
> > of reasons to "detest" those "people" that have little to do with
> > principles. (Assuming that's the word you meant.)

> I mean like you.

You said "individuals who hold different political opinions", fool.
Try to pay attention.

> > > Do you want to be like Sanders, whose leftist beliefs prevent him
> > > from maintaining a friendship with someone like me, who resides, but
> > > moderately, on the other side of the road?

> > Sure. Where do I sign up?

> You don't have to, you rebuffed my offer of friendship a long time ago.

?

MiNE 109

October 23rd 03, 12:14 AM

In article <TtDlb.2292$d87.848@okepread05>,
Nexus 6 > wrote:

> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>
> > I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> > heard such rumors.
> > BTW, I have much more sympathy
> > for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> > That's a hypocrite!
>
> The two are equally hypocritical.
>
> Where are the differences in the two cases?

Bill Bennett has those enormous lats from pulling the one-armed bandit...

Stephen

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 02:57 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:x%Clb.2286$d87.1135@okepread05...
>
> it cuts both ways. Most on the left don't have big time
> radio exposure.
>
>
> >>Disagreed. They aren't rabble-rousers and hatemongers. In fact, it
> >>wouldn't surprise me if Franken is on the record as supporting the
> >>right side of the "drug issue".
> >
> >
> > They are, as much as Limburgh is, which is not much.
>
> I disagree strongly with this comment.
>
> > There is alot of blind intolerance on the left.
>
> True.
>
> Just as useless as that coming from the right.
>
>
> > BTW, I am:
> > pro choice (though I don't particularly like abortions, making them
illegal
> > is just not workable, nor is it correct)
> > pro drug legalization
> > in favor of programs that will truly help the working poor and
> > those not able to work (such as accountability in schools, vouchers only
> > where schools are failing, no or low interest loans for small
> > businesses and housing, subsidized day care)
> > pro legalization of prostitiution
> > pro condoms for teenagers
> > etc.
>
> "Progessive," perhaps? :)
>

I always thought of myself as a progressive. I was once a progressive
liberal, now I am a progressive conservative.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 02:58 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:J1Dlb.2287$d87.1354@okepread05...
>
> You think heroin addicts did it intentionally?

YES

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 02:59 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:TtDlb.2292$d87.848@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>
> > I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> > heard such rumors.
> > BTW, I have much more sympathy
> > for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> > That's a hypocrite!
>
> The two are equally hypocritical.
>
> Where are the differences in the two cases?
>

Limbaugh's regimen of excruciating back pain.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 03:18 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > > Yes I do. He espouses immoral and evil views. Plus he's a huge
> > > hypocrite. I'll bet Limbaugh's "pinhead" brigade, or whatever they
> > > call themselves, worship hypocrites.
>
> > Newspeak. Espousing morality is now immoral.
>
> Only a nitwit would say Limbaugh "espouses morality". He's vile and
> contemptible, self-serving and short-sighted, bigoted and filled with
> hate. He wants to use the government's power to interfere with
> people's right to freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. He is in
> favor of the proliferation of handguns and he has equated murdering
> abortionists with executing criminals.
>

Some owuld say he is in favor of the people's Constitutional right to bear
arms, the right to life, and protection of the people's Constitutional
right's regarding property.
The coin has two sides.

I have never heard him say anything positive
about murdering abortionists, quite the opposite.

Personally, I think he is a blowhard, ruffles his papers too much, and hems
and
haws too much, and takes an hour to tell you what G. Gordon Liddy
will tell you in two minutes.

> This is a seriously evil individual, and you can't tell him from a
> bona-fide moralizer? For shame.
>
>
> > > Wrong. For the same reason that the anti-gay hatemongers who
> > > hypocritically don clerical robes are not free of guilt for violence
> > > against gay people.
>
> > If they actually committed it.
>
> No.
>
> > Otherwise we should have hung Jerry Rubin for acts
> > committed by memebrs of the Weather Underground, SLA, etc.
>
> Excuse me, did Jerry Rubin have a nationally syndicated radio show?
> Did he claim to be a moral leader along the lines of nationally
> televised preachers?
>
> That is a very bad comparison. Rubin was a political revolutionary. He
> was not, like Bimbaugh and Falwell, true wolves in sheep's clothing.
>

He had lots of exposure.
Rush never told his audience to go out an kill gays.
If his pronouncements that gays are morally incorrect
motivated hate crimes, it is not his cross to bear.
What you are doing is like one of the bad things the
right does, blaming tv and movies for motivating criminals.

>
> > > No. Clinton never preached against infidelity or blow jobs or whatever
> > > you think he did "wrong".
>
> > T'was lyoing under oath.
>
> Excuse me?
>

That's your problem

> > A few posts ago in another thread you drooled at the
> > prospect that Arny might do the same.
>
> Krooger? He might do what?
>

Lie under oath

>
> > > Why should you care about anybody else's sex life? Don't be a
> > > hypocrite.
>
> > He used his position to try and worm out of responsibility for
> > lyiing under oath.
>
> That's a twisted way of recounting events.
>
> > Hillary can beter mete out punishments
> > for his sexual transgressions than I could.
>
> Now you're on the right track.
>
> > > > Anyway Rush developed his hard line attitude about drugs well before
he got
> > > > hooked. He didn't do it for deflection,
>
> > > Sez you. Guaranteed he's been using some drugs or other, probably to
> > > excess, for many, many years.
>
> > I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> > heard such rumors.
>
> You just started a rumor. You said he was a blowhard before he became
> an addict and a hypocrite. No evidence of that either, is there?
>

Its an opinion. A lot of peolple thik he's a blowhard.

> > BTW, I have much more sympathy
> > for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> > That's a hypocrite!
>
> Yeah, he's a schmuck of the first order.
>
> > > Where is the condemnation of his hypocrisy?
>
> > I think he was not in his right mind at the time.
>
> Bull****. Why aren't you making excuses for Clinton's philandering?
>

Cause I don't care about it. It's the lying under oath.

> > His major disappoint ment to me was his keeping it
> > secret for so long. But how could he tell us, when he kept denying
> > it to himself?
>
> Address his hypocrisy, not his addiction per se.
>

The hypocricy is not in his antidrug views, but is in the fact
that he became an addict. I have empathy for that, considering his
particular
situation regarding pain.

> > > > Talk about lack of compassion in the right, I see as much
> > > > from the left.
>
> > > I don't. Please enlighten us.
>
> > I don't think it is possible to enlighten you in that regard.
>
> That's practically an admission you're just blowing hot air.
>

No, its a realization that I can't do anything about your closed mind.

> > > > There is alot of blind intolerance on the left.
> > >
> > > You mean intolerance of bigotry, hypocrisy, and outright Dubya-style
> > > lying to the electorate?
> >
> > YES!
>
> Shameful, isn't it?
>
>
> > > Do you have some cheap excuses for Bush's (and
> > > Cheney's and Powell's, et al) lying about the invasion of Iraq?
>
> > I think that they told us what was told to them by
> > our intelligence agencies, who were suckered in
> > by a masterful bluff by Saddam. He got us to
> > believe he had the stuff, when he had already gotten rid of it.
> > The problem was, the bluff was intended to scare us away,
> > instead, it provided the impetus for us to march right in.
>
> This is all BS. There was a report on 60 Minutes last week that blows
> your poor-Dubya-the-dupe theory to pieces. And before you start in
> about "liberal media bias", the witnesses they interviewed were
> genuine intelligence analysts employed by the government who are
> greatly ashamed of the conduct of our leaders.
>

60 minutes has mostly been 20 years of BS

> > Remember, the whole thing was because he wouldn't
> > answer out questions.
>
> What does that mean?
>

He wouldn't answer our questions, about what he did with WMD he
previously admitted he possessed.
>
> > > How
> > > about for the hate-mongering of Falwell and Robertson, et al?
>
> > I don't like the political behavior of the Fundamentalist Christian
> > movement. I find it counter to traditional American values.
>
> They contribute to violence against gay people.
>

No, they are just expressing their moral outrage over gay behavior.
Blame for violence against gays rests at the hands of the actual
perpetrators.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

George M. Middius

October 23rd 03, 03:46 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > Only a nitwit would say Limbaugh "espouses morality". He's vile and
> > contemptible, self-serving and short-sighted, bigoted and filled with
> > hate. He wants to use the government's power to interfere with
> > people's right to freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. He is in
> > favor of the proliferation of handguns and he has equated murdering
> > abortionists with executing criminals.
> >
>
> Some owuld say he is in favor of the people's Constitutional right to bear
> arms, the right to life, and protection of the people's Constitutional
> right's regarding property.

They are the pinheads.

> The coin has two sides.

Not.

> I have never heard him say anything positive
> about murdering abortionists, quite the opposite.

Check back a few years.

> Personally, I think he is a blowhard, ruffles his papers too much, and hems and
> haws too much, and takes an hour to tell you what G. Gordon Liddy
> will tell you in two minutes.

But he's still got moral authority because he's in favor of handguns,
viciously bigoted against gay people, and against women's rights to
control their own bodies. Right?

> > This is a seriously evil individual, and you can't tell him from a
> > bona-fide moralizer? For shame.

No answer here?

> > > > Wrong. For the same reason that the anti-gay hatemongers who
> > > > hypocritically don clerical robes are not free of guilt for violence
> > > > against gay people.
> >
> > > If they actually committed it.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > Otherwise we should have hung Jerry Rubin for acts
> > > committed by memebrs of the Weather Underground, SLA, etc.
> >
> > Excuse me, did Jerry Rubin have a nationally syndicated radio show?
> > Did he claim to be a moral leader along the lines of nationally
> > televised preachers?
> >
> > That is a very bad comparison. Rubin was a political revolutionary. He
> > was not, like Bimbaugh and Falwell, true wolves in sheep's clothing.
> >
>
> He had lots of exposure.
> Rush never told his audience to go out an kill gays.

I didn't accuse him of that, I accused the pseudo-religionists of it.

> If his pronouncements that gays are morally incorrect

"Morally incorrect"? Sounds like meaningless camouflage for hatred.

> motivated hate crimes, it is not his cross to bear.

Once again, not what I accused Bimbo of.

> What you are doing is like one of the bad things the
> right does, blaming tv and movies for motivating criminals.

The association may be "like" that to you, but the attribution of
violence to the entertainment industry is speculation, whereas the
attribution of violence to the followers of the pseudo-religionists is
documented fact. To me that makes the accusations very much unlike,
but maybe that's just me.

> > > > No. Clinton never preached against infidelity or blow jobs or whatever
> > > > you think he did "wrong".
> >
> > > T'was lyoing under oath.
> >
> > Excuse me?

> That's your problem

You need to flush your toilet.

> > > A few posts ago in another thread you drooled at the
> > > prospect that Arny might do the same.
> >
> > Krooger? He might do what?

> Lie under oath

Wouldn't you love it if Mr. **** got caught doing that?

> > > > Why should you care about anybody else's sex life? Don't be a
> > > > hypocrite.
> >
> > > He used his position to try and worm out of responsibility for
> > > lyiing under oath.
> >
> > That's a twisted way of recounting events.
> >
> > > Hillary can beter mete out punishments
> > > for his sexual transgressions than I could.
> >
> > Now you're on the right track.
> >
> > > > > Anyway Rush developed his hard line attitude about drugs well before
> he got
> > > > > hooked. He didn't do it for deflection,
> >
> > > > Sez you. Guaranteed he's been using some drugs or other, probably to
> > > > excess, for many, many years.
> >
> > > I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> > > heard such rumors.
> >
> > You just started a rumor. You said he was a blowhard before he became
> > an addict and a hypocrite. No evidence of that either, is there?
> >
>
> Its an opinion. A lot of peolple thik he's a blowhard.

I think he's a blowhard. So?

> > > BTW, I have much more sympathy
> > > for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> > > That's a hypocrite!
> >
> > Yeah, he's a schmuck of the first order.
> >
> > > > Where is the condemnation of his hypocrisy?
> >
> > > I think he was not in his right mind at the time.
> >
> > Bull****. Why aren't you making excuses for Clinton's philandering?
> >
>
> Cause I don't care about it. It's the lying under oath.

He lied about whether he fooled around with Monica, and you call that
a Constitutional crisis?

> > > His major disappoint ment to me was his keeping it
> > > secret for so long. But how could he tell us, when he kept denying
> > > it to himself?
> >
> > Address his hypocrisy, not his addiction per se.
> >
>
> The hypocricy is not in his antidrug views, but is in the fact
> that he became an addict.

That doesn't make sense. The hypocrisy lies in his failure to practice
as he preached. Take away the behavior or the preaching and there's no
hypocrisy. Only with both does the hypocrisy shine through.

> > > > > Talk about lack of compassion in the right, I see as much
> > > > > from the left.
> >
> > > > I don't. Please enlighten us.
> >
> > > I don't think it is possible to enlighten you in that regard.
> >
> > That's practically an admission you're just blowing hot air.
> >
>
> No, its a realization that I can't do anything about your closed mind.

Copout noted.

> > > > > There is alot of blind intolerance on the left.
> > > >
> > > > You mean intolerance of bigotry, hypocrisy, and outright Dubya-style
> > > > lying to the electorate?
> > >
> > > YES!
> >
> > Shameful, isn't it?
> >
> >
> > > > Do you have some cheap excuses for Bush's (and
> > > > Cheney's and Powell's, et al) lying about the invasion of Iraq?
> >
> > > I think that they told us what was told to them by
> > > our intelligence agencies, who were suckered in
> > > by a masterful bluff by Saddam. He got us to
> > > believe he had the stuff, when he had already gotten rid of it.
> > > The problem was, the bluff was intended to scare us away,
> > > instead, it provided the impetus for us to march right in.
> >
> > This is all BS. There was a report on 60 Minutes last week that blows
> > your poor-Dubya-the-dupe theory to pieces. And before you start in
> > about "liberal media bias", the witnesses they interviewed were
> > genuine intelligence analysts employed by the government who are
> > greatly ashamed of the conduct of our leaders.
> >
>
> 60 minutes has mostly been 20 years of BS

Talking about closed minds......

I believe you disagree with their agenda of exposing frauds and liars
and hypocrites, so you ignorantly claim their stories are untrue. Yet
only once have they ever revised a story, and they've never recanted
one completely.

> > > Remember, the whole thing was because he wouldn't
> > > answer out questions.
> >
> > What does that mean?

> He wouldn't answer our questions, about what he did with WMD he
> previously admitted he possessed.

I can't believe you believe that. The invasion of Iraq has been on the
books at neo-con think tanks for 10 years.

> > > > How
> > > > about for the hate-mongering of Falwell and Robertson, et al?
> >
> > > I don't like the political behavior of the Fundamentalist Christian
> > > movement. I find it counter to traditional American values.
> >
> > They contribute to violence against gay people.

> No, they are just expressing their moral outrage over gay behavior.

<puke>

> Blame for violence against gays rests at the hands of the actual
> perpetrators.

<puke>

You need to wake up.

GeoSynch

October 23rd 03, 03:49 AM

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

> > It's a great day today, as the culture of death is being beaten back:
> > Terry Schiavo will not be cruelly starved and dehydrated to death.

> It's better to let someone whose brainwaves are a flat line live? I'm not
> so sure.

What's the basis for your "brainwaves are a flat line" claim?
Certainly not Terri Schiavo's.

> > That hideous infanticide procedure called partial birth abortion is
> > finally going to be outlawed. Oh yeah, it's a great day for life!

> Without a provision for the health of the mother. Likely to overturned.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

When the baby is almost completely out of the mother's womb, but a small
portion of the baby still remains within the womb, the poor baby's tiny head
is punctured with a scissor and its brain sucked out, the health of the mother
is not an issue on whether the baby should be delivered alive or dead.

GeoSynch

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 03:57 AM

MiNE 109 wrote:

> In article <TtDlb.2292$d87.848@okepread05>,
> Nexus 6 > wrote:
>
>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
>>>heard such rumors.
>>>BTW, I have much more sympathy
>>>for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
>>>That's a hypocrite!
>>
>>The two are equally hypocritical.
>>
>>Where are the differences in the two cases?
>
>
> Bill Bennett has those enormous lats from pulling the one-armed bandit...

Enormous "lat," singular.
Or is he a two fisted gambler?

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 03:58 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

>>"Progessive," perhaps? :)
>>
>
>
> I always thought of myself as a progressive. I was once a progressive
> liberal, now I am a progressive conservative.

Conservative in what areas?

I ask in light of the list you posted earlier.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 03:58 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:J1Dlb.2287$d87.1354@okepread05...
>
>>You think heroin addicts did it intentionally?
>
>
> YES

Became *addicted* intentionally?

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 04:01 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:TtDlb.2292$d87.848@okepread05...
>
>>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
>>>heard such rumors.
>>>BTW, I have much more sympathy
>>>for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
>>>That's a hypocrite!
>>
>>The two are equally hypocritical.
>>
>>Where are the differences in the two cases?
>>
>
>
> Limbaugh's regimen of excruciating back pain.

I refuse to cut either any slack, and I suffer from
non-correctable back pain, every single day.

No slack for Bennett making huge cash off his hypocritical
moralizing (do whjat I say and all that), and none for Rush
for all of his vicious commentary about dsrug users
generally and addicts specifically.

In the karmic sense, prison is exactly what he deserves.

Being both compassionate and an opponent of criminalization
of drugs (it is a health issue in my view) he ought to be
forced into recovery for a slong as it takes.

Nexus 6

GeoSynch

October 23rd 03, 04:01 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> > It's a great day today, as the culture of death is being beaten back:
> > Terry Schiavo will not be cruelly starved and dehydrated to death.
> > That hideous infanticide procedure called partial birth abortion is
> > finally going to be outlawed. Oh yeah, it's a great day for life!

> Looks like she will be cruelly fed to be forced to live a life as a
> vegetable, a life she has previously expressed she did nt want to live/

Wrong and wrong.

See http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/13/114603.shtml
"Terri's parents say their daughter is not in a coma or a vegetative state.
'Over the last 13 years, Terri has laughed with us, cried with us, talked with us,
and even tried to get out of her chair,' Bob and Mary Schindler said in a statement."

See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29644
"There is no written directive from Terri. In the 2000 trial, Greer ruled it was her wish
to have the feeding tube removed on the basis of testimony by Schiavo, his brother
and sister-in-law that she made "casual statements" to them that she would not want
to be kept alive artificially."

The ex-husband's motives are highly suspect for in the same article it states:
"The report of a total-body bone scan done on Terri Schindler-Schiavo, while she was
in a rehabilitation facility following the collapse that led to her brain damage, describes
what are known as "hot spots" suggestive of multiple fractures. In the words of an
unnamed physician who reviewed the report: 'Somebody worked her over real good'."

So please get your facts straight next time.

GeoSynch

GeoSynch

October 23rd 03, 04:07 AM

Nexus droned:

> > Your opinion ain't worth a farthing.

> Prove that it isn't, and convert that into good ol' US
> greenbacks while you're at it!

> >>As is your nonsensical reply, lovingly expressed, or
> >>expectorated.

> > How droll.

> How limp!

How stultifyingly unoriginal.

Sorry, dude, but your prose is just too mundane and banal to endure.

Later...

GeoSynch

GeoSynch

October 23rd 03, 04:10 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> Ever hear of taxes, man? You do pay them. don't you?
> Lot's of the mob corrupton bears on public projects.
> Increased building costs = increased rents= increased product and services
> costs. The amounf of money lost to mod corruption in businessed dwarfs what
> you are talkng about in the union situation, in which BTW, the conract
> egotiations would still be an issue with a clean union. You haven't even
> shown the loss of one thin dime.

You don't think too clearly at 3 am in the morning, do you?

GeoSynch

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 04:17 AM

GeoSynch wrote:

> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>
>>>It's a great day today, as the culture of death is being beaten back:
>>>Terry Schiavo will not be cruelly starved and dehydrated to death.
>>>That hideous infanticide procedure called partial birth abortion is
>>>finally going to be outlawed. Oh yeah, it's a great day for life!
>
>
>>Looks like she will be cruelly fed to be forced to live a life as a
>>vegetable, a life she has previously expressed she did nt want to live/
>
>
> Wrong and wrong.
>
> See http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/13/114603.shtml
> "Terri's parents say their daughter is not in a coma or a vegetative state.
> 'Over the last 13 years, Terri has laughed with us, cried with us, talked with us,
> and even tried to get out of her chair,' Bob and Mary Schindler said in a statement."

Newsmax??

<chuckle>

You must be joking.

All but two of the experts the parents themselves hired have
said she is brain toast.

>
> See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29644
> "There is no written directive from Terri. In the 2000 trial, Greer ruled it was her wish
> to have the feeding tube removed on the basis of testimony by Schiavo, his brother
> and sister-in-law that she made "casual statements" to them that she would not want
> to be kept alive artificially."

Worldnetdaily??

Again, you must be joking.

The husband won the court cases to exert her will as
expressed to him, and the Florida legislature takes
emergency measures to give Jebbie the right to overturn the
courts decisions?

Sounds like a recent election to me...

>
> The ex-husband's motives are highly suspect for in the same article it states:
> "The report of a total-body bone scan done on Terri Schindler-Schiavo, while she was
> in a rehabilitation facility following the collapse that led to her brain damage, describes
> what are known as "hot spots" suggestive of multiple fractures. In the words of an
> unnamed physician who reviewed the report: 'Somebody worked her over real good'."

Unnamed physician.

That is really credible.

The family refuses to let go, and it is a sad thing, but
what is happening now is wrong.

>
> So please get your facts straight next time.

You consider yourt sources factual?

"Unnamed physician" indeed.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 04:27 AM

GeoSynch checks out:
>
>
>>>Your opinion ain't worth a farthing.
>
>
>>Prove that it isn't, and convert that into good ol' US
>>greenbacks while you're at it!
>
>
>>>>As is your nonsensical reply, lovingly expressed, or
>>>>expectorated.
>
>
>>>How droll.
>
>
>>How limp!
>
>
> How stultifyingly unoriginal.

How persistently predictable.

>
> Sorry, dude, but your prose is just too mundane and banal to endure.

In other words, your satchel of ideas has avery large hole
in it.

>
> Later...

For your kind, yes.

Nexus 6

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 04:34 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
> But he's still got moral authority because he's in favor of handguns,
> viciously bigoted against gay people, and against women's rights to
> control their own bodies. Right?
>

He is in favor of the Constitutional right to bear arms.
Saying he is in fabor of hand guns is like saying
pro choice people are in favor of abortion.
For one, I am pro choice and not in favor of abortions.

>
> > > This is a seriously evil individual, and you can't tell him from a
> > > bona-fide moralizer? For shame.
>
> No answer here?
>

Obviously, I disagree that he is evil.

> > If his pronouncements that gays are morally incorrect
>
> "Morally incorrect"? Sounds like meaningless camouflage for hatred.
>

Wrong.
Just because I think cheating on one's wife is morally incorrect,
that does not mean I hate those who cheat.

>
> The association may be "like" that to you, but the attribution of
> violence to the entertainment industry is speculation, whereas the
> attribution of violence to the followers of the pseudo-religionists is
> documented fact. To me that makes the accusations very much unlike,
> but maybe that's just me.
>

It is not documented fact. No commentator I know ever said
any such thing, nor any religious leader known to me.

>
> > > > > No. Clinton never preached against infidelity or blow jobs or
whatever
> > > > > you think he did "wrong".
> > >
> > > > T'was lyoing under oath.
> > >
> > > Excuse me?
>
> > That's your problem
>
> You need to flush your toilet.
>

Which has got to nothing to do with Clinton's lying under oath.

>
> > > > A few posts ago in another thread you drooled at the
> > > > prospect that Arny might do the same.
> > >
> > > Krooger? He might do what?
>
> > Lie under oath
>
> Wouldn't you love it if Mr. **** got caught doing that?
>

Yes, like I liked it when Clinton got caught.
BTW, his punishment is appropriate. The stain of
impeachment, but not actual removal.

>
> > > > > Why should you care about anybody else's sex life? Don't be a
> > > > > hypocrite.
> > >
> > > > He used his position to try and worm out of responsibility for
> > > > lyiing under oath.
> > >
> > > That's a twisted way of recounting events.
> > >
> > > > Hillary can beter mete out punishments
> > > > for his sexual transgressions than I could.
> > >
> > > Now you're on the right track.
> > >
> > > > > > Anyway Rush developed his hard line attitude about drugs well
before
> > he got
> > > > > > hooked. He didn't do it for deflection,
> > >
> > > > > Sez you. Guaranteed he's been using some drugs or other, probably
to
> > > > > excess, for many, many years.
> > >
> > > > I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> > > > heard such rumors.
> > >
> > > You just started a rumor. You said he was a blowhard before he became
> > > an addict and a hypocrite. No evidence of that either, is there?
> > >
> >
> > Its an opinion. A lot of peolple thik he's a blowhard.
>
> I think he's a blowhard. So?
>

So?

>
> > > > BTW, I have much more sympathy
> > > > for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> > > > That's a hypocrite!
> > >
> > > Yeah, he's a schmuck of the first order.
> > >
> > > > > Where is the condemnation of his hypocrisy?
> > >
> > > > I think he was not in his right mind at the time.
> > >
> > > Bull****. Why aren't you making excuses for Clinton's philandering?
> > >
> >
> > Cause I don't care about it. It's the lying under oath.
>
> He lied about whether he fooled around with Monica, and you call that
> a Constitutional crisis?
>

I think it went about as far as it needed to go.

>
> > > > His major disappoint ment to me was his keeping it
> > > > secret for so long. But how could he tell us, when he kept denying
> > > > it to himself?
> > >
> > > Address his hypocrisy, not his addiction per se.
> > >
> >
> > The hypocricy is not in his antidrug views, but is in the fact
> > that he became an addict.
>
> That doesn't make sense. The hypocrisy lies in his failure to practice
> as he preached. Take away the behavior or the preaching and there's no
> hypocrisy. Only with both does the hypocrisy shine through.
>

He became addicted while legally using the drug to
to alleviate excruciating pain.

>
> > > > > > Talk about lack of compassion in the right, I see as much
> > > > > > from the left.
> > >
> > > > > I don't. Please enlighten us.
> > >
> > > > I don't think it is possible to enlighten you in that regard.
> > >
> > > That's practically an admission you're just blowing hot air.
> > >
> >
> > No, its a realization that I can't do anything about your closed mind.
>
> Copout noted.
>

All I need to do is offer all you have said previously on the subject.
There is a tone of hatred about it.
I get that same tone, even more strongly, from some
commentators on the liberal side.

>
> > > > > > There is alot of blind intolerance on the left.
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean intolerance of bigotry, hypocrisy, and outright
Dubya-style
> > > > > lying to the electorate?
> > > >
> > > > YES!
> > >
> > > Shameful, isn't it?
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Do you have some cheap excuses for Bush's (and
> > > > > Cheney's and Powell's, et al) lying about the invasion of Iraq?
> > >
> > > > I think that they told us what was told to them by
> > > > our intelligence agencies, who were suckered in
> > > > by a masterful bluff by Saddam. He got us to
> > > > believe he had the stuff, when he had already gotten rid of it.
> > > > The problem was, the bluff was intended to scare us away,
> > > > instead, it provided the impetus for us to march right in.
> > >
> > > This is all BS. There was a report on 60 Minutes last week that blows
> > > your poor-Dubya-the-dupe theory to pieces. And before you start in
> > > about "liberal media bias", the witnesses they interviewed were
> > > genuine intelligence analysts employed by the government who are
> > > greatly ashamed of the conduct of our leaders.
> > >
> >
> > 60 minutes has mostly been 20 years of BS
>
> Talking about closed minds......
>

I tried, I kept it open for about 10 years. I gave up on Rather & Co.

> I believe you disagree with their agenda of exposing frauds and liars
> and hypocrites, so you ignorantly claim their stories are untrue. Yet
> only once have they ever revised a story, and they've never recanted
> one completely.
>

That speaks volunes for their inability to be balanced.
They have gotten into trouble more frequently than you portrayed.
They may not lie outright all the time, but they
twist, and spin, and omit inormation that runs counter to their
agenda.
The editing is tightly controlled.
The viewer is not shown the wole story,

> > > > Remember, the whole thing was because he wouldn't
> > > > answer out questions.
> > >
> > > What does that mean?
>
> > He wouldn't answer our questions, about what he did with WMD he
> > previously admitted he possessed.
>
> I can't believe you believe that. The invasion of Iraq has been on the
> books at neo-con think tanks for 10 years.
>

Good news for me!!!
We never did end the 1992 conflict.
of course the issue was open!!!

> > > > > How
> > > > > about for the hate-mongering of Falwell and Robertson, et al?
> > >
> > > > I don't like the political behavior of the Fundamentalist Christian
> > > > movement. I find it counter to traditional American values.
> > >
> > > They contribute to violence against gay people.
>
> > No, they are just expressing their moral outrage over gay behavior.
>
> <puke>
>
> > Blame for violence against gays rests at the hands of the actual
> > perpetrators.
>
> <puke>
>
> You need to wake up.
>

You need some Pepto Bismol.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 04:39 AM

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>

>
> When the baby is almost completely out of the mother's womb, but a small
> portion of the baby still remains within the womb, the poor baby's tiny
head
> is punctured with a scissor and its brain sucked out,

True!

the health of the mother
> is not an issue on whether the baby should be delivered alive or dead.
>

Not necessarily true!

The problem with the exception for the mother's health is that it has been
incorrecftly abused as a loophole, But we start killing
innocent mothers to save innocent babies.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 04:40 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:1wHlb.2492$d87.696@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:J1Dlb.2287$d87.1354@okepread05...
> >
> >>You think heroin addicts did it intentionally?
> >
> >
> > YES
>
> Became *addicted* intentionally?
>

YES
You think they don't know about it?

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

George M. Middius

October 23rd 03, 04:42 AM

Nexus 6 said:

> > I am a progressive conservative.

> Conservative in what areas?
> I ask in light of the list you posted earlier.

Socky is pro-guns, anti-gay rights, and anti-job safety regulations.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 04:46 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:yvHlb.2491$d87.136@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>
> >>"Progessive," perhaps? :)
> >>
> >
> >
> > I always thought of myself as a progressive. I was once a progressive
> > liberal, now I am a progressive conservative.
>
> Conservative in what areas?
>
> I ask in light of the list you posted earlier.
>
Good question

for strong National defense and war on terror
for reasonably low taxes, fairly applied and enforced.(minimum and
maximum taxes actually paid so no one gets soaked and no one slides)
against over regulation of the environment
against wasteful social programs that don't work (40 years of failure)
(I am in favor of one's that would work)
against affirmative action (hey it worked!!! very good!!! now its time to
end it)

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 04:49 AM

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > > It's a great day today, as the culture of death is being beaten back:
> > > Terry Schiavo will not be cruelly starved and dehydrated to death.
> > > That hideous infanticide procedure called partial birth abortion is
> > > finally going to be outlawed. Oh yeah, it's a great day for life!
>
> > Looks like she will be cruelly fed to be forced to live a life as a
> > vegetable, a life she has previously expressed she did nt want to live/
>
> Wrong and wrong.
>
> See http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/13/114603.shtml
> "Terri's parents say their daughter is not in a coma or a vegetative
state.
> 'Over the last 13 years, Terri has laughed with us, cried with us, talked
with us,
> and even tried to get out of her chair,' Bob and Mary Schindler said in a
statement."
>

I consider these people as liars. They actually accused her husband of
purposefully causing
her heart attack 13 years ago.

> See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29644
> "There is no written directive from Terri. In the 2000 trial, Greer ruled
it was her wish
> to have the feeding tube removed on the basis of testimony by Schiavo, his
brother
> and sister-in-law that she made "casual statements" to them that she would
not want
> to be kept alive artificially."
>
Correct

> The ex-husband's motives are highly suspect for in the same article it
states:
> "The report of a total-body bone scan done on Terri Schindler-Schiavo,
while she was
> in a rehabilitation facility following the collapse that led to her brain
damage, describes
> what are known as "hot spots" suggestive of multiple fractures. In the
words of an
> unnamed physician who reviewed the report: 'Somebody worked her over real
good'."
>

I don't see a criminal prosecution. I don't even see a lawsuit.
Smoke is being blown up your ass.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

GeoSynch

October 23rd 03, 04:50 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> > When the baby is almost completely out of the mother's womb, but a small
> > portion of the baby still remains within the womb, the poor baby's tiny
> > head is punctured with a scissor and its brain sucked out,

> True!

> > the health of the mother
> > is not an issue on whether the baby should be delivered alive or dead.

> Not necessarily true!

> The problem with the exception for the mother's health is that it has been
> incorrecftly abused as a loophole, But we start killing
> innocent mothers to save innocent babies.

No, we do not. What you've stated is abortionist propaganda.

Pro-lifers have *NEVER* advocated sacrificing the life or health of the
mother for the sake of the unborn baby. Quite the opposite - the life
and health of the mother takes precedence over that of an unborn baby's.

GeoSynch

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 04:51 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:1wHlb.2492$d87.696@okepread05...
>
>>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
>>>news:J1Dlb.2287$d87.1354@okepread05...
>>>
>>>
>>>>You think heroin addicts did it intentionally?
>>>
>>>
>>>YES
>>
>>Became *addicted* intentionally?
>>
>
>
> YES
> You think they don't know about it?

Know?

Sure, in the sens ewe know we ought not to drive too fast
for it might get us killed, or eat fast food cause it might
give us a heart attack. With many drugs, people don't
believe they are *that* addictive, or that they will fall
prey to it.

In other words, they don't wake uyp one morning and say"
Gee, think I'll sacore me a packet and start my addiction
today."

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 04:53 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:yvHlb.2491$d87.136@okepread05...
>
>>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>"Progessive," perhaps? :)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I always thought of myself as a progressive. I was once a progressive
>>> liberal, now I am a progressive conservative.
>>
>>Conservative in what areas?
>>
>>I ask in light of the list you posted earlier.
>>
>
> Good question
>
> for strong National defense and war on terror

Nebulous, the both of them.

This war on terror business is highly suspect at this point.

> for reasonably low taxes, fairly applied and enforced.(minimum and
> maximum taxes actually paid so no one gets soaked and no one slides)

This falls to specifics.

> against over regulation of the environment

Depends upon the purpose of the regulation, and what it is
intended to protect.

> against wasteful social programs that don't work (40 years of failure)
> (I am in favor of one's that would work)

Such as?

> against affirmative action (hey it worked!!! very good!!! now its time to
> end it)

I don't think that day has arrived yet.

Nexus 6

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 04:53 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:xyHlb.2493$d87.2380@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:TtDlb.2292$d87.848@okepread05...
> >
> >>
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> >>>heard such rumors.
> >>>BTW, I have much more sympathy
> >>>for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> >>>That's a hypocrite!
> >>
> >>The two are equally hypocritical.
> >>
> >>Where are the differences in the two cases?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Limbaugh's regimen of excruciating back pain.
>
> I refuse to cut either any slack, and I suffer from
> non-correctable back pain, every single day.
>

I suffer too, from back pain and sciatica.
I don't condone what he did, though I understand
it and have empathy. After all, I am a compassionate
conservative!

> No slack for Bennett making huge cash off his hypocritical
> moralizing (do whjat I say and all that), and none for Rush
> for all of his vicious commentary about dsrug users
> generally and addicts specifically.
>
> In the karmic sense, prison is exactly what he deserves.
>

I can accept your opinion, as stated in the Karmic sense.

> Being both compassionate and an opponent of criminalization
> of drugs (it is a health issue in my view) he ought to be
> forced into recovery for a slong as it takes.
>

Though recovery does little good if forced.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 04:54 AM

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > Ever hear of taxes, man? You do pay them. don't you?
> > Lot's of the mob corrupton bears on public projects.
> > Increased building costs = increased rents= increased product and
services
> > costs. The amounf of money lost to mod corruption in businessed dwarfs
what
> > you are talkng about in the union situation, in which BTW, the conract
> > egotiations would still be an issue with a clean union. You haven't even
> > shown the loss of one thin dime.
>
> You don't think too clearly at 3 am in the morning, do you?
>

I think fien, I just don't type to welle.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 04:55 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> I don't see a criminal prosecution. I don't even see a lawsuit.
> Smoke is being blown up your ass.

By his own lips!

Very flexible, our Geoshrink.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 04:57 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

>>I refuse to cut either any slack, and I suffer from
>>non-correctable back pain, every single day.
>>
>
>
> I suffer too, from back pain and sciatica.
> I don't condone what he did, though I understand
> it and have empathy. After all, I am a compassionate
> conservative!

Eeek!

No no, not one of those!

>
>
>>No slack for Bennett making huge cash off his hypocritical
>>moralizing (do whjat I say and all that), and none for Rush
>>for all of his vicious commentary about dsrug users
>>generally and addicts specifically.
>>
>>In the karmic sense, prison is exactly what he deserves.
>>
>
>
> I can accept your opinion, as stated in the Karmic sense.

Deal.

>
>
>
>>Being both compassionate and an opponent of criminalization
>>of drugs (it is a health issue in my view) he ought to be
>>forced into recovery for a slong as it takes.
>>
>
>
> Though recovery does little good if forced.

Strictly speaking, you are right. Apparently this is not his
first go 'round with treatment, so something needs to change
in his life.

Maybe being such a gigantic blowhard is causing too much
stress? :)

Nexus 6

George M. Middius

October 23rd 03, 05:00 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > But he's still got moral authority because he's in favor of handguns,
> > viciously bigoted against gay people, and against women's rights to
> > control their own bodies. Right?

> He is in favor of the Constitutional right to bear arms.

That is not an unencumbered right. Go on and lie about the militia
part now.

> Saying he is in fabor of hand guns is like saying

Explain to me, then, how somebody can be 100% dead-set against ALL gun
control and also be against handguns.

> > > > This is a seriously evil individual, and you can't tell him from a
> > > > bona-fide moralizer? For shame.

> > No answer here?

> Obviously, I disagree that he is evil.

In favor of murdering abortion doctors, in favor of violence and
discimination against gays, in favor of eliminating women's
reproductive rights. Evil, evil, evil.

> > > If his pronouncements that gays are morally incorrect
> >
> > "Morally incorrect"? Sounds like meaningless camouflage for hatred.

> Wrong.
> Just because I think cheating on one's wife is morally incorrect,
> that does not mean I hate those who cheat.

If you mean "immoral", don't utter nonsense phrases like "morally
incorrect".

And it's ingenuous to believe that Bimbo's pinhead brigade are
enlightened enough to separate the "sin" from the "sinner". They hate
gay people, and Bimbo knows it, and he feeds the flames of their
hatred.

> > The association may be "like" that to you, but the attribution of
> > violence to the entertainment industry is speculation, whereas the
> > attribution of violence to the followers of the pseudo-religionists is
> > documented fact. To me that makes the accusations very much unlike,
> > but maybe that's just me.

> It is not documented fact. No commentator I know ever said
> any such thing, nor any religious leader known to me.

Falwell himself admitted to his responsibility in such violence.

> > > > > T'was lyoing under oath.
> > > >
> > > > Excuse me?
> >
> > > That's your problem
> >
> > You need to flush your toilet.

> Which has got to nothing to do with Clinton's lying under oath.

Neither does "That's your problem."

> > > Lie under oath

> > Wouldn't you love it if Mr. **** got caught doing that?

> Yes, like I liked it when Clinton got caught.

No, we're talking about Krooger now.

> BTW, his punishment is appropriate. The stain of
> impeachment, but not actual removal.

The impeachment was a political hatchet job, as you well know.

> > He lied about whether he fooled around with Monica, and you call that
> > a Constitutional crisis?

> I think it went about as far as it needed to go.

I think it went much further than any reasonable person would expect.
Of course, it was a Republican hatchet job, which means reason was out
the window.

> > > The hypocricy is not in his antidrug views, but is in the fact
> > > that he became an addict.

> > That doesn't make sense. The hypocrisy lies in his failure to practice
> > as he preached. Take away the behavior or the preaching and there's no
> > hypocrisy. Only with both does the hypocrisy shine through.

> He became addicted while legally using the drug to
> to alleviate excruciating pain.

And yet he kept blabbering about punishing addicts even though he
himself was one. If he'd shut his yap or if he'd stuck to the
prescription guidelines, he might have been able to avoid the
hypocrisy label. But he did both, and that makes him a hypocrite.

This doesn't seem difficult to understand. Behaving badly is one
thing. Railing about other people's similar bad behavior is another
thing. Put them together, and it's hypocrisy.

> > > > > > > Talk about lack of compassion in the right, I see as much
> > > > > > > from the left.

> > Copout noted.

> All I need to do is offer all you have said previously on the subject.
> There is a tone of hatred about it.
> I get that same tone, even more strongly, from some
> commentators on the liberal side.

If I were to judge your "open-mindedness" based on how I feel about
your "tone", I'd say you're an ill-informed reactionary bigot.
Fortunately, I've listened to other things you have said and balanced
them against the repugnant things.

> > > 60 minutes has mostly been 20 years of BS

> > Talking about closed minds......

> I tried, I kept it open for about 10 years. I gave up on Rather & Co.

This past Sunday, they ran a story on apparent criminal behavior by
the FBI in victimizing a scientist. Many questions weren't answered,
but that was because of a gag order by the judge. The one pro-
persecution source they interviewed, a former federal prosecutor, was
too stupid to understand the difference between a witness and a
criminal.

They are muckrakers. It's their mission to expose bad behavior. I
suspect hearing bad news is what makes you uncomfortable.

> > I believe you disagree with their agenda of exposing frauds and liars
> > and hypocrites, so you ignorantly claim their stories are untrue. Yet
> > only once have they ever revised a story, and they've never recanted
> > one completely.

> That speaks volunes for their inability to be balanced.

Conclusion before premise. Penalty to you.

> They have gotten into trouble more frequently than you portrayed.

Are your sources for this claim any better than StynchBlob's?

> They may not lie outright all the time, but they
> twist, and spin, and omit inormation that runs counter to their
> agenda.
> The editing is tightly controlled.
> The viewer is not shown the wole story,

No question that is true at least some of the time. But that doesn't
lessen the guilt of the perpetrators they expose.

MiNE 109

October 23rd 03, 05:04 AM

In article <GuHlb.2490$d87.97@okepread05>,
Nexus 6 > wrote:

> MiNE 109 wrote:
>
> > In article <TtDlb.2292$d87.848@okepread05>,
> > Nexus 6 > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> >>>heard such rumors.
> >>>BTW, I have much more sympathy
> >>>for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> >>>That's a hypocrite!
> >>
> >>The two are equally hypocritical.
> >>
> >>Where are the differences in the two cases?
> >
> >
> > Bill Bennett has those enormous lats from pulling the one-armed bandit...
>
> Enormous "lat," singular.
> Or is he a two fisted gambler?

Good point. He'd be over-developed on the right, of course.

And possibly a rotator cuff like a grapefruit, as I've said before...

Stephen

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 05:14 AM

MiNE 109 wrote:

>>>Bill Bennett has those enormous lats from pulling the one-armed bandit...
>>
>>Enormous "lat," singular.
>>Or is he a two fisted gambler?
>
>
> Good point. He'd be over-developed on the right, of course.

It bulges in the most manly of manners.

>
> And possibly a rotator cuff like a grapefruit, as I've said before...

His prostate will be center court for the NBA opener.

Nexus 6

ScottW

October 23rd 03, 05:25 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...

> > > > 60 minutes has mostly been 20 years of BS
>
> > > Talking about closed minds......
>
> > I tried, I kept it open for about 10 years. I gave up on Rather & Co.
>
> This past Sunday, they ran a story on apparent criminal behavior by
> the FBI in victimizing a scientist. Many questions weren't answered,
> but that was because of a gag order by the judge. The one pro-
> persecution source they interviewed, a former federal prosecutor, was
> too stupid to understand the difference between a witness and a
> criminal.
>
> They are muckrakers. It's their mission to expose bad behavior. I
> suspect hearing bad news is what makes you uncomfortable.

I used to think 60 Minutes was an interesting program. Then they did a
show about 20 years ago on the cost overruns of a nuclear plant under
construction in Ill. near Urbana while I was in college. The thing had been
a hot topic in local news and campus news for years. 60 Minutes twisted
the story ruthlessly with a nucluear power is unsafe and this plant is
dangerous slant that was absurd to anyone who new the facts. Trouble is,
we need a 60 Minutes show to do an show on 60 Minutes falsehoods. How do
you know 60 Minutes is telling the truth? They need ratings too and aren't
above a little factual manipulation to get it. Maybe the right wing talk
radio that is rising is a natural balance to some of that bias. I don't
know. But I recall that plant never got finished and was ultimately
converted to fossil fuel (coal and natural gas) in large part because the
government couldn't compete with 60 Minutes propaganda.

It has gotten to the point where you can't believe anything in any of the
media. BS on 60 Minutes. False stories in the New York Times. Bogus polls
in the Los Angeles Times. I am getting pretty sick of the obvious media
industries on the right and left that have gone beyond providing
information and now flat want to tell people how to think. I'm pretty
conservative but the Hannatization of America is as nauseating to me as the
Dallas Cowboys being "Americas Team".

ScottW

Arny Krueger

October 23rd 03, 10:41 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:1wHlb.2492$d87.696@okepread05
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
>> news:J1Dlb.2287$d87.1354@okepread05...
>>
>>> You think heroin addicts did it intentionally?
>>
>>
>> YES

> Became *addicted* intentionally?

The fact that Heroin is an addictive drug is carefully kept concealed from
non-addicts, particularly in neighborhoods where Heroin addiction is common.

And if you believe that, you probably think that vinyl has better phase
response than the CD format.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 12:53 PM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "GeoSynch" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > >
> > > > I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> > > > So did organized crime
> > > > Of course, organized crime has been even more successful
infiltrating
> > > > some corporations.
> > >
> > > Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?
> > >
> > >
> > > GeoSynch
> > >
> >
> >
> > A nunber of building trade companies in NYC.
> > particularly in concrete and windows.
> > Trash haulers, many different cities
> > Trucking companies
> > some import/export companies
> >
> Which goes right along with the Teamsters love affair with the mob.
>
>

Sure, and they were always into infiltrating businesses too.
That doesn't make unions innately evil and it doesn't make
corporations innately evil.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 12:57 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Nexus 6 said:
>
> > > I am a progressive conservative.
>
> > Conservative in what areas?
> > I ask in light of the list you posted earlier.
>
> Socky is pro-guns, anti-gay rights, and anti-job safety regulations.
>
>

No, I am pro gay rights, except for marraige.
And I am pro job safety regulations, except for
any specific ones that might be inane.

I don't think gay relationships are immoral, but I do think they
are unnatural. And I think gays are just made that way,
that it isn't a choice. Gay unions should be
recognized, but not as marraige.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 01:00 PM

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > > When the baby is almost completely out of the mother's womb, but a
small
> > > portion of the baby still remains within the womb, the poor baby's
tiny
> > > head is punctured with a scissor and its brain sucked out,
>
> > True!
>
> > > the health of the mother
> > > is not an issue on whether the baby should be delivered alive or dead.
>
> > Not necessarily true!
>
> > The problem with the exception for the mother's health is that it has
been
> > incorrecftly abused as a loophole, But we start killing
> > innocent mothers to save innocent babies.
>
> No, we do not. What you've stated is abortionist propaganda.
>
> Pro-lifers have *NEVER* advocated sacrificing the life or health of the
> mother for the sake of the unborn baby. Quite the opposite - the life
> and health of the mother takes precedence over that of an unborn baby's.
>
>
I didn't state myself clearly. I meant to say that if partial birth
abortions are bannned outright, we will start killing innocent mothers to
save innocent babies. However, the problem with the exception
is that it will be falsely abused as a lophole (lying doctors) in
some cases.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 01:01 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:4hIlb.2500$d87.1808@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:1wHlb.2492$d87.696@okepread05...
> >
> >>
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> >>>news:J1Dlb.2287$d87.1354@okepread05...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>You think heroin addicts did it intentionally?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>YES
> >>
> >>Became *addicted* intentionally?
> >>
> >
> >
> > YES
> > You think they don't know about it?
>
> Know?
>
> Sure, in the sens ewe know we ought not to drive too fast
> for it might get us killed, or eat fast food cause it might
> give us a heart attack. With many drugs, people don't
> believe they are *that* addictive, or that they will fall
> prey to it.
>
> In other words, they don't wake uyp one morning and say"
> Gee, think I'll sacore me a packet and start my addiction
> today."
>

Same as cigarettes. It is widely known that they are addictive
and cause lung cancer, yet peole knowingly start smoking.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 01:06 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:ijIlb.2501$d87.1009@okepread05...

>
> > against wasteful social programs that don't work (40 years of failure)
> > (I am in favor of one's that would work)
>
> Such as?
>

school vouchers, only in districts with failing schools. I don't
want it to become a subsidy program for the wealthy.
But I want poor parents to have 'choice'.

day care for working poor

any programs that would work to prevent single parenthood,
which is the leadiing cause of economic deprivation.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 01:09 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:ynIlb.2504$d87.1634@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>
> >>I refuse to cut either any slack, and I suffer from
> >>non-correctable back pain, every single day.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I suffer too, from back pain and sciatica.
> > I don't condone what he did, though I understand
> > it and have empathy. After all, I am a compassionate
> > conservative!
>
> Eeek!
>
> No no, not one of those!
>
> >
> >
> >>No slack for Bennett making huge cash off his hypocritical
> >>moralizing (do whjat I say and all that), and none for Rush
> >>for all of his vicious commentary about dsrug users
> >>generally and addicts specifically.
> >>
> >>In the karmic sense, prison is exactly what he deserves.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I can accept your opinion, as stated in the Karmic sense.
>
> Deal.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>Being both compassionate and an opponent of criminalization
> >>of drugs (it is a health issue in my view) he ought to be
> >>forced into recovery for a slong as it takes.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Though recovery does little good if forced.
>
> Strictly speaking, you are right. Apparently this is not his
> first go 'round with treatment, so something needs to change
> in his life.
>
> Maybe being such a gigantic blowhard is causing too much
> stress? :)
>

I give him credit for being able to control his weight.
I can't do that!
Maybe going public (though he was outed) is the change.
I wish him well, I hope that when
he comes back, he will be a little more empathetic.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 01:24 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
> In favor of murdering abortion doctors,

misstatement

in favor of violence and
> discimination against gays,

misstatement as to violence

in favor of eliminating women's
> reproductive rights. Evil, evil, evil.
>

he looks at it as as saving babies.
he thinks that abortion is murdering babies,
and that abortions are evil, evil, evil.

> And it's ingenuous to believe that Bimbo's pinhead brigade are
> enlightened enough to separate the "sin" from the "sinner". They hate
> gay people, and Bimbo knows it, and he feeds the flames of their
> hatred.
>
>

He is offering his opinions on proposed changes in the
legal staus of gays.
As you say, those that are violent,are already predisposed to that.
he isn't advocating violence.

> > It is not documented fact. No commentator I know ever said
> > any such thing, nor any religious leader known to me.
>
> Falwell himself admitted to his responsibility in such violence.
>

I think he said that he regretted it that others misconstrued him.

>
> > Yes, like I liked it when Clinton got caught.
>
> No, we're talking about Krooger now.

I would like that even better.

>
> > BTW, his punishment is appropriate. The stain of
> > impeachment, but not actual removal.
>
> The impeachment was a political hatchet job, as you well know.
>

For cause.

>
> > > He lied about whether he fooled around with Monica, and you call that
> > > a Constitutional crisis?
>
> > I think it went about as far as it needed to go.
>
> I think it went much further than any reasonable person would expect.
> Of course, it was a Republican hatchet job, which means reason was out
> the window.
>

Well earned.

>
> > > > The hypocricy is not in his antidrug views, but is in the fact
> > > > that he became an addict.
>
> > > That doesn't make sense. The hypocrisy lies in his failure to practice

> > > as he preached. Take away the behavior or the preaching and there's no
> > > hypocrisy. Only with both does the hypocrisy shine through.
>
> > He became addicted while legally using the drug to
> > to alleviate excruciating pain.
>
> And yet he kept blabbering about punishing addicts even though he
> himself was one. If he'd shut his yap or if he'd stuck to the
> prescription guidelines, he might have been able to avoid the
> hypocrisy label. But he did both, and that makes him a hypocrite.
>

Yes, he did keep yapping. But he was in denail about his addicition

> This doesn't seem difficult to understand. Behaving badly is one
> thing. Railing about other people's similar bad behavior is another
> thing. Put them together, and it's hypocrisy.
>

He wasn't necessarily in his right mind. I would put the label
on him if he started as a recreational user.
Should he ever turn out to be gay, now THAT
would be hypocricy.

>
> If I were to judge your "open-mindedness" based on how I feel about
> your "tone", I'd say you're an ill-informed reactionary bigot.
> Fortunately, I've listened to other things you have said and balanced
> them against the repugnant things.
>

I am not a bigot. You misrepresent my views.

>
> > > > 60 minutes has mostly been 20 years of BS
>
> > > Talking about closed minds......
>
> > I tried, I kept it open for about 10 years. I gave up on Rather & Co.
>
> This past Sunday, they ran a story on apparent criminal behavior by
> the FBI in victimizing a scientist. Many questions weren't answered,
> but that was because of a gag order by the judge. The one pro-
> persecution source they interviewed, a former federal prosecutor, was
> too stupid to understand the difference between a witness and a
> criminal.
>
> They are muckrakers. It's their mission to expose bad behavior. I
> suspect hearing bad news is what makes you uncomfortable.
>

No, it is their methods.
Evil, evil, evil.

>
> > > I believe you disagree with their agenda of exposing frauds and liars
> > > and hypocrites, so you ignorantly claim their stories are untrue. Yet
> > > only once have they ever revised a story, and they've never recanted
> > > one completely.
>
> > That speaks volunes for their inability to be balanced.
>
> Conclusion before premise. Penalty to you.
>
> > They have gotten into trouble more frequently than you portrayed.
>
> Are your sources for this claim any better than StynchBlob's?
>
> > They may not lie outright all the time, but they
> > twist, and spin, and omit inormation that runs counter to their
> > agenda.
> > The editing is tightly controlled.
> > The viewer is not shown the wole story,
>
> No question that is true at least some of the time. But that doesn't
> lessen the guilt of the perpetrators they expose.
>
>

I agree, especially in the Food Lying (Food Lion) case.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Arny Krueger

October 23rd 03, 01:28 PM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

>>
> I didn't state myself clearly. I meant to say that if partial birth
> abortions are banned outright, we will start killing innocent
> mothers to save innocent babies. However, the problem with the
> exception is that it will be falsely abused as a loophole (lying
> doctors) in some cases.

It's really hard to conceive of a case where a partial birth abortion would
save a mother's life. Why don't you work up just one believable scenario
where that would be the case.

The vast majority of the real world cases where babies had to be sacrificed
to save the life of the mother were based on circa-1940s and 1950s medical
technology. Guess what, technology marched on!

Today, abortion is predominately used to preserve the lifestyle of the
mother which is a tad different than saving the life of the mother.

Given that we can preserve the life of incredibly premature infants, this
whole situation exists in an entirely different light than it did at the
time of Roe vs. Wade.

Today's more liberal social mores facilitate a woman carrying a child to
term and delivering it live, without egregious adverse social repercussions.

Lionel

October 23rd 03, 01:57 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Nexus 6 said:
>>
>>
>>>> I am a progressive conservative.
>>
>>>Conservative in what areas?
>>>I ask in light of the list you posted earlier.
>>
>>Socky is pro-guns, anti-gay rights, and anti-job safety regulations.
>>
>>
>
>
> No, I am pro gay rights, except for marraige.
> And I am pro job safety regulations, except for
> any specific ones that might be inane.
>
> I don't think gay relationships are immoral, but I do think they
> are unnatural. And I think gays are just made that way,
> that it isn't a choice. Gay unions should be
> recognized, but not as marraige.
>
>
You are a human being, so why are you looking for Middius' approbation.

Middius doesn't care about all you life problems, Middius doesn't care
about your philosophic and metaphysical questions.
When do you understand that Middius is only a lobbyist, out of his lobby
(gay) nothing has any interest and he looks to life with an extrem
condescendence.

When you read Middius you should forget the packing to focus on the content.

George M. Middius

October 23rd 03, 03:22 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> I wish him well, I hope that when
> he comes back, he will be a little more empathetic.

If he does, that will be the end of his ride. The pinheads don't want
a softie, they want a raging *******.

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 05:29 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:1wHlb.2492$d87.696@okepread05
>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
>>>news:J1Dlb.2287$d87.1354@okepread05...
>>>
>>>
>>>>You think heroin addicts did it intentionally?
>>>
>>>
>>>YES
>
>
>>Became *addicted* intentionally?
>
>
> The fact that Heroin is an addictive drug is carefully kept concealed from
> non-addicts, particularly in neighborhoods where Heroin addiction is common.

I don't believe that.

Again, are you also saying addicts woke up one day and said
"Today is the day I start my life in hell by becoming
addicted to heroin?"

The phrase was *intentionally addicted.*

Nexus 6

Arny Krueger

October 23rd 03, 05:39 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:RnTlb.2524$d87.2036@okepread05
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
>> news:1wHlb.2492$d87.696@okepread05
>>
>>> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
>>>> news:J1Dlb.2287$d87.1354@okepread05...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You think heroin addicts did it intentionally?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> YES
>>
>>
>>> Became *addicted* intentionally?

>> The fact that Heroin is an addictive drug is carefully kept
>> concealed from non-addicts, particularly in neighborhoods where
>> Heroin addiction is common.

> I don't believe that.

Good.

> Again, are you also saying addicts woke up one day and said
> "Today is the day I start my life in hell by becoming
> addicted to heroin?"

No they get up and say something more like: I don't care about the hell of
addiction, I just wanna get high.

> The phrase was *intentionally addicted.*

Both the high and the addiction are intentional. It's just a matter of their
perceptions of costs and benefits.

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 05:41 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

>>Sure, in the sens ewe know we ought not to drive too fast
>>for it might get us killed, or eat fast food cause it might
>>give us a heart attack. With many drugs, people don't
>>believe they are *that* addictive, or that they will fall
>>prey to it.
>>
>>In other words, they don't wake uyp one morning and say"
>>Gee, think I'll sacore me a packet and start my addiction
>>today."
>>
>
>
> Same as cigarettes. It is widely known that they are addictive
> and cause lung cancer, yet peole knowingly start smoking.

Yup.

I was one of them, waiting to start at age 29, and quitting
just over a year ago.

Old enough to know better, too old to look cool doing it. ;)

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 05:43 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:ijIlb.2501$d87.1009@okepread05...
>
>
>>>against wasteful social programs that don't work (40 years of failure)
>>>(I am in favor of one's that would work)
>>
>>Such as?
>>
>
>
> school vouchers, only in districts with failing schools. I don't
> want it to become a subsidy program for the wealthy.
> But I want poor parents to have 'choice'.

I am on the fence about this. So far, it seems a transfer
payment from government to pewople who can already afford
private education for their kids.
Also, it may suck more money out of public schools, schools
which are not inherently bad, thouigh some of them stink.

>
> day care for working poor

Bravo!

>
> any programs that would work to prevent single parenthood,
> which is the leadiing cause of economic deprivation.

Unless they are those punitive, religion based programs that
approach single parenthood as if it were a crime, and treats
those mothers as criminals.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 05:44 PM

>>Maybe being such a gigantic blowhard is causing too much
>>stress? :)
>>
>
>
> I give him credit for being able to control his weight.
> I can't do that!

Might could be his addiction had somethingto do with that.

> Maybe going public (though he was outed) is the change.
> I wish him well, I hope that when
> he comes back, he will be a little more empathetic.

Honestly, I won't be holding my breath. :)

Nexus 6

Joe Duffy

October 23rd 03, 05:59 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius <glanbrok fifty-five at softhome.net change to 55> wrote:
>
>
>Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
>
>> I would say the same thing, were it a liberal point man like
>> Al Franken or James Carvile in the hot seat.
>
>Disagreed. They aren't rabble-rousers and hatemongers. In fact, it

LOL!

Joe

Joe Duffy

October 23rd 03, 06:12 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius <glanbrok fifty-five at softhome.net change to 55> wrote:
>
>was not, like Bimbaugh and Falwell, true wolves in sheep's clothing.
>

It's impossible to forget the image of
Alan Dershowitz and Jerry Falwell arguing
on TV, especially the similarities to
yourself and Kreuger in "debate".
No caricature could be more complete.

Joe

Joe Duffy

October 23rd 03, 06:16 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius <glanbrok fifty-five at softhome.net change to 55> wrote:
>
>Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
>> All I need to do is offer all you have said previously on the subject.
>> There is a tone of hatred about it.
>> I get that same tone, even more strongly, from some
>> commentators on the liberal side.
>
>If I were to judge your "open-mindedness" based on how I feel about
>your "tone", I'd say you're an ill-informed reactionary bigot.

Ah, the moral arbiter of rao has spoken!

>Fortunately, I've listened to other things you have said and balanced
>them against the repugnant things.
>

Alas, least the sycophant is safe!

Joe

nospam spammenot

October 23rd 03, 06:32 PM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "GeoSynch" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >
> > > > It's a great day today, as the culture of death is being beaten
back:
> > > > Terry Schiavo will not be cruelly starved and dehydrated to death.
> > > > That hideous infanticide procedure called partial birth abortion is
> > > > finally going to be outlawed. Oh yeah, it's a great day for life!
> >
> > > Looks like she will be cruelly fed to be forced to live a life as a
> > > vegetable, a life she has previously expressed she did nt want to
live/
> >
> > Wrong and wrong.
> >
> > See http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/13/114603.shtml
> > "Terri's parents say their daughter is not in a coma or a vegetative
> state.
> > 'Over the last 13 years, Terri has laughed with us, cried with us,
talked
> with us,
> > and even tried to get out of her chair,' Bob and Mary Schindler said in
a
> statement."
> >
>
> I consider these people as liars. They actually accused her husband of
> purposefully causing
> her heart attack 13 years ago.

If Terry Schiavo is 39 now, that would have made her 26 at the time of her
heart attack. Unless there was some sort of existing heart condition that I
missed in the news about this story, isn't that awfully young to have a
heart attack?

No72forU

George M. Middius

October 23rd 03, 06:45 PM

Joe Doofy said:

> It's impossible to forget the image of
> Alan Dershowitz and Jerry Falwell arguing
> on TV, especially the similarities to
> yourself and Kreuger in "debate".

God, are you stupid. Did Gregipus sell you a franchise?

> No caricature could be more complete.

..... said one of the cheeriest, funniest empty bladders in the world.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 11:26 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> > I didn't state myself clearly. I meant to say that if partial birth
> > abortions are banned outright, we will start killing innocent
> > mothers to save innocent babies. However, the problem with the
> > exception is that it will be falsely abused as a loophole (lying
> > doctors) in some cases.
>
> It's really hard to conceive of a case where a partial birth abortion
would
> save a mother's life. Why don't you work up just one believable scenario
> where that would be the case.
>
> The vast majority of the real world cases where babies had to be
sacrificed
> to save the life of the mother were based on circa-1940s and 1950s medical
> technology. Guess what, technology marched on!
>
> Today, abortion is predominately used to preserve the lifestyle of the
> mother which is a tad different than saving the life of the mother.
>
> Given that we can preserve the life of incredibly premature infants, this
> whole situation exists in an entirely different light than it did at the
> time of Roe vs. Wade.
>
> Today's more liberal social mores facilitate a woman carrying a child to
> term and delivering it live, without egregious adverse social
repercussions.
>

Are you talking about single mothers? If so, the egregious adverse
condition is economic. Households headed by single mothers earn far
less than households with father and mother. AS a matter of fact, if
you acciunt for that difference, the disparity between incomes of
whites and blacks tends to disappear.

It is not that I advocate abortion, prevention is certainly
far better. But I just can't see where forcing the will
pro-lifers on the rest of American society can be a workable
solution, even it were the right thing to do. (and it
is not). If they are going to execute (it is murder according
to the pro-lifers) doctors for performing abortions,
they should also execute the mothers seeking abortion.
After all, we do prosecute the instigators in murder for
hire schemes. It is logically and morally consistent to
prosecute both parties. If the reactionaries want to
ban abortions, they better be prepared to
take their moral arguments to their bitter conclusion.

But abortions will not be banned. The enforcement
necessary to do so is too draconian.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 11:46 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:RnTlb.2524$d87.2036@okepread05...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:1wHlb.2492$d87.696@okepread05
> >
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> >>>news:J1Dlb.2287$d87.1354@okepread05...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>You think heroin addicts did it intentionally?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>YES
> >
> >
> >>Became *addicted* intentionally?
> >
> >
> > The fact that Heroin is an addictive drug is carefully kept concealed
from
> > non-addicts, particularly in neighborhoods where Heroin addiction is
common.
>
> I don't believe that.
>
> Again, are you also saying addicts woke up one day and said
> "Today is the day I start my life in hell by becoming
> addicted to heroin?"
>
> The phrase was *intentionally addicted.*
>

More like "I know that H is addictive and I will likely
become an addict, but I don't
give a **** cause I want to get high.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 11:48 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> No they get up and say something more like: I don't care about the hell of
> addiction, I just wanna get high.
>

Oh my God!
Just a minute ago I said almost the same exact words.
I bet that Arny will be just as mortified as I am.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 11:51 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

>>The phrase was *intentionally addicted.*
>>
>
>
> More like "I know that H is addictive and I will likely
> become an addict, but I don't
> give a **** cause I want to get high.

That's not how a lot of them get started.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 23rd 03, 11:52 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>No they get up and say something more like: I don't care about the hell of
>>addiction, I just wanna get high.
>>
>
>
> Oh my God!
> Just a minute ago I said almost the same exact words.
> I bet that Arny will be just as mortified as I am.

How will you ever live it down. :)

Nexus 6

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 11:55 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:5BTlb.2527$d87.430@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:ijIlb.2501$d87.1009@okepread05...
> >
> >
> >>>against wasteful social programs that don't work (40 years of failure)
> >>>(I am in favor of one's that would work)
> >>
> >>Such as?
> >>
> >
> >
> > school vouchers, only in districts with failing schools. I don't
> > want it to become a subsidy program for the wealthy.
> > But I want poor parents to have 'choice'.
>
> I am on the fence about this. So far, it seems a transfer
> payment from government to pewople who can already afford
> private education for their kids.
> Also, it may suck more money out of public schools, schools
> which are not inherently bad, thouigh some of them stink.
>
> >
> > day care for working poor
>
> Bravo!
>
> >
> > any programs that would work to prevent single parenthood,
> > which is the leadiing cause of economic deprivation.
>
> Unless they are those punitive, religion based programs that
> approach single parenthood as if it were a crime, and treats
> those mothers as criminals.
>

No, I am a pragmatist about this.

I feel that the last 40 years of Democratic politics has been
mostly a disservice to the poor, and hence, to
the rest of society. At first, well intentioned
mistakes, but now, blind stupidity.

And I grant that many conservatives just don't care,
which is very, very stupid. Poverty and race relations
has an impact on our whole society.

However, I think that in recent years, there seems to
be a growing group of Conservatives that do care.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 11:57 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:gCTlb.2528$d87.18@okepread05...
>
>
>
> >>Maybe being such a gigantic blowhard is causing too much
> >>stress? :)
> >>
> >
> >
> > I give him credit for being able to control his weight.
> > I can't do that!
>
> Might could be his addiction had somethingto do with that.
>

I don't know. Did he lose weight before
or after he started using the painkillers?

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 23rd 03, 11:59 PM

"nospam spammenot" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "GeoSynch" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > >
> > > > > It's a great day today, as the culture of death is being beaten
> back:
> > > > > Terry Schiavo will not be cruelly starved and dehydrated to death.
> > > > > That hideous infanticide procedure called partial birth abortion
is
> > > > > finally going to be outlawed. Oh yeah, it's a great day for life!
> > >
> > > > Looks like she will be cruelly fed to be forced to live a life as a
> > > > vegetable, a life she has previously expressed she did nt want to
> live/
> > >
> > > Wrong and wrong.
> > >
> > > See http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/13/114603.shtml
> > > "Terri's parents say their daughter is not in a coma or a vegetative
> > state.
> > > 'Over the last 13 years, Terri has laughed with us, cried with us,
> talked
> > with us,
> > > and even tried to get out of her chair,' Bob and Mary Schindler said
in
> a
> > statement."
> > >
> >
> > I consider these people as liars. They actually accused her husband of
> > purposefully causing
> > her heart attack 13 years ago.
>
> If Terry Schiavo is 39 now, that would have made her 26 at the time of her
> heart attack. Unless there was some sort of existing heart condition that
I
> missed in the news about this story, isn't that awfully young to have a
> heart attack?
>

Yes
I don't know those details.
Every so often I hear of a young athlete dying of a heart attack.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 24th 03, 12:07 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:A_Ylb.2558$d87.446@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>
> >>The phrase was *intentionally addicted.*
> >>
> >
> >
> > More like "I know that H is addictive and I will likely
> > become an addict, but I don't
> > give a **** cause I want to get high.
>
> That's not how a lot of them get started.
>

By the time they get to H, its likely they have already
been a crack head. H soothes some of the angst
of the crack high.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nexus 6

October 24th 03, 12:36 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:gCTlb.2528$d87.18@okepread05...
>
>>
>>
>>>>Maybe being such a gigantic blowhard is causing too much
>>>>stress? :)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I give him credit for being able to control his weight.
>>>I can't do that!
>>
>>Might could be his addiction had somethingto do with that.
>>
>
>
> I don't know. Did he lose weight before
> or after he started using the painkillers?

Uh, that depends upon when he started using them, which is
not entirely clear.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 24th 03, 12:39 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:A_Ylb.2558$d87.446@okepread05...
>
>>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>The phrase was *intentionally addicted.*
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>More like "I know that H is addictive and I will likely
>>>become an addict, but I don't
>>>give a **** cause I want to get high.
>>
>>That's not how a lot of them get started.
>>
>
>
> By the time they get to H, its likely they have already
> been a crack head. H soothes some of the angst
> of the crack high.

This is absolutely false, Art. Heroin addiction has been a
problem far longer than crack has even existed as a known
substance.

In fact, the entire theory of "escalation" as relates to
drug usage has long since been disproven. Heroin stands all
on its own as a highly addictive, very destructive drug. One
not too far removed from Rush's habit...

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 24th 03, 12:46 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

>>>any programs that would work to prevent single parenthood,
>>>which is the leadiing cause of economic deprivation.
>>
>>Unless they are those punitive, religion based programs that
>>approach single parenthood as if it were a crime, and treats
>>those mothers as criminals.
>
>
>
> No, I am a pragmatist about this.

Good thing.

>
> I feel that the last 40 years of Democratic politics has been
> mostly a disservice to the poor, and hence, to
> the rest of society. At first, well intentioned
> mistakes, but now, blind stupidity.

Calling it "40 years of Democratic politics" is a alittle
disingenuous. Many of Nixon's social programs were passed
with the aid of Democratic congresses, and those policies
originated in the White House.

I'd say the same for Reagan, but he held a particular
distaste for the poor, and it showed.

Think Clinton, and you have "welfare to work," which has
been a major disaster in those states which have most
aggressively adopted it. Now the states are all in budgetary
troubles thanks to a regressive economy and rabid tax
cutting, and what few social programs remain are drying up
and blowing away.

So the blame goes both ways, for those things that have gone
wrong.

And those that havbe gone *right*.

>
> And I grant that many conservatives just don't care,
> which is very, very stupid. Poverty and race relations
> has an impact on our whole society.

It is part and parcel of Republican economic theory to
maintain an underclass - the better to beat the rest of us
into working harder and longer for less.

>
> However, I think that in recent years, there seems to
> be a growing group of Conservatives that do care.

I would contend that group is shrinking. Older style
Republicans who were fiscally conservative (bot not rabid
tax cutters) and socially moderate are disappearing, being
replaced by so-called "neo-conservatives," who view social
programs of any type as the enemy of larger defense budgets
and tax giveaways to those who don't really need it.

you are obviously not of that mold, thankfully.

Nexus 6

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 24th 03, 01:27 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:8HZlb.2563$d87.437@okepread05...
>
>\> >>
> >
> >
> > By the time they get to H, its likely they have already
> > been a crack head. H soothes some of the angst
> > of the crack high.
>
> This is absolutely false, Art. Heroin addiction has been a
> problem far longer than crack has even existed as a known
> substance.
>

That was then, this is now.

> In fact, the entire theory of "escalation" as relates to
> drug usage has long since been disproven. Heroin stands all
> on its own as a highly addictive, very destructive drug. One
> not too far removed from Rush's habit...
>

I don't necessarily consider it escalation.
And i only ascribe the particular relationship
as between crack and H, not between any other drug and H.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 24th 03, 01:46 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:qNZlb.2564$d87.986@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>
> >>>any programs that would work to prevent single parenthood,
> >>>which is the leadiing cause of economic deprivation.
> >>
> >>Unless they are those punitive, religion based programs that
> >>approach single parenthood as if it were a crime, and treats
> >>those mothers as criminals.
> >
> >
> >
> > No, I am a pragmatist about this.
>
> Good thing.
>
> >
> > I feel that the last 40 years of Democratic politics has been
> > mostly a disservice to the poor, and hence, to
> > the rest of society. At first, well intentioned
> > mistakes, but now, blind stupidity.
>
> Calling it "40 years of Democratic politics" is a alittle
> disingenuous. Many of Nixon's social programs were passed
> with the aid of Democratic congresses, and those policies
> originated in the White House.
>

No, not at all. I am talking about the Great Society,
the War on Poverty, and even earlier efforts.

> I'd say the same for Reagan, but he held a particular
> distaste for the poor, and it showed.
>

I don't think he hated them.

> Think Clinton, and you have "welfare to work," which has
> been a major disaster in those states which have most
> aggressively adopted it.

Not from what I read.

Now the states are all in budgetary
> troubles thanks to a regressive economy and rabid tax
> cutting, and what few social programs remain are drying up
> and blowing away.
>

you are dead wrong about the cause, as far as taxes.

> So the blame goes both ways, for those things that have gone
> wrong.
>
> And those that havbe gone *right*.
>

No, the culture of massive social programs
is a liberal Democratic phenomenum,
not a Conservative Republican one.

> >
> > And I grant that many conservatives just don't care,
> > which is very, very stupid. Poverty and race relations
> > has an impact on our whole society.
>
> It is part and parcel of Republican economic theory to
> maintain an underclass - the better to beat the rest of us
> into working harder and longer for less.
>

That is not true.
But, there will always be an underclass.
It's how things work in the real world.
It couldn't work any other way.
A world or country where evryone is of equal economic condition
just can't exist. Not even at the end of a barrel of a gun.

> >
> > However, I think that in recent years, there seems to
> > be a growing group of Conservatives that do care.
>
> I would contend that group is shrinking. Older style
> Republicans who were fiscally conservative (bot not rabid
> tax cutters) and socially moderate are disappearing, being
> replaced by so-called "neo-conservatives," who view social
> programs of any type as the enemy of larger defense budgets
> and tax giveaways to those who don't really need it.
>

No, there is Giuliani, Schwartzenegger, Pataki,
Kemp, Ehrlich, Ridge, etc.

Note, these are Republcans who have been elected in liberal areas.
Neo conservatives have a harder time getting elected, unless they are
from more conservative sparsley populate rural areas. Look at
the McClintock and Simon flops in California.

I think you have those ultra lib blinders on,
and are all to quick to demonize anyone appearing
to be any type of conservative(even dunping on
Democrats who are less liberal than they)

The Democratic libs keep pushing the same tired old agendas.
Its time to open our minds and take a critical introspective look
at issues and programs relating to coities, miborities and the poor.
Dems just don't want to do that. Its the same
ols dtuff, decade after decade.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nexus 6

October 24th 03, 02:26 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:8HZlb.2563$d87.437@okepread05...
>
>>\> >>
>>
>>>
>>>By the time they get to H, its likely they have already
>>>been a crack head. H soothes some of the angst
>>>of the crack high.
>>
>>This is absolutely false, Art. Heroin addiction has been a
>>problem far longer than crack has even existed as a known
>>substance.
>>
>
>
> That was then, this is now.

I'm willing to bet hte majority of heroin addicts never
touched a crack pipe. Doesn't mean crackheads don't slide
themselves a little heroin to take the edge off.

>
>
>>In fact, the entire theory of "escalation" as relates to
>>drug usage has long since been disproven. Heroin stands all
>>on its own as a highly addictive, very destructive drug. One
>>not too far removed from Rush's habit...
>>
>
>
> I don't necessarily consider it escalation.
> And i only ascribe the particular relationship
> as between crack and H, not between any other drug and H.

Which is taking us further from the point.

Not that we need to haggle over it - seems we agree on what
to do with these folks on the other end of it.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 24th 03, 02:44 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

>>>I feel that the last 40 years of Democratic politics has been
>>>mostly a disservice to the poor, and hence, to
>>>the rest of society. At first, well intentioned
>>>mistakes, but now, blind stupidity.
>>
>>Calling it "40 years of Democratic politics" is a alittle
>>disingenuous. Many of Nixon's social programs were passed
>>with the aid of Democratic congresses, and those policies
>>originated in the White House.
>>
>
>
> No, not at all. I am talking about the Great Society,
> the War on Poverty, and even earlier efforts.

Again, you miss my point. Those programs, and many like
them, were not the *sole* creation of the Democratic party.

>
>
>
>>I'd say the same for Reagan, but he held a particular
>>distaste for the poor, and it showed.
>>
>
>
> I don't think he hated them.

I used the word "distaste."

>
>
>>Think Clinton, and you have "welfare to work," which has
>>been a major disaster in those states which have most
>>aggressively adopted it.
>
>
> Not from what I read.

The "work" folks have been moved to is hardly that, and
fails to provide a working wage. This leaves the people
being forced off welfare or other support into the same
place they started from - unable to make even rudimentary
ends meet. Many of these people are single mothers who now
have no health care or shild care, and a job that will not
pay rent or all of their bills, much less support a child.

Where is the logic in that?

>
> Now the states are all in budgetary
>
>>troubles thanks to a regressive economy and rabid tax
>>cutting, and what few social programs remain are drying up
>>and blowing away.
>>
>
>
> you are dead wrong about the cause, as far as taxes.

They are, right this moment, certainly a part of the mix.
Not only have federal taxes been massively cut, but states
have been doing the same thing. It is not the only cause,
but it is certainly part of the equation.

>
>
>>So the blame goes both ways, for those things that have gone
>>wrong.
>>
>>And those that havbe gone *right*.
>>
>
>
> No, the culture of massive social programs
> is a liberal Democratic phenomenum,
> not a Conservative Republican one.

Maybe not a *conservative* Republican one, but Republicans
have certainly been involved.

>
>
>
>>>And I grant that many conservatives just don't care,
>>>which is very, very stupid. Poverty and race relations
>>>has an impact on our whole society.
>>
>>It is part and parcel of Republican economic theory to
>>maintain an underclass - the better to beat the rest of us
>>into working harder and longer for less.
>>
>
>
> That is not true.
> But, there will always be an underclass.
> It's how things work in the real world.
> It couldn't work any other way.
> A world or country where evryone is of equal economic condition
> just can't exist. Not even at the end of a barrel of a gun.

There will always be an underclass, true, but how does that
class live and function in our society, and how does the
rest of that society, which relies on that class for sdome
of its own well being, treat those people?

I say, in this, the richest nation in all of time, we do
pretty poorly.

>
>
>
>>>However, I think that in recent years, there seems to
>>>be a growing group of Conservatives that do care.
>>
>>I would contend that group is shrinking. Older style
>>Republicans who were fiscally conservative (bot not rabid
>>tax cutters) and socially moderate are disappearing, being
>>replaced by so-called "neo-conservatives," who view social
>>programs of any type as the enemy of larger defense budgets
>>and tax giveaways to those who don't really need it.
>>
>
>
> No, there is Giuliani, Schwartzenegger, Pataki,
> Kemp, Ehrlich, Ridge, etc.

Some good examples there.

>
> Note, these are Republcans who have been elected in liberal areas.
> Neo conservatives have a harder time getting elected, unless they are
> from more conservative sparsley populate rural areas. Look at
> the McClintock and Simon flops in California.

California is an exception - the hard right has never done
well there, and the state Republican party hasn't been taken
over by the hard line folks.

Why they allowed Simon to win the primary and get beat in
the gubernatorial election is still something I can't fathom.

>
> I think you have those ultra lib blinders on,
> and are all to quick to demonize anyone appearing
> to be any type of conservative(even dunping on
> Democrats who are less liberal than they)

I'm not demonizing anyone. I recognize that there are
Republicans who have a conscience and a heart - my
contention is simply that the hard right wing of the party
exerts an influence over Republican policy nationwide all
out of proportion to their actual numbers. Think about talk
radio - no "compassionate conseravtism" to be found there.
The most popular hosts are closely allied to the neocon
faction of the party.

I would rather see people like those you list above have
more influence on policy than they do now. They are popular
figures, bot not particularly powerful in the present context.

>
> The Democratic libs keep pushing the same tired old agendas.

A few.

Most have long ago adopted a very corporatist agenda,
basically in competition with their Republican brothers for
the same pool of campagin contributions. It is one of the
reasons Democrats have fared so poorly in recent elections:
Given the choice between a real Republican and a wannabe,
Republicans win every time.

A few others are being extremely pragmatic about issues. I
disagree with Howard Dean on a number of issues, but admire
his stance on others. It's kind of funny to see him being
called a "flaming liberal" by both Republicans and the other
Democrats vying for the nomination. Nice to see they can
agree on *something*. :)

> Its time to open our minds and take a critical introspective look
> at issues and programs relating to coities, miborities and the poor.
> Dems just don't want to do that. Its the same
> ols dtuff, decade after decade.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this. Democrats have
abandoned their traditional core base, moving to the
"center" in search of the winning balance of campaign cash
and electoral success. In that regard, they have adopted
policies, a la Clinton (who was no liberal), that mimic
Republican policies. It is a losing combination, and I hope
the current party leadership goes down hard.

Similarly, I'd like to see neocon influence over the
Republican party mitigated by the majority members of thgat
party.

It might come as a shock to you, but in state elections, and
one congressional one, I voted for a Republican because I
thought he was better qualified for the job and had ideas
more similar to my own.

Ok, you can get your jaw off the floor now!

Nexus 6

Michael Mckelvy

October 24th 03, 03:18 AM

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>
> > > It's a great day today, as the culture of death is being beaten back:
> > > Terry Schiavo will not be cruelly starved and dehydrated to death.
>
> > It's better to let someone whose brainwaves are a flat line live? I'm
not
> > so sure.
>
> What's the basis for your "brainwaves are a flat line" claim?
> Certainly not Terri Schiavo's.
>
Her doctors. This woman is brain dead. She will never, ever get better.

> > > That hideous infanticide procedure called partial birth abortion is
> > > finally going to be outlawed. Oh yeah, it's a great day for life!
>
> > Without a provision for the health of the mother. Likely to overturned.
>
> Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.
>

Which is why I prefer to let doctors decide.

Bruce J. Richman

October 24th 03, 04:35 AM

Nexus 6 wrote:

>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
>> news:A_Ylb.2558$d87.446@okepread05...
>>
>>>
>>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The phrase was *intentionally addicted.*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>More like "I know that H is addictive and I will likely
>>>>become an addict, but I don't
>>>>give a **** cause I want to get high.
>>>
>>>That's not how a lot of them get started.
>>>
>>
>>
>> By the time they get to H, its likely they have already
>> been a crack head. H soothes some of the angst
>> of the crack high.
>
>This is absolutely false, Art. Heroin addiction has been a
>problem far longer than crack has even existed as a known
>substance.
>
>In fact, the entire theory of "escalation" as relates to
>drug usage has long since been disproven. Heroin stands all
>on its own as a highly addictive, very destructive drug. One
>not too far removed from Rush's habit...
>
>Nexus 6
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I've had the clinical experience a number of times of both evaluating and
treating crack, heroin and various pain-killer (e.g. Vicodin, Tylenol # 3 with
Codeine, Percoset, etc.) users. From a biochemical perspective, heroin and
many of the painkillers that people get addicted to are *much* more similar to
each other than to cocaine. Heroin and most prescription painkillers are
classified as narcotics; cocaine, while obviously addictive, is not a
narcotic. From a treatment point of view, they are also significantly harder
to quit. Whereas cocaine addicts can usually quit and go cold turkey without
any serious medical complications, most prescription painkillers such as the
ones listed above, like heroin, require detoxification in a hospital setting
with careful monitoring of vital signs (e.g. blood pressure, heart rate, ),
tremors, seizure precautions, etc. It is customary frequently to use various
drugs such as catabpres, tranxene, etc. to minimize some of these effects.
Bruce J. Richman

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 24th 03, 05:11 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:zw%lb.2571$d87.750@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>
> >>>I feel that the last 40 years of Democratic politics has been
> >>>mostly a disservice to the poor, and hence, to
> >>>the rest of society. At first, well intentioned
> >>>mistakes, but now, blind stupidity.
> >>
> >>Calling it "40 years of Democratic politics" is a alittle
> >>disingenuous. Many of Nixon's social programs were passed
> >>with the aid of Democratic congresses, and those policies
> >>originated in the White House.
> >>
> >
> >
> > No, not at all. I am talking about the Great Society,
> > the War on Poverty, and even earlier efforts.
>
> Again, you miss my point. Those programs, and many like
> them, were not the *sole* creation of the Democratic party.
>

They were predominantley Democratic programs.

> >

>
> The "work" folks have been moved to is hardly that, and
> fails to provide a working wage. This leaves the people
> being forced off welfare or other support into the same
> place they started from - unable to make even rudimentary
> ends meet. Many of these people are single mothers who now
> have no health care or shild care, and a job that will not
> pay rent or all of their bills, much less support a child.
>
> Where is the logic in that?
>

Welfare ain't no living wage.
It REALLY sucks,

Six bucka an hour for 160
hours per mont is $960 per month
8 bcks is $1240
Welfare is far less, and is demeaning to the spirit.
A welfare life is one step up from slavery.

> >
> > Now the states are all in budgetary
> >
> >>troubles thanks to a regressive economy and rabid tax
> >>cutting, and what few social programs remain are drying up
> >>and blowing away.
> >>
> >
> >
> > you are dead wrong about the cause, as far as taxes.
>
> They are, right this moment, certainly a part of the mix.
> Not only have federal taxes been massively cut, but states
> have been doing the same thing. It is not the only cause,
> but it is certainly part of the equation.
>

It is not massive, in terms of individual cuts, on termsof
the Federal Budget, and in terms of the American economy.
It is pathertically small.
States have been raising taxes.
The downturn has caused lost revenue from
decreased individual spending (which the
tax cut raise,,though by a pittance) and form lower sales taxes
and lower income taxes because income went down, not
because rates went down.

> >
> > No, the culture of massive social programs
> > is a liberal Democratic phenomenum,
> > not a Conservative Republican one.
>
> Maybe not a *conservative* Republican one, but Republicans
> have certainly been involved.
>

As much as any legislation proposed by one side
gets worked on in comittee by the other side.
The Great Society and the War on Poverty
were Democratic initiatives and could NOT be
accurately described as bipartisan efforts.

> >>
> >>It is part and parcel of Republican economic theory to
> >>maintain an underclass - the better to beat the rest of us
> >>into working harder and longer for less.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That is not true.
> > But, there will always be an underclass.
> > It's how things work in the real world.
> > It couldn't work any other way.
> > A world or country where evryone is of equal economic condition
> > just can't exist. Not even at the end of a barrel of a gun.
>
> There will always be an underclass, true, but how does that
> class live and function in our society, and how does the
> rest of that society, which relies on that class for sdome
> of its own well being, treat those people?
>
> I say, in this, the richest nation in all of time, we do
> pretty poorly.
>

Actually not. our underclass has TV's, cars, air conditioning and cell
phones.
In other countries, the underclass washes its clothes
by hand and does not have indoor plumbing.
Their undercalss walks, rides bikes, or drive horse drawn
vehicles.

> >
> > No, there is Giuliani, Schwartzenegger, Pataki,
> > Kemp, Ehrlich, Ridge, etc.
>
> Some good examples there.
>
> >
> > Note, these are Republcans who have been elected in liberal areas.
> > Neo conservatives have a harder time getting elected, unless they are
> > from more conservative sparsley populate rural areas. Look at
> > the McClintock and Simon flops in California.
>
> California is an exception - the hard right has never done
> well there, and the state Republican party hasn't been taken
> over by the hard line folks.
>

Its typical of the mid Atlantic and New England, too.

> Why they allowed Simon to win the primary and get beat in
> the gubernatorial election is still something I can't fathom.
>

Republicans like to eat their young.
This year we will see if the Democrats do the same.

> >
> > I think you have those ultra lib blinders on,
> > and are all to quick to demonize anyone appearing
> > to be any type of conservative(even dunping on
> > Democrats who are less liberal than they)
>
> I'm not demonizing anyone. I recognize that there are
> Republicans who have a conscience and a heart - my
> contention is simply that the hard right wing of the party
> exerts an influence over Republican policy nationwide all
> out of proportion to their actual numbers. Think about talk
> radio - no "compassionate conseravtism" to be found there.
> The most popular hosts are closely allied to the neocon
> faction of the party.
>

I don't think the talk hosts are all that reactionary, though
many callers are. Liddy, Hannity, and to some extent
Limbaugh, supported Schwartzenneger over McClintock
(though they preferred McClintock in their hearts)
However, I do think that in BOTH parties, the extremes exert
more influence than is proportional to their numbers

> >
> > The Democratic libs keep pushing the same tired old agendas.
>
> A few.
>
> Most have long ago adopted a very corporatist agenda,
> basically in competition with their Republican brothers for
> the same pool of campagin contributions. It is one of the
> reasons Democrats have fared so poorly in recent elections:
> Given the choice between a real Republican and a wannabe,
> Republicans win every time.
>

That is not the agenda I was talking about

> A few others are being extremely pragmatic about issues. I
> disagree with Howard Dean on a number of issues, but admire
> his stance on others. It's kind of funny to see him being
> called a "flaming liberal" by both Republicans and the other
> Democrats vying for the nomination. Nice to see they can
> agree on *something*. :)
>
> > Its time to open our minds and take a critical introspective look
> > at issues and programs relating to coities, miborities and the poor.
> > Dems just don't want to do that. Its the same
> > ols dtuff, decade after decade.
>
> I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this. Democrats have
> abandoned their traditional core base, moving to the
> "center" in search of the winning balance of campaign cash
> and electoral success. In that regard, they have adopted
> policies, a la Clinton (who was no liberal), that mimic
> Republican policies. It is a losing combination, and I hope
> the current party leadership goes down hard.
>

But they haven't come up with any new,
fresh approaches to solve social problems
Its the same old mantra, even from the
more centrist DLC types, for:
affirmative action
no school vouchers
dump more money into failing schools
subsidize the irresponsibilty of single parenthood

> Similarly, I'd like to see neocon influence over the
> Republican party mitigated by the majority members of thgat
> party.
>
> It might come as a shock to you, but in state elections, and
> one congressional one, I voted for a Republican because I
> thought he was better qualified for the job and had ideas
> more similar to my own.
>
Actually, that doesn't surprise me.
My votes are ususally split about 50/50
You would be surprise that I vote for Sen Mikulski
though she ie quite liberal, she is effective in
representing the interests of my state. The other liberal,
Sarbanes, never gets my vote.

I vote more for the character and abilities of the person.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Joseph Oberlander

October 24th 03, 06:55 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:5BTlb.2527$d87.430@okepread05...
>
>>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
>>>news:ijIlb.2501$d87.1009@okepread05...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>against wasteful social programs that don't work (40 years of failure)
>>>>>(I am in favor of one's that would work)
>>>>
>>>>Such as?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>school vouchers, only in districts with failing schools. I don't
>>>want it to become a subsidy program for the wealthy.
>>>But I want poor parents to have 'choice'.
>>
>>I am on the fence about this. So far, it seems a transfer
>>payment from government to pewople who can already afford
>>private education for their kids.
>>Also, it may suck more money out of public schools, schools
>>which are not inherently bad, thouigh some of them stink.

Aww. You mean they have to improve and innovate to keep
their jobs instead of sitting on their government paid
butts?

Honestly - here in Los Angeles, home of the LAUSD, where
the average employee is as motivated as those at the DMV,
and because of tenure, impossible to fire...

Yeah - I have a different prespective I guess. Wonder why
it costs $500K for a crackerbox in L.A.? It's because peolpe
would rather sell their souls and eat ramen to pay for schools
that aren't cesspools.

Michael Mckelvy

October 24th 03, 07:45 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "GeoSynch" > wrote in message
> > > . net...
> > > > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> > > > > So did organized crime
> > > > > Of course, organized crime has been even more successful
> infiltrating
> > > > > some corporations.
> > > >
> > > > Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > GeoSynch
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A nunber of building trade companies in NYC.
> > > particularly in concrete and windows.
> > > Trash haulers, many different cities
> > > Trucking companies
> > > some import/export companies
> > >
> > Which goes right along with the Teamsters love affair with the mob.
> >
> >
>
>
> Sure, and they were always into infiltrating businesses too.
> That doesn't make unions innately evil and it doesn't make
> corporations innately evil.
>
I never claimed such. In the case of the Grocery strike the union wants to
keep unreasonable (in todays economic climate) of healthcare benefits.
Current employees willbe asked to contribute $5.00 a week or $15.00 a week
for health insurance and there will be increased copays.

The union is IMO being unreasonable given the current state of competition
and the level of skill need to be a grocery worker.

The Wal Mart superstores are coming and they will drastically change the
landscape for grocery shopping.

Asking the big chains to pay at the current levels will only hasten their
downfall but put the unions workers on the street.

The other major strike going on in LA is with the MTA's mechanics. The
people are just ****ing morons. They mismanaged their own pension fund
(nothing criminal, just stupid) and they want raises and more contributions
to the pension fund. The economic reality is that the city doesn't have any
money.
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael Mckelvy

October 24th 03, 07:52 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:J1Dlb.2287$d87.1354@okepread05...
>
>
>
> >>>>>Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?
> >>>>
> >>>>Enron, Worldcom, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>Organized, and criminal in the extreme.
> >>>>
> >>>>Make the Mob look like ****ing amateurs.
>
> >>>
> >>>And the bosses will all be going to jail, except maybe Terry
McCauliffe.
> >>
> >>You must be kidding.
> >>
> >>Enron's best friend is running the big show in that big
> >>white house.
> >
> >
> > Lieberman?
>
> Resident Shrub.
>
> Be serious for just ten seconds.
>
> >
> >
> >>None of them indicted, and none to see prison.
> >
> > Yet.
>
> Ever.
>
> Count on it.
>
> >
> >>McAuliffe, for what it is worth, learned his tricks from the
> >>legacy set by folks like Lee A****er.
> >
> > Riiiiiiiiiiiiiigghhht!
>
> it is absolutely true. A****er set the standard by which
> modern political operatives behave. This doesn't make
> McAuliffe a good guy - he's just as much a apart of the
> problem as the Bush coterie.
>
> >
> >>Equally, Limbaugh, a staunch proponent of jail time for
> >>addicts, will not be charged, thanks to Jebbie.
> >>
> >>Nexus 6
> >
> >
> > When has Rush Limbaugh ever said people who become accidentally addicted
to
> > prescrition pain killers should go to jail?
>
> "Accidentally addicted?"
>
Yes. I take oxicontin for pain and I'm not an addict. I recieved a
prescription in July and still have some left.

I think Rush got bad or incomplete medical advice. He should have recieved
cortisone epidurals or facette blocks. I've had the former and they are
very effective.

> You think heroin addicts did it intentionally?
>
> Nexus 6
>
>
Who doesn't know that heroin is addictive? Who takes heroin under doctor's
orders?

For the record, I've repeatedly said I'm in favor of all drugs being legal.
There is no war on drugs, only a war on people who use drugs.

Michael Mckelvy

October 24th 03, 07:57 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:RnTlb.2524$d87.2036@okepread05...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:1wHlb.2492$d87.696@okepread05
> >
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> >>>news:J1Dlb.2287$d87.1354@okepread05...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>You think heroin addicts did it intentionally?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>YES
> >
> >
> >>Became *addicted* intentionally?
> >
> >
> > The fact that Heroin is an addictive drug is carefully kept concealed
from
> > non-addicts, particularly in neighborhoods where Heroin addiction is
common.
>
> I don't believe that.
>
> Again, are you also saying addicts woke up one day and said
> "Today is the day I start my life in hell by becoming
> addicted to heroin?"
>
> The phrase was *intentionally addicted.*
>
> Nexus 6
>
That heroin is HIGHLY addictive is one of the most widely known things n the
world.

That the rush is one that makes people want it more is also widely known.

There is no safe recreational use of heroin if you want to avoid addiction.

That it is the best or oneof the very best pain killers and illegal is a
****ing shame.

Michael Mckelvy

October 24th 03, 08:01 AM

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Nexus 6 wrote:
>
>
> >Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >
> >> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> >> news:A_Ylb.2558$d87.446@okepread05...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>The phrase was *intentionally addicted.*
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>More like "I know that H is addictive and I will likely
> >>>>become an addict, but I don't
> >>>>give a **** cause I want to get high.
> >>>
> >>>That's not how a lot of them get started.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> By the time they get to H, its likely they have already
> >> been a crack head. H soothes some of the angst
> >> of the crack high.
> >
> >This is absolutely false, Art. Heroin addiction has been a
> >problem far longer than crack has even existed as a known
> >substance.
> >
> >In fact, the entire theory of "escalation" as relates to
> >drug usage has long since been disproven. Heroin stands all
> >on its own as a highly addictive, very destructive drug. One
> >not too far removed from Rush's habit...
> >
> >Nexus 6
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I've had the clinical experience a number of times of both evaluating and
> treating crack, heroin and various pain-killer (e.g. Vicodin, Tylenol # 3
with
> Codeine, Percoset, etc.) users. From a biochemical perspective, heroin
and
> many of the painkillers that people get addicted to are *much* more
similar to
> each other than to cocaine. Heroin and most prescription painkillers are
> classified as narcotics; cocaine, while obviously addictive, is not a
> narcotic. From a treatment point of view, they are also significantly
harder
> to quit. Whereas cocaine addicts can usually quit and go cold turkey
without
> any serious medical complications, most prescription painkillers such as
the
> ones listed above, like heroin, require detoxification in a hospital
setting
> with careful monitoring of vital signs (e.g. blood pressure, heart
rate, ),
> tremors, seizure precautions, etc. It is customary frequently to use
various
> drugs such as catabpres, tranxene, etc. to minimize some of these effects.
> Bruce J. Richman
>
>
Chronic use of opiates is however harmelss. Unless one overdoses there are
health problems from the drugs themselves. There may be lifestyle issues
but that's another subject.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 24th 03, 12:28 PM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "GeoSynch" > wrote in message
> > > > . net...
> > > > > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> > > > > > So did organized crime
> > > > > > Of course, organized crime has been even more successful
> > infiltrating
> > > > > > some corporations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > GeoSynch
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A nunber of building trade companies in NYC.
> > > > particularly in concrete and windows.
> > > > Trash haulers, many different cities
> > > > Trucking companies
> > > > some import/export companies
> > > >
> > > Which goes right along with the Teamsters love affair with the mob.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sure, and they were always into infiltrating businesses too.
> > That doesn't make unions innately evil and it doesn't make
> > corporations innately evil.
> >
> I never claimed such. In the case of the Grocery strike the union wants
to
> keep unreasonable (in todays economic climate) of healthcare benefits.
> Current employees willbe asked to contribute $5.00 a week or $15.00 a week
> for health insurance and there will be increased copays.
>
> The union is IMO being unreasonable given the current state of competition
> and the level of skill need to be a grocery worker.
>
> The Wal Mart superstores are coming and they will drastically change the
> landscape for grocery shopping.
>
> Asking the big chains to pay at the current levels will only hasten their
> downfall but put the unions workers on the street.
>
> The other major strike going on in LA is with the MTA's mechanics. The
> people are just ****ing morons. They mismanaged their own pension fund
> (nothing criminal, just stupid) and they want raises and more
contributions
> to the pension fund. The economic reality is that the city doesn't have
any
> money.

I understand and accept that many times unions price
their workers out of their jobs. Stupid businesses
do similarly stupid things in their businesses, and
they go bankrupt. It's capitalism at work.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 24th 03, 12:30 PM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:J1Dlb.2287$d87.1354@okepread05...
> >
> >
> >
> > >>>>>Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Enron, Worldcom, etc.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Organized, and criminal in the extreme.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Make the Mob look like ****ing amateurs.
> >
> > >>>
> > >>>And the bosses will all be going to jail, except maybe Terry
> McCauliffe.
> > >>
> > >>You must be kidding.
> > >>
> > >>Enron's best friend is running the big show in that big
> > >>white house.
> > >
> > >
> > > Lieberman?
> >
> > Resident Shrub.
> >
> > Be serious for just ten seconds.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>None of them indicted, and none to see prison.
> > >
> > > Yet.
> >
> > Ever.
> >
> > Count on it.
> >
> > >
> > >>McAuliffe, for what it is worth, learned his tricks from the
> > >>legacy set by folks like Lee A****er.
> > >
> > > Riiiiiiiiiiiiiigghhht!
> >
> > it is absolutely true. A****er set the standard by which
> > modern political operatives behave. This doesn't make
> > McAuliffe a good guy - he's just as much a apart of the
> > problem as the Bush coterie.
> >
> > >
> > >>Equally, Limbaugh, a staunch proponent of jail time for
> > >>addicts, will not be charged, thanks to Jebbie.
> > >>
> > >>Nexus 6
> > >
> > >
> > > When has Rush Limbaugh ever said people who become accidentally
addicted
> to
> > > prescrition pain killers should go to jail?
> >
> > "Accidentally addicted?"
> >
> Yes. I take oxicontin for pain and I'm not an addict. I recieved a
> prescription in July and still have some left.
>
> I think Rush got bad or incomplete medical advice. He should have
recieved
> cortisone epidurals or facette blocks. I've had the former and they are
> very effective.
>
>
> > You think heroin addicts did it intentionally?
> >
> > Nexus 6
> >
> >
> Who doesn't know that heroin is addictive? Who takes heroin under
doctor's
> orders?
>
> For the record, I've repeatedly said I'm in favor of all drugs being
legal.
> There is no war on drugs, only a war on people who use drugs.
>

And there are much more important wars to fight and win.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 24th 03, 12:31 PM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...

> That heroin is HIGHLY addictive is one of the most widely known things n
the
> world.
>
> That the rush is one that makes people want it more is also widely known.
>

Now instead of just Rush Limbaugh, we can call him "Rush" Limbaugh.
hey, I couldn't resist.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Arny Krueger

October 24th 03, 12:35 PM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> >
> > >>
> > > I didn't state myself clearly. I meant to say that if partial birth
> > > abortions are banned outright, we will start killing innocent
> > > mothers to save innocent babies. However, the problem with the
> > > exception is that it will be falsely abused as a loophole (lying
> > > doctors) in some cases.
> >
> > It's really hard to conceive of a case where a partial birth abortion
> would
> > save a mother's life. Why don't you work up just one believable scenario
> > where that would be the case.
> >
> > The vast majority of the real world cases where babies had to be
> sacrificed
> > to save the life of the mother were based on circa-1940s and 1950s
medical
> > technology. Guess what, technology marched on!

> > Today, abortion is predominately used to preserve the lifestyle of the
> > mother which is a tad different than saving the life of the mother.

> > Given that we can preserve the life of incredibly premature infants,
this
> > whole situation exists in an entirely different light than it did at the
> > time of Roe vs. Wade.

> > Today's more liberal social mores facilitate a woman carrying a child to
> > term and delivering it live, without egregious adverse social
> > repercussions.

> Are you talking about single mothers?

No, I'm talking about married women who have historically been stigmatized
for becoming pregnant. How egregiously stupid are you anyway, sockpuppet
Yustabe? Since you still have a figurative lip lock on Middius, I guess I
know exactly how egregiously stupid you are sockpuppet Yustabe.

> If so, the egregious adverse condition is economic.

Not at all. While it's often hard to be a upper middle class single mother
on your own, there are lots of options, including setting your lifestyle
goals significantly lower. But idiots like you Yustabe seem to think that
killing fetuses is justified since maintaining the mother's comfortable
lifestyle is more important than the baby's life.

> Households headed by single mothers earn far
> less than households with father and mother. AS a matter of fact, if
> you account for that difference, the disparity between incomes of
> whites and blacks tends to disappear.

So what? This is like addictive drugs. It's no secret where babies come
from. It's no secret what happens to single women who become pregnant and
carry babies to term. Other than rape victims (a tiny percentage of pregnant
single women) people become parents of their own free will.

Actually, being single and pregnant is not all that bad, given that the US
is full of people who would like to adopt, and there are tons of other
people who think providing a healthy lifestyle to pregnant single mothers is
a good thing to do, and back their nice thoughts up with $$$$ and time.

> It is not that I advocate abortion, prevention is certainly far better.

Agreed.

> But I just can't see where forcing the will
> pro-lifers on the rest of American society can be a workable
> solution, even it were the right thing to do.

For a guy who brags about how well he writes, you sure as heck mangled
parroting the abortion mill sales pitch.

You know sockpuppet Yustabe, this is not about the choice of brand of cola.
This is about human life.

>(and it is not).

Let's paraphrase what you just said a bit sockpuppet Yustabe and see if a
light will finally dawn in your thick cranium:

But I just can't see where forcing the will pro-lifers and continuing to
enforce the existing laws about murder and manslaughter on the rest of
American society can be a workable solution, even it were the right thing to
do.

Making abortion illegal is about life, just like the laws against murder and
manslaughter. Can you think of anything that is closer to cold-blooded
infanticide than partial birth abortion?

>If they are going to execute (it is murder according
> to the pro-lifers) doctors for performing abortions,
> they should also execute the mothers seeking abortion.

It appears that in Sockpuppet Yustabe world, everybody who kills someone is
executed, regardless of the circumstance.

Paraphrased into sensible language, that would be:

If they are going to punish doctors for performing abortions, they should
also punish the mothers seeking abortion.

Works for me!

This is just like prosecuting johns and prostitutes, right?

> After all, we do prosecute the instigators in murder for hire schemes.

Works for me!

> It is logically and morally consistent to
> prosecute both parties. If the reactionaries want to
> ban abortions, they better be prepared to
> take their moral arguments to their bitter conclusion.

> But abortions will not be banned. The enforcement necessary to do so is
too draconian.

I agree that history shows that all forms of abortion cannot be stopped.
However, in the case of partial-birth abortion, things have simply gone too
far. As far as the rest goes, I think its time that discussions of the
mother's life versus the baby's life are more irrelevant than ever, and that
for most people who get abortions, it is a life style choice, just like
picking the clothing to wear on a particular day. The baby is inconvenient
at this time, it was a mistake, so kill the baby!

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 24th 03, 01:19 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > I didn't state myself clearly. I meant to say that if partial birth
> > > > abortions are banned outright, we will start killing innocent
> > > > mothers to save innocent babies. However, the problem with the
> > > > exception is that it will be falsely abused as a loophole (lying
> > > > doctors) in some cases.
> > >
> > > It's really hard to conceive of a case where a partial birth abortion
> > would
> > > save a mother's life. Why don't you work up just one believable
scenario
> > > where that would be the case.
> > >
> > > The vast majority of the real world cases where babies had to be
> > sacrificed
> > > to save the life of the mother were based on circa-1940s and 1950s
> medical
> > > technology. Guess what, technology marched on!
>
> > > Today, abortion is predominately used to preserve the lifestyle of the
> > > mother which is a tad different than saving the life of the mother.
>
> > > Given that we can preserve the life of incredibly premature infants,
> this
> > > whole situation exists in an entirely different light than it did at
the
> > > time of Roe vs. Wade.
>
> > > Today's more liberal social mores facilitate a woman carrying a child
to
> > > term and delivering it live, without egregious adverse social
> > > repercussions.
>
> > Are you talking about single mothers?
>
> No, I'm talking about married women who have historically been stigmatized
> for becoming pregnant. How egregiously stupid are you anyway, sockpuppet
> Yustabe?

My Krooglish/English translation software is not running today.
Based upon your previous repugnant behavior, if I had assumed
that you meant the obvious, you would have later said that you
really meant something else.You need to be nailed down, right from
the start..

> > If so, the egregious adverse condition is economic.
>
> Not at all. While it's often hard to be a upper middle class single mother
> on your own, there are lots of options, including setting your lifestyle
> goals significantly lower. But idiots like you Yustabe seem to think that
> killing fetuses is justified since maintaining the mother's comfortable
> lifestyle is more important than the baby's life.
>

You lie.
I never said that.
In taalking about problems of single parenthood,
I never advocated abortion as the solution.

> > Households headed by single mothers earn far
> > less than households with father and mother. AS a matter of fact, if
> > you account for that difference, the disparity between incomes of
> > whites and blacks tends to disappear.
>
> So what? This is like addictive drugs. It's no secret where babies come
> from. It's no secret what happens to single women who become pregnant and
> carry babies to term. Other than rape victims (a tiny percentage of
pregnant
> single women) people become parents of their own free will.
>

Has nothing to do with my point.
Please do somrthing about your translator.

> Actually, being single and pregnant is not all that bad, given that the US
> is full of people who would like to adopt, and there are tons of other
> people who think providing a healthy lifestyle to pregnant single mothers
is
> a good thing to do, and back their nice thoughts up with $$$$ and time.
>

I could pull a lttle of your own Krooglish logic
on you and claim that you are advocating using
poor women as baby mills for rich infertile couples,
but I won't !

> > It is not that I advocate abortion, prevention is certainly far better.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > But I just can't see where forcing the will
> > pro-lifers on the rest of American society can be a workable
> > solution, even it were the right thing to do.
>
> For a guy who brags about how well he writes, you sure as heck mangled
> parroting the abortion mill sales pitch.
>

Get that translator fixed, now!

> You know sockpuppet Yustabe, this is not about the choice of brand of
cola.
> This is about human life.
>
> >(and it is not).
>
> Let's paraphrase what you just said a bit sockpuppet Yustabe and see if a
> light will finally dawn in your thick cranium:
>
> But I just can't see where forcing the will pro-lifers and continuing to
> enforce the existing laws about murder and manslaughter on the rest of
> American society can be a workable solution, even it were the right thing
to
> do.

"That" is better??????
"But I just can't see where forcing the will pro-lifers", what
the **** is 'that supposed to mean?

And thanks for putting words in my moouth that I never said nor intended.
You have done it again, you lying ****.

So, if abortion is made illegal, you are willing to lock up all the women
who seek one.

> Making abortion illegal is about life, just like the laws against murder
and
> manslaughter. Can you think of anything that is closer to cold-blooded
> infanticide than partial birth abortion?
>

I said I was against it, you stupid lying ****.

> >If they are going to execute (it is murder according
> > to the pro-lifers) doctors for performing abortions,
> > they should also execute the mothers seeking abortion.
>
> It appears that in Sockpuppet Yustabe world, everybody who kills someone
is
> executed, regardless of the circumstance.
>

Again, stating or assuming things not stated and not intended.
Murderes are are executed. I never said
'all' murderes are executed.

> Paraphrased into sensible language, that would be:
>
> If they are going to punish doctors for performing abortions, they should
> also punish the mothers seeking abortion.
>
> Works for me!
>
> This is just like prosecuting johns and prostitutes, right?
>
> > After all, we do prosecute the instigators in murder for hire schemes.
>
> Works for me!
>
> > It is logically and morally consistent to
> > prosecute both parties. If the reactionaries want to
> > ban abortions, they better be prepared to
> > take their moral arguments to their bitter conclusion.
>
> > But abortions will not be banned. The enforcement necessary to do so is
> too draconian.
>
> I agree that history shows that all forms of abortion cannot be stopped.
> However, in the case of partial-birth abortion, things have simply gone
too
> far. As far as the rest goes, I think its time that discussions of the
> mother's life versus the baby's life are more irrelevant than ever, and
that
> for most people who get abortions, it is a life style choice, just like
> picking the clothing to wear on a particular day. The baby is inconvenient
> at this time, it was a mistake, so kill the baby!
>

I still can't figure out how you extrapolated my statement:
"I didn't state myself clearly. I meant to say that if partial birth
abortions are banned outright, we will start killing innocent
mothers to save innocent babies. However, the problem with the
exception is that it will be falsely abused as a loophole (lying
doctors) in some cases."
into a screed advocating willy nilly abortions to solve the economic
orblems of minorities.

I guess that your English to Krooglish translator is
on the fritz again.

Your head is so far up your ass, it's coming out
of your mouth.

(I wonder if Escher could have drawn that?)

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nexus 6

October 24th 03, 04:55 PM

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

>>In fact, the entire theory of "escalation" as relates to
>>drug usage has long since been disproven. Heroin stands all
>>on its own as a highly addictive, very destructive drug. One
>>not too far removed from Rush's habit...
>>
>
>
> I've had the clinical experience a number of times of both evaluating and
> treating crack, heroin and various pain-killer (e.g. Vicodin, Tylenol # 3 with
> Codeine, Percoset, etc.) users. From a biochemical perspective, heroin and
> many of the painkillers that people get addicted to are *much* more similar to
> each other than to cocaine. Heroin and most prescription painkillers are
> classified as narcotics; cocaine, while obviously addictive, is not a
> narcotic. From a treatment point of view, they are also significantly harder
> to quit. Whereas cocaine addicts can usually quit and go cold turkey without
> any serious medical complications, most prescription painkillers such as the
> ones listed above, like heroin, require detoxification in a hospital setting
> with careful monitoring of vital signs (e.g. blood pressure, heart rate, ),
> tremors, seizure precautions, etc. It is customary frequently to use various
> drugs such as catabpres, tranxene, etc. to minimize some of these effects.

The frightening notion here is the ease with which one can
get these painkillers - I know, I have chornic pain from a
back injury, and a simple request get sme a fat
prescription. Fortunately for me, in a sense, most of those
give me vicious headaches, so I've learned to get by with
aspirin and tylenol.

Nexus 6

George M. Middius

October 24th 03, 04:59 PM

Nexus 6 said:

> The frightening notion here is the ease with which one can
> get these painkillers - I know, I have chornic pain from a
> back injury, and a simple request get sme a fat
> prescription. Fortunately for me, in a sense, most of those
> give me vicious headaches, so I've learned to get by with
> aspirin and tylenol.

Have you tried heroin for the pain?

Michael Mckelvy

October 24th 03, 05:04 PM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "GeoSynch" > wrote in message
> > > > > . net...
> > > > > > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> > > > > > > So did organized crime
> > > > > > > Of course, organized crime has been even more successful
> > > infiltrating
> > > > > > > some corporations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > GeoSynch
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A nunber of building trade companies in NYC.
> > > > > particularly in concrete and windows.
> > > > > Trash haulers, many different cities
> > > > > Trucking companies
> > > > > some import/export companies
> > > > >
> > > > Which goes right along with the Teamsters love affair with the mob.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sure, and they were always into infiltrating businesses too.
> > > That doesn't make unions innately evil and it doesn't make
> > > corporations innately evil.
> > >
> > I never claimed such. In the case of the Grocery strike the union wants
> to
> > keep unreasonable (in todays economic climate) of healthcare benefits.
> > Current employees willbe asked to contribute $5.00 a week or $15.00 a
week
> > for health insurance and there will be increased copays.
> >
> > The union is IMO being unreasonable given the current state of
competition
> > and the level of skill need to be a grocery worker.
> >
> > The Wal Mart superstores are coming and they will drastically change the
> > landscape for grocery shopping.
> >
> > Asking the big chains to pay at the current levels will only hasten
their
> > downfall but put the unions workers on the street.
> >
> > The other major strike going on in LA is with the MTA's mechanics. The
> > people are just ****ing morons. They mismanaged their own pension fund
> > (nothing criminal, just stupid) and they want raises and more
> contributions
> > to the pension fund. The economic reality is that the city doesn't have
> any
> > money.
>
> I understand and accept that many times unions price
> their workers out of their jobs. Stupid businesses
> do similarly stupid things in their businesses, and
> they go bankrupt. It's capitalism at work.
>
But businesses don't claim moral high ground while doing it.

>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael Mckelvy

October 24th 03, 05:09 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:f_bmb.3891$d87.3460@okepread05...
>
>
> Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>
>
> >>In fact, the entire theory of "escalation" as relates to
> >>drug usage has long since been disproven. Heroin stands all
> >>on its own as a highly addictive, very destructive drug. One
> >>not too far removed from Rush's habit...
> >>
> >
> >
> > I've had the clinical experience a number of times of both evaluating
and
> > treating crack, heroin and various pain-killer (e.g. Vicodin, Tylenol #
3 with
> > Codeine, Percoset, etc.) users. From a biochemical perspective, heroin
and
> > many of the painkillers that people get addicted to are *much* more
similar to
> > each other than to cocaine. Heroin and most prescription painkillers are
> > classified as narcotics; cocaine, while obviously addictive, is not a
> > narcotic. From a treatment point of view, they are also significantly
harder
> > to quit. Whereas cocaine addicts can usually quit and go cold turkey
without
> > any serious medical complications, most prescription painkillers such as
the
> > ones listed above, like heroin, require detoxification in a hospital
setting
> > with careful monitoring of vital signs (e.g. blood pressure, heart
rate, ),
> > tremors, seizure precautions, etc. It is customary frequently to use
various
> > drugs such as catabpres, tranxene, etc. to minimize some of these
effects.
>
> The frightening notion here is the ease with which one can
> get these painkillers - I know, I have chornic pain from a
> back injury, and a simple request get sme a fat
> prescription. Fortunately for me, in a sense, most of those
> give me vicious headaches, so I've learned to get by with
> aspirin and tylenol.
>
> Nexus 6
>
My regular doc doesn't write triplicate scrips without a very real need on
the part of the patient.

I had to see a neurologist for the stenosis and he wrote for oxicontin.
It's actually safer, assuming you have a brain than vicodin. Vicodin has
tylenol which will shut down your liver if you take to much.

Nexus 6

October 24th 03, 05:10 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:zw%lb.2571$d87.750@okepread05...

>>The "work" folks have been moved to is hardly that, and
>>fails to provide a working wage. This leaves the people
>>being forced off welfare or other support into the same
>>place they started from - unable to make even rudimentary
>>ends meet. Many of these people are single mothers who now
>>have no health care or shild care, and a job that will not
>>pay rent or all of their bills, much less support a child.
>>
>>Where is the logic in that?
>>
>
>
> Welfare ain't no living wage.
> It REALLY sucks,
>
> Six bucka an hour for 160
> hours per mont is $960 per month
> 8 bcks is $1240

Who says they are getting paid $8?

> Welfare is far less, and is demeaning to the spirit.
> A welfare life is one step up from slavery.

It isn't a life anyone would really want, but in the case of
a single mother it is more than just a monthly check - there
are food stamps and child care, depending upon the state.

Point being, in some cases, this welfare to work program,
*as structured*, is leading to situations where people wind
up with less income, not more. That cascades into a whole
host of other problems.

>>>you are dead wrong about the cause, as far as taxes.
>>
>>They are, right this moment, certainly a part of the mix.
>>Not only have federal taxes been massively cut, but states
>>have been doing the same thing. It is not the only cause,
>>but it is certainly part of the equation.
>>
>
>
> It is not massive, in terms of individual cuts, on termsof
> the Federal Budget, and in terms of the American economy.
> It is pathertically small.
> States have been raising taxes.

Only recently. All through the mid 1990's and the beginning
of the Bush term, tax cutting became quite fashionable at
the state level.

> The downturn has caused lost revenue from
> decreased individual spending (which the
> tax cut raise,,though by a pittance) and form lower sales taxes
> and lower income taxes because income went down, not
> because rates went down.

Both.

>>>No, the culture of massive social programs
>>>is a liberal Democratic phenomenum,
>>>not a Conservative Republican one.
>>
>>Maybe not a *conservative* Republican one, but Republicans
>>have certainly been involved.
>>
>
>
> As much as any legislation proposed by one side
> gets worked on in comittee by the other side.
> The Great Society and the War on Poverty
> were Democratic initiatives and could NOT be
> accurately described as bipartisan efforts.

Yet Nixon contributed heavily to the architecture of such
programs.

He was no liberal. :)

>>>That is not true.
>>>But, there will always be an underclass.
>>>It's how things work in the real world.
>>>It couldn't work any other way.
>>>A world or country where evryone is of equal economic condition
>>>just can't exist. Not even at the end of a barrel of a gun.
>>
>>There will always be an underclass, true, but how does that
>>class live and function in our society, and how does the
>>rest of that society, which relies on that class for sdome
>>of its own well being, treat those people?
>>
>>I say, in this, the richest nation in all of time, we do
>>pretty poorly.
>>
>
>
> Actually not. our underclass has TV's, cars, air conditioning and cell
> phones.
> In other countries, the underclass washes its clothes
> by hand and does not have indoor plumbing.
> Their undercalss walks, rides bikes, or drive horse drawn
> vehicles.

In relative terms, we do very poorly. In some other
countries, poor people have access to medical care of the
same quality as rich folks. They have guaranteed housing and
free education.

Shocking notions all, I know.

>>>Note, these are Republcans who have been elected in liberal areas.
>>>Neo conservatives have a harder time getting elected, unless they are
>>>from more conservative sparsley populate rural areas. Look at
>>>the McClintock and Simon flops in California.
>>
>>California is an exception - the hard right has never done
>>well there, and the state Republican party hasn't been taken
>>over by the hard line folks.
>>
>
>
> Its typical of the mid Atlantic and New England, too.

Virginia?

Connecticut?
>
>
>
>>Why they allowed Simon to win the primary and get beat in
>>the gubernatorial election is still something I can't fathom.
>>
>
>
> Republicans like to eat their young.
> This year we will see if the Democrats do the same.

The Republican party in California was hostage to the small,
but virulent right in that state, and chose to push Simon
over Riordan, who would have trounced Gray in an open
election, and the Republicans wouldn't have needed to go
outside the electoral process to take the governorship.

Democrats will "do the same" this year if they choose a
"safe" candidate who looks and smaells like a gentler
version of the opposition.

If they do, they will go down to massive defeat.

>
>
>>>I think you have those ultra lib blinders on,
>>>and are all to quick to demonize anyone appearing
>>>to be any type of conservative(even dunping on
>>>Democrats who are less liberal than they)
>>
>>I'm not demonizing anyone. I recognize that there are
>>Republicans who have a conscience and a heart - my
>>contention is simply that the hard right wing of the party
>>exerts an influence over Republican policy nationwide all
>>out of proportion to their actual numbers. Think about talk
>>radio - no "compassionate conseravtism" to be found there.
>>The most popular hosts are closely allied to the neocon
>>faction of the party.
>>
>
>
> I don't think the talk hosts are all that reactionary, though
> many callers are. Liddy, Hannity, and to some extent
> Limbaugh, supported Schwartzenneger over McClintock
> (though they preferred McClintock in their hearts)

I think they are quite reactionary. You are right,
McClintock was their first choice. Barring that, they
preferred to back a winner in the hope it will sway the
state in the upcoming national elections.

They really did not *want* Ah-Nold, but settled.

Hannity, btw, can barely speak his own language.

> However, I do think that in BOTH parties, the extremes exert
> more influence than is proportional to their numbers

I challenge you to find examples of that in the Democratic
party. It has rolled over all the way for its corporate
masters, and whatever noises it makes about its traditional
"liberal" positions are just that: noise.

>>Most have long ago adopted a very corporatist agenda,
>>basically in competition with their Republican brothers for
>>the same pool of campagin contributions. It is one of the
>>reasons Democrats have fared so poorly in recent elections:
>>Given the choice between a real Republican and a wannabe,
>>Republicans win every time.
>>
>
>
> That is not the agenda I was talking about

But it is entirely relevant to this discussion. The policies
of the past are largely dead - only Republican CableSpews
hosts carry on in that vein.

Money rules.

>>>Its time to open our minds and take a critical introspective look
>>>at issues and programs relating to coities, miborities and the poor.
>>>Dems just don't want to do that. Its the same
>>>ols dtuff, decade after decade.
>>
>>I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this. Democrats have
>>abandoned their traditional core base, moving to the
>>"center" in search of the winning balance of campaign cash
>>and electoral success. In that regard, they have adopted
>>policies, a la Clinton (who was no liberal), that mimic
>>Republican policies. It is a losing combination, and I hope
>>the current party leadership goes down hard.
>>
>
>
> But they haven't come up with any new,
> fresh approaches to solve social problems
> Its the same old mantra, even from the
> more centrist DLC types, for:
> affirmative action
> no school vouchers
> dump more money into failing schools
> subsidize the irresponsibilty of single parenthood

The DLC invented welfare to work.

Many Democrats nowe support vouchers, and rollbacks in
affirmative action, and their welfare policies took care of
"subsidize the irresponsibilty of single parenthood."

See what I mean?

>
>
>
>>Similarly, I'd like to see neocon influence over the
>>Republican party mitigated by the majority members of thgat
>>party.
>>
>>It might come as a shock to you, but in state elections, and
>>one congressional one, I voted for a Republican because I
>>thought he was better qualified for the job and had ideas
>>more similar to my own.
>>
>
> Actually, that doesn't surprise me.
> My votes are ususally split about 50/50
> You would be surprise that I vote for Sen Mikulski
> though she ie quite liberal, she is effective in
> representing the interests of my state. The other liberal,
> Sarbanes, never gets my vote.

Mikulski is a Democrat?

Maybe I am thinking of Connie Morella, who I believe has
since lost her seat.

What did Sarbanes do to **** you off?

>
> I vote more for the character and abilities of the person.

It's a mixture for me.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 24th 03, 05:19 PM

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:J1Dlb.2287$d87.1354@okepread05...

>>"Accidentally addicted?"
>>
>
> Yes. I take oxicontin for pain and I'm not an addict. I recieved a
> prescription in July and still have some left.

I've taken it as well. Gives me headaches.

>
> I think Rush got bad or incomplete medical advice. He should have recieved
> cortisone epidurals or facette blocks. I've had the former and they are
> very effective.

I think Rush got addicted, broke the law, and will not be
charged. As I said elsewhere, karmically speaking he ought
to do time.

But I don't think people ought to be imprisoned for drug use.

>>You think heroin addicts did it intentionally?
>>
>>Nexus 6
>>
>>
>
> Who doesn't know that heroin is addictive? Who takes heroin under doctor's
> orders?

So abusers of legal morphine derivatives get a break, and
those who use and illegal version go to jail?

Sounds almost like crack vs. cocaine sentencing.

>
> For the record, I've repeatedly said I'm in favor of all drugs being legal.
> There is no war on drugs, only a war on people who use drugs.

You know Mikey, except for your vigorous defense of
Republicans, you are closing in on that Libertarian ideal a
little more each year. :)

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 24th 03, 05:21 PM

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

> That heroin is HIGHLY addictive is one of the most widely known things n the
> world.

Yeah.

Oh, don't forget cigarettes.

>
> That the rush is one that makes people want it more is also widely known.

Yes.

>
> There is no safe recreational use of heroin if you want to avoid addiction.

Close.

>
> That it is the best or oneof the very best pain killers and illegal is a
> ****ing shame.

But we have all of these synthetic replacements that are
"safe"...for drug companies to make money from...

Nexus 6

Michael Mckelvy

October 24th 03, 05:29 PM

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Nexus 6 wrote:
>
>
> >Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >
> >> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> >> news:A_Ylb.2558$d87.446@okepread05...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>The phrase was *intentionally addicted.*
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>More like "I know that H is addictive and I will likely
> >>>>become an addict, but I don't
> >>>>give a **** cause I want to get high.
> >>>
> >>>That's not how a lot of them get started.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> By the time they get to H, its likely they have already
> >> been a crack head. H soothes some of the angst
> >> of the crack high.
> >
> >This is absolutely false, Art. Heroin addiction has been a
> >problem far longer than crack has even existed as a known
> >substance.
> >
> >In fact, the entire theory of "escalation" as relates to
> >drug usage has long since been disproven. Heroin stands all
> >on its own as a highly addictive, very destructive drug. One
> >not too far removed from Rush's habit...
> >
> >Nexus 6
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I've had the clinical experience a number of times of both evaluating and
> treating crack, heroin and various pain-killer (e.g. Vicodin, Tylenol # 3
with
> Codeine, Percoset, etc.) users.

I don't believe you.

From a biochemical perspective, heroin and
> many of the painkillers that people get addicted to are *much* more
similar to
> each other than to cocaine. Heroin and most prescription painkillers are
> classified as narcotics; cocaine, while obviously addictive, is not a
> narcotic. From a treatment point of view, they are also significantly
harder
> to quit. Whereas cocaine addicts can usually quit and go cold turkey
without
> any serious medical complications, most prescription painkillers such as
the
> ones listed above, like heroin, require detoxification in a hospital
setting
> with careful monitoring of vital signs (e.g. blood pressure, heart
rate, ),
> tremors, seizure precautions, etc.

This is not what I have been told. Perhaps because you don't know what
you're talking about, you are confusing drugs like Seconal and others from
that family. These can lead to siezures and do require careful detox.

It is customary frequently to use various
> drugs such as catabpres, tranxene, etc. to minimize some of these effects.
> Bruce J. Richman
>
>
>

Bruce J. Richman

October 24th 03, 06:14 PM

Nexus 6 wrote:

>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>
>
>>>In fact, the entire theory of "escalation" as relates to
>>>drug usage has long since been disproven. Heroin stands all
>>>on its own as a highly addictive, very destructive drug. One
>>>not too far removed from Rush's habit...
>>>
>>
>>
>> I've had the clinical experience a number of times of both evaluating and
>> treating crack, heroin and various pain-killer (e.g. Vicodin, Tylenol # 3
>with
>> Codeine, Percoset, etc.) users. From a biochemical perspective, heroin and
>> many of the painkillers that people get addicted to are *much* more similar
>to
>> each other than to cocaine. Heroin and most prescription painkillers are
>> classified as narcotics; cocaine, while obviously addictive, is not a
>> narcotic. From a treatment point of view, they are also significantly
>harder
>> to quit. Whereas cocaine addicts can usually quit and go cold turkey
>without
>> any serious medical complications, most prescription painkillers such as
>the
>> ones listed above, like heroin, require detoxification in a hospital
>setting
>> with careful monitoring of vital signs (e.g. blood pressure, heart rate, ),
>> tremors, seizure precautions, etc. It is customary frequently to use
>various
>> drugs such as catabpres, tranxene, etc. to minimize some of these effects.
>
>
>The frightening notion here is the ease with which one can
>get these painkillers - I know, I have chornic pain from a
>back injury, and a simple request get sme a fat
>prescription. Fortunately for me, in a sense, most of those
>give me vicious headaches, so I've learned to get by with
>aspirin and tylenol.
>
>Nexus 6
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You've taken a reasonable approach, IMHO. Many of the prescription painkillers
have a variety of side effects such as the ones you mention.

A couple of non-chemical alternatives that have been found helpful for many
chronic pain sufferers are biofeedback and hypnosis. Both procedures have a
large body of research behind them that supports their effectiveness for pain
control.

Bruce J. Richman

Michael Mckelvy

October 24th 03, 08:31 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:rkcmb.3983$d87.805@okepread05...
>
>
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:J1Dlb.2287$d87.1354@okepread05...
>
> >>"Accidentally addicted?"
> >>
> >
> > Yes. I take oxicontin for pain and I'm not an addict. I recieved a
> > prescription in July and still have some left.
>
> I've taken it as well. Gives me headaches.
>
> >
> > I think Rush got bad or incomplete medical advice. He should have
recieved
> > cortisone epidurals or facette blocks. I've had the former and they are
> > very effective.
>
> I think Rush got addicted, broke the law, and will not be
> charged. As I said elsewhere, karmically speaking he ought
> to do time.
>
> But I don't think people ought to be imprisoned for drug use.
>
>
> >>You think heroin addicts did it intentionally?
> >>
> >>Nexus 6
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Who doesn't know that heroin is addictive? Who takes heroin under
doctor's
> > orders?
>
> So abusers of legal morphine derivatives get a break, and
> those who use and illegal version go to jail?
>
> Sounds almost like crack vs. cocaine sentencing.
>
> >
> > For the record, I've repeatedly said I'm in favor of all drugs being
legal.
> > There is no war on drugs, only a war on people who use drugs.
>
> You know Mikey, except for your vigorous defense of
> Republicans, you are closing in on that Libertarian ideal a
> little more each year. :)
>
> Nexus 6
>
I'm a registerd Libertarian, have been for over 20 years.

I defend Republicans when they are being lied about.
I do the same for Democrats when they are being lied about. The problem is
that the Democrats IMO are far more bankrupt and far more dishonest.

Bot parties have major flaws that keep me from voting for either.

Nexus 6

October 24th 03, 08:44 PM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Nexus 6 said:
>
>
>>The frightening notion here is the ease with which one can
>>get these painkillers - I know, I have chornic pain from a
>>back injury, and a simple request get sme a fat
>>prescription. Fortunately for me, in a sense, most of those
>>give me vicious headaches, so I've learned to get by with
>>aspirin and tylenol.
>
>
> Have you tried heroin for the pain?

Not this decade, or the last, for that matter.

I did mess with it briefly while in the Far East in the
1980's - beautiful stuff, incredibly seductive. I see why it
takes little to become addicted.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 24th 03, 08:46 PM

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

>>I understand and accept that many times unions price
>>their workers out of their jobs. Stupid businesses
>>do similarly stupid things in their businesses, and
>>they go bankrupt. It's capitalism at work.
>>
>
> But businesses don't claim moral high ground while doing it.

Sure they do.

Remember the corporate raiding and evisceration that has
been par for the course the last twenty years? Failure of th
e company was considered a success oif the raiders made a
profit.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 24th 03, 08:48 PM

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

>>The frightening notion here is the ease with which one can
>>get these painkillers - I know, I have chornic pain from a
>>back injury, and a simple request get sme a fat
>>prescription. Fortunately for me, in a sense, most of those
>>give me vicious headaches, so I've learned to get by with
>>aspirin and tylenol.
>>
>
>
> I had to see a neurologist for the stenosis and he wrote for oxicontin.
> It's actually safer, assuming you have a brain than vicodin. Vicodin has
> tylenol which will shut down your liver if you take to much.

I can't tolerate Vicodin either.

I see a neuro also, but he wouldn't ever write me for
painkillers. :)

What he does write for me is no fun at all.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 24th 03, 08:50 PM

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

> You've taken a reasonable approach, IMHO. Many of the prescription painkillers
> have a variety of side effects such as the ones you mention.

Sucks for me.

>
> A couple of non-chemical alternatives that have been found helpful for many
> chronic pain sufferers are biofeedback and hypnosis. Both procedures have a
> large body of research behind them that supports their effectiveness for pain
> control.

Hypnotism.

How does that go with epilepsy?

Wouldn't want to wind up dancing around the room like a
chicken having a seizure.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 24th 03, 08:51 PM

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

> "Nexus 6" >
>>You know Mikey, except for your vigorous defense of
>>Republicans, you are closing in on that Libertarian ideal a
>>little more each year. :)
>>
>
> I'm a registerd Libertarian, have been for over 20 years.
>
> I defend Republicans when they are being lied about.
> I do the same for Democrats when they are being lied about. The problem is
> that the Democrats IMO are far more bankrupt and far more dishonest.

I think they can be equally dishonest, and usually are.

A need for campaign cash will do that.

>
> Bot parties have major flaws that keep me from voting for either.

Who is the Libertarian candidate in 2004?

Nexus 6

Bruce J. Richman

October 24th 03, 09:55 PM

Nexus 6 wrote:

>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>
>
>> You've taken a reasonable approach, IMHO. Many of the prescription
>painkillers
>> have a variety of side effects such as the ones you mention.
>
>Sucks for me.
>
>>
>> A couple of non-chemical alternatives that have been found helpful for many
>> chronic pain sufferers are biofeedback and hypnosis. Both procedures have
>a
>> large body of research behind them that supports their effectiveness for
>pain
>> control.
>
>Hypnotism.
>
>How does that go with epilepsy?
>
>Wouldn't want to wind up dancing around the room like a
>chicken having a seizure.
>
>
>
>Nexus 6
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

One of the misconceptions about hypnosis is that it produces physiological
changes. It doesn't. What it *may* do and has been demonstrated to do for
some pain sufferers is to shift their focus of attention *away* from the source
of the pain through a range of verbal suggestions which often involve visual
imagery as well. When I was first receiving my training in hypnosis at the
local medical school, we were shown a film of a dental patient undergoing very
extensive oral surgery with no anesthesia whatsoever! Needless to say, the
patient was motivated, the dentist was cooperative with the hypnotherapist, and
the actual procedures that the patient would undergo in the dentist's office
were practiced before hand via visualization coupled with, of course, various
hypnotic suggestions. We also had a chance to interview this guy, who claimed
that during the procedure he felt no pain, just "pressure" from the various
instruments put in his mouth.

I don't know of any evidence that would suggest that epilepsy would be
exacerbated by hypnosis. It's worth noting that people, under hypnosis, don't
do anything they don't want to do - since they never lose consciousness nor do
they give up control over what they will and will not do - they simply, in many
cases, let their increased suggestibility while being hypnotized, allow them to
behave in certain ways. The best explanation for the stage hypnosis silliness
is that the people being "hypnotized" in those circumstances have decided to do
some things they would not normally do in a nonhypnotized state. They feel
that being "under hypnosis" give them a socially acceptable way to act silly :)

Since you mention epilepsy, it might interest you to know that this is one of
the areas in which biofeedback research and treatment is involved. We've known
for many years that brain wave activity, as measured by EEG
(electroencephalograph) can be alterered by a form of biofeedback known as EEG
biofeedback in which the patient is trained to voluntarily alter their brain
wave rhythms. So now this demonstrated ability is being applied in the
treatment of epilepsy to some extent. One of the major advantages of
biofeedback is that it is not invasive and has no potential drug-related side
effects.

Note that EMG biofeedback (electromyogram) in which people are trained to relax
various muscle systems in the body has been used by some neurologists,
physiatrists (MDs that specialize in rehabilatation), and psychologists for
many years in the treatment of chronic pain. You might want to look into this.

Bruce J. Richman

Michael Mckelvy

October 24th 03, 11:18 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:Gofmb.4557$d87.2022@okepread05...
>
>
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>
>
> >>The frightening notion here is the ease with which one can
> >>get these painkillers - I know, I have chornic pain from a
> >>back injury, and a simple request get sme a fat
> >>prescription. Fortunately for me, in a sense, most of those
> >>give me vicious headaches, so I've learned to get by with
> >>aspirin and tylenol.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I had to see a neurologist for the stenosis and he wrote for oxicontin.
> > It's actually safer, assuming you have a brain than vicodin. Vicodin
has
> > tylenol which will shut down your liver if you take to much.
>
> I can't tolerate Vicodin either.
>
I can tolerate it but it keeps me awake at night because of the cafiene and
makes me less pleasant than usual, both effects have noted by others I've
spoken to about it.
Norco which is the same medicaztions but has less Tylenol is what I used to
take until I got the oxicontin.

> I see a neuro also, but he wouldn't ever write me for
> painkillers. :)
>
> What he does write for me is no fun at all.
>
And that would be............???

> Nexus 6
>

Michael Mckelvy

October 24th 03, 11:20 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:Brfmb.4563$d87.1922@okepread05...
>
>
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" >
> >>You know Mikey, except for your vigorous defense of
> >>Republicans, you are closing in on that Libertarian ideal a
> >>little more each year. :)
> >>
> >
> > I'm a registerd Libertarian, have been for over 20 years.
> >
> > I defend Republicans when they are being lied about.
> > I do the same for Democrats when they are being lied about. The problem
is
> > that the Democrats IMO are far more bankrupt and far more dishonest.
>
> I think they can be equally dishonest, and usually are.
>
> A need for campaign cash will do that.
>
> >
> > Bot parties have major flaws that keep me from voting for either.
>
> Who is the Libertarian candidate in 2004?
>
> Nexus 6
>
I don't know, I haven't been keeping up. The Libertarian candidate for
Governor of California was such a dipship that I may have look elsewhere.
He was on a local radio talk show and didn't like a question he was asked
and actually spit on one of the hosts. :-(

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 24th 03, 11:28 PM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "GeoSynch" > wrote in message
> > > > > > . net...
> > > > > > > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> > > > > > > > So did organized crime
> > > > > > > > Of course, organized crime has been even more successful
> > > > infiltrating
> > > > > > > > some corporations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > GeoSynch
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A nunber of building trade companies in NYC.
> > > > > > particularly in concrete and windows.
> > > > > > Trash haulers, many different cities
> > > > > > Trucking companies
> > > > > > some import/export companies
> > > > > >
> > > > > Which goes right along with the Teamsters love affair with the
mob.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sure, and they were always into infiltrating businesses too.
> > > > That doesn't make unions innately evil and it doesn't make
> > > > corporations innately evil.
> > > >
> > > I never claimed such. In the case of the Grocery strike the union
wants
> > to
> > > keep unreasonable (in todays economic climate) of healthcare benefits.
> > > Current employees willbe asked to contribute $5.00 a week or $15.00 a
> week
> > > for health insurance and there will be increased copays.
> > >
> > > The union is IMO being unreasonable given the current state of
> competition
> > > and the level of skill need to be a grocery worker.
> > >
> > > The Wal Mart superstores are coming and they will drastically change
the
> > > landscape for grocery shopping.
> > >
> > > Asking the big chains to pay at the current levels will only hasten
> their
> > > downfall but put the unions workers on the street.
> > >
> > > The other major strike going on in LA is with the MTA's mechanics.
The
> > > people are just ****ing morons. They mismanaged their own pension
fund
> > > (nothing criminal, just stupid) and they want raises and more
> > contributions
> > > to the pension fund. The economic reality is that the city doesn't
have
> > any
> > > money.
> >
> > I understand and accept that many times unions price
> > their workers out of their jobs. Stupid businesses
> > do similarly stupid things in their businesses, and
> > they go bankrupt. It's capitalism at work.
> >
> But businesses don't claim moral high ground while doing it.
>
>

Because they don't have any.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 25th 03, 12:08 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:kccmb.3920$d87.2326@okepread05...
> >
> > Six bucka an hour for 160
> > hours per mont is $960 per month
> > 8 bcks is $1240
>
> Who says they are getting paid $8?
>

who says they don't?
depends on local job market and skills
Bum**** Iowa would be different than
Howard County, Maryland

> > Welfare is far less, and is demeaning to the spirit.
> > A welfare life is one step up from slavery.
>
> It isn't a life anyone would really want, but in the case of
> a single mother it is more than just a monthly check - there
> are food stamps and child care, depending upon the state.
>

It's a really **** poor existence. However, those
who wish to totally avoid any responsibilities can take comfort in it.

> Point being, in some cases, this welfare to work program,
> *as structured*, is leading to situations where people wind
> up with less income, not more. That cascades into a whole
> host of other problems.
>

Not really true. In the seventies I worked as a social worker
in the much maligned Work Incentive Program,
but I saw mostly successes. And it was not in
any thriving metropolis, where wages were higher.
Welfare recipients converted to workers DID NOT
make less than on welfare, considering all costs and
benfits. So many of them moved up in their work
organizations, even during the short three year period I was there.

Their lives were turned around.
Most of the successes were young single mothers who
did not come from generations of welfare dependant
families (so to speak) or housewives a little older
who had recently broken marraiges. Circumstances forced
them onto welfare or to enter the job market after 16 years of
being a housewife. however, the womem who came from
generations of welfare assistance weren't so well motivated.
That is why I consider welfare dependance a form of slavery.

> > States have been raising taxes.
>
> Only recently. All through the mid 1990's and the beginning
> of the Bush term, tax cutting became quite fashionable at
> the state level.
>
>

Not most of the states I know of.
taxes, taxes and more taxes

> > The downturn has caused lost revenue from
> > decreased individual spending (which the
> > tax cut raise,,though by a pittance) and form lower sales taxes
> > and lower income taxes because income went down, not
> > because rates went down.
>
> Both.
>
>
> >>>No, the culture of massive social programs
> >>>is a liberal Democratic phenomenum,
> >>>not a Conservative Republican one.
> >>
> >>Maybe not a *conservative* Republican one, but Republicans
> >>have certainly been involved.
> >>
> >
> >
> > As much as any legislation proposed by one side
> > gets worked on in comittee by the other side.
> > The Great Society and the War on Poverty
> > were Democratic initiatives and could NOT be
> > accurately described as bipartisan efforts.
>
> Yet Nixon contributed heavily to the architecture of such
> programs.
>
> He was no liberal. :)
>

He did attempt some reforms of the programs already in
place before his presidency
They are NOT his programs.
The welfare state is a liberal Democratic creation
You can't duck it.

> >
> > Actually not. our underclass has TV's, cars, air conditioning and cell
> > phones.
> > In other countries, the underclass washes its clothes
> > by hand and does not have indoor plumbing.
> > Their undercalss walks, rides bikes, or drive horse drawn
> > vehicles.
>
> In relative terms, we do very poorly. In some other
> countries, poor people have access to medical care of the
> same quality as rich folks. They have guaranteed housing and
> free education.
>

The medical care, in many cases is substandard. The poor here
have accedd to medical care. Their coverage is BETTER than my coverage
from work. Guaranteed housing in many other countried is woefully
substandard and fails Decent Safe and Sanitary standards in place here.
In America, there are a number of subsidized or public housing
programs. We have free education here, too. Now there you got me,
because in many cases it's not that good. BUT, that is the fault of the
liberal
left administrators, the liberal left teachers unions and the ultra liberal
left professional schools of education in America.

> Shocking notions all, I know.
>

only when you have twisted the facts.

>
> >>>Note, these are Republcans who have been elected in liberal areas.
> >>>Neo conservatives have a harder time getting elected, unless they are
> >>>from more conservative sparsley populate rural areas. Look at
> >>>the McClintock and Simon flops in California.
> >>
> >>California is an exception - the hard right has never done
> >>well there, and the state Republican party hasn't been taken
> >>over by the hard line folks.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Its typical of the mid Atlantic and New England, too.
>
> Virginia?
>
> Connecticut?

Virginia is a southern state, except for the DC metro area.
The hard conservative bastion is entrenched in western and
southern Virginia.

> >
> >
> >
> >>Why they allowed Simon to win the primary and get beat in
> >>the gubernatorial election is still something I can't fathom.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Republicans like to eat their young.
> > This year we will see if the Democrats do the same.
>
> The Republican party in California was hostage to the small,
> but virulent right in that state, and chose to push Simon
> over Riordan, who would have trounced Gray in an open
> election, and the Republicans wouldn't have needed to go
> outside the electoral process to take the governorship.
>

yes to stuff about Riordan.
no to stuff about the recall. The recall 'is' part
of the electoral process. The dems had 'two' chances to hold on.
They could win the recall, or elect Bustamante.
They went 0 for 2 and didn't even come close on either
contest.

> Democrats will "do the same" this year if they choose a
> "safe" candidate who looks and smaells like a gentler
> version of the opposition.
>

Well, that is counter to your argument about the Reps!!!
According to you, Reps eat their own when they go extreme right, and
Dems eat their own when they go moderate centrist!

You still don't get what happened to Dukakis and Mc Govern, do you?
And you don't even get why Clinton WON!!!

> If they do, they will go down to massive defeat.
>

Fiddle dee or fiddle dum, as to who will fall to Bush, or even
possibly beat him. I think it mostly will be influenced by on the economy

> >
> > I don't think the talk hosts are all that reactionary, though
> > many callers are. Liddy, Hannity, and to some extent
> > Limbaugh, supported Schwartzenneger over McClintock
> > (though they preferred McClintock in their hearts)
>
> I think they are quite reactionary. You are right,
> McClintock was their first choice. Barring that, they
> preferred to back a winner in the hope it will sway the
> state in the upcoming national elections.
>
> They really did not *want* Ah-Nold, but settled.
>
> Hannity, btw, can barely speak his own language.
>
>
> > However, I do think that in BOTH parties, the extremes exert
> > more influence than is proportional to their numbers
>
> I challenge you to find examples of that in the Democratic
> party. It has rolled over all the way for its corporate
> masters, and whatever noises it makes about its traditional
> "liberal" positions are just that: noise.
>

Gimme a break!
Look at right now.
Dean appears to be on the verge.

He forces everyone else to move a little left, or get lost in the dust.

>
> >>Most have long ago adopted a very corporatist agenda,
> >>basically in competition with their Republican brothers for
> >>the same pool of campagin contributions. It is one of the
> >>reasons Democrats have fared so poorly in recent elections:
> >>Given the choice between a real Republican and a wannabe,
> >>Republicans win every time.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That is not the agenda I was talking about
>
> But it is entirely relevant to this discussion. The policies
> of the past are largely dead - only Republican CableSpews
> hosts carry on in that vein.
>
> Money rules.
>
>

Now we agree, so I'll move on to another thread.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 25th 03, 03:04 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:Brfmb.4563$d87.1922@okepread05...
>
>
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" >
> >>You know Mikey, except for your vigorous defense of
> >>Republicans, you are closing in on that Libertarian ideal a
> >>little more each year. :)
> >>
> >
> > I'm a registerd Libertarian, have been for over 20 years.
> >
> > I defend Republicans when they are being lied about.
> > I do the same for Democrats when they are being lied about. The problem
is
> > that the Democrats IMO are far more bankrupt and far more dishonest.
>
> I think they can be equally dishonest, and usually are.
>
> A need for campaign cash will do that.
>
> >
> > Bot parties have major flaws that keep me from voting for either.
>
> Who is the Libertarian candidate in 2004?
>
Someone or other trying to piggyback it on his next book tour.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 25th 03, 03:07 AM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
> >
> I don't know, I haven't been keeping up. The Libertarian candidate for
> Governor of California was such a dipship that I may have look elsewhere.
> He was on a local radio talk show and didn't like a question he was asked
> and actually spit on one of the hosts. :-(
>

What is "ARNY" doing running for governor of California?
What about past allegations of....well....you know what!

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Michael Mckelvy

October 25th 03, 11:35 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:Lmfmb.4554$d87.1226@okepread05...
>
>
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>
>
> >>I understand and accept that many times unions price
> >>their workers out of their jobs. Stupid businesses
> >>do similarly stupid things in their businesses, and
> >>they go bankrupt. It's capitalism at work.
> >>
> >
> > But businesses don't claim moral high ground while doing it.
>
> Sure they do.
>
> Remember the corporate raiding and evisceration that has
> been par for the course the last twenty years? Failure of th
> e company was considered a success oif the raiders made a
> profit.
>
> Nexus 6
>
>
>
Companies that went out of business did so because they could no longer
compete.

Michael Mckelvy

October 25th 03, 11:39 PM

Michael Mckelvy

October 25th 03, 11:46 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > > > He should be treated similarly to how others in his position
> > > > have been treated.
> > >
> > > You mean the position of having publicly called for harsh punishment
> > > for those who do what he did?
> >
> > No, that's not the way the law is supposed to work.
> > According to your logic, legalization advocates should
> > walk. Its obvious, you want him punished for his
> > views. You just about said it.
>
> Yes I do. He espouses immoral and evil views.

Example?

Plus he's a huge
> hypocrite.

Examples?

I'll bet Limbaugh's "pinhead" brigade, or whatever they
> call themselves, worship hypocrites.
>
>
> > > Isn't it possible that Limbaugh's
> > > yammering may have indirectly influenced the jail sentences inflicted
> > > on other drug users?
>
> > No
>
> Wrong. For the same reason that the anti-gay hatemongers who
> hypocritically don clerical robes are not free of guilt for violence
> against gay people.
>
Limbaugh is not a hate monger.

> > > He should be made an example of. He abused a position of influence,
> > > albeit an ad-hoc one, in order to deflect attention away from his own
> > > bad behavior.
>
> > Hehe, sound like a description of Clinton, to me.
>
> No. Clinton never preached against infidelity or blow jobs or whatever
> you think he did "wrong".
>
> > ("Don't bother me about Monica, it detracts from my running the
country")
>
> Why should you care about anybody else's sex life? Don't be a
> hypocrite.
>
It wasn't his sex life it was perjury that got him in trouble.

> > Anyway Rush developed his hard line attitude about drugs well before he
got
> > hooked. He didn't do it for deflection,
>
> Sez you. Guaranteed he's been using some drugs or other, probably to
> excess, for many, many years.
>
OSAF!

> > Now the guy was in serious denial,
> > like all drug and alcohol abusers. Also, I have some empathy
> > for the situation in which he got hooked, using those
> > drugs to alleviate severe pain due to a medical condition.
>
> Where is the condemnation of his hypocrisy?
>
Where's the hypocrisy?

> > I have seen someone close to me endure such pain, and ask to die.
> > So I can see where he would use those drugs for that purpose.
> > However, after a while, on vould easily get hooked.
>
> Still waiting.....
>
> > Talk about lack of compassion in the right, I see as much
> > from the left.
>
> I don't. Please enlighten us.
>
> > > > I would say the same thing, were it a liberal point man like
> > > > Al Franken or James Carvile in the hot seat.
> > >
> > > Disagreed. They aren't rabble-rousers and hatemongers. In fact, it
> > > wouldn't surprise me if Franken is on the record as supporting the
> > > right side of the "drug issue".
> >
> > They are, as much as Limburgh is, which is not much.
> > There is alot of blind intolerance on the left.
>
> You mean intolerance of bigotry, hypocrisy, and outright Dubya-style
> lying to the electorate?

You just make it up as you go along. You should run with other 9 dwarves.

I think everybody should be intolerant of
> behaviors like that. Do you have some cheap excuses for Bush's (and
> Cheney's and Powell's, et al) lying about the invasion of Iraq?

No lies were told.

How
> about for the hate-mongering of Falwell and Robertson, et al?
>
>
They are disgusting but hold no elected office.

> > You just don't see it. Actually, you tend towards exhibiting it
yourself.
> > Now, I am not calling you a hate monger or rabble rouser,
> > but I think that you are, by your strongly held principals,
> > prone to detest individuals who hold different political opinions.
>
> You mean like Krooger? Or Dickless? Or the Bug Eater? There are plenty
> of reasons to "detest" those "people" that have little to do with
> principles. (Assuming that's the word you meant.)
>
> > Do you want to be like Sanders, whose leftist beliefs prevent him
> > from maintaining a friendship with someone like me, who resides, but
> > moderately, on the other side of the road?
>
> Sure. Where do I sign up?
>
> > BTW, I am:
> > pro choice (though I don't particularly like abortions, making them
illegal
> > is just not workable, nor is it correct)
>
> Good for you.
>
> > pro drug legalization
>
> Good on this one too.
>
> > in favor of programs that will truly help the working poor and
> > those not able to work (such as accountability in schools, vouchers only
> > where schools are failing, no or low interest loans for small
> > businesses and housing, subsidized day care)
> > pro legalization of prostitiution
> > pro condoms for teenagers
>
> All very good. Shows you're not consumed by your blind spots.
>
>
While you are.

Lionel

October 25th 03, 11:47 PM

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...

>>...He abused a position of influence,
>>albeit an ad-hoc one, in order to deflect attention away from his own
>>bad behavior.
>>
>
> Proof?
>

Why a proof ?
It's the prefered Middius tactic... ;O)

Michael Mckelvy

October 25th 03, 11:50 PM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> >
> > > > > He should be treated similarly to how others in his position
> > > > > have been treated.
> > > >
> > > > You mean the position of having publicly called for harsh punishment
> > > > for those who do what he did?
> > >
> > > No, that's not the way the law is supposed to work.
> > > According to your logic, legalization advocates should
> > > walk. Its obvious, you want him punished for his
> > > views. You just about said it.
> >
> > Yes I do. He espouses immoral and evil views. Plus he's a huge
> > hypocrite. I'll bet Limbaugh's "pinhead" brigade, or whatever they
> > call themselves, worship hypocrites.
> >
>
>
> Newspeak. Espousing morality is now immoral.
>
> They call themselves ditto heads.
> I'll admit to being an apostrophe head.
>
> Some of the callers are pretty darn stupid. I catch the show
> at noon.
>
> >
> > > > Isn't it possible that Limbaugh's
> > > > yammering may have indirectly influenced the jail sentences
inflicted
> > > > on other drug users?
> >
> > > No
> >
> > Wrong. For the same reason that the anti-gay hatemongers who
> > hypocritically don clerical robes are not free of guilt for violence
> > against gay people.
> >
>
> If they actually committed it.
> Otherwise we should have hung Jerry Rubin for acts
> committed by memebrs of the Weather Underground, SLA, etc.
>
>
> > > > He should be made an example of. He abused a position of influence,
> > > > albeit an ad-hoc one, in order to deflect attention away from his
own
> > > > bad behavior.
> >
> > > Hehe, sound like a description of Clinton, to me.
> >
> > No. Clinton never preached against infidelity or blow jobs or whatever
> > you think he did "wrong".
> >
>
> T'was lyoing under oath.
> A few posts ago in another thread you drooled at the
> prospect that Arny might do the same.
>
> > > ("Don't bother me about Monica, it detracts from my running the
> country")
> >
> > Why should you care about anybody else's sex life? Don't be a
> > hypocrite.
> >
>
> He used his position to try and worm out of responsibility for
> lyiing under oath. Hillary can beter mete out punishments
> for his sexual transgressions than I could.
>
> > > Anyway Rush developed his hard line attitude about drugs well before
he
> got
> > > hooked. He didn't do it for deflection,
> >
> > Sez you. Guaranteed he's been using some drugs or other, probably to
> > excess, for many, many years.
>
> I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> heard such rumors.
> BTW, I have much more sympathy
> for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> That's a hypocrite!
>
> >
What hypocrisy did he commit in your opinion?

> > > Now the guy was in serious denial,
> > > like all drug and alcohol abusers. Also, I have some empathy
> > > for the situation in which he got hooked, using those
> > > drugs to alleviate severe pain due to a medical condition.
> >
> > Where is the condemnation of his hypocrisy?
> >
>
> I think he was not in his right mind at the time.
> His major disappoint ment to me was his keeping it
> secret for so long. But how could he tell us, when he kept denying
> it to himself?
>
> > > I have seen someone close to me endure such pain, and ask to die.
> > > So I can see where he would use those drugs for that purpose.
> > > However, after a while, on vould easily get hooked.
> >
> > Still waiting.....
> >
> > > Talk about lack of compassion in the right, I see as much
> > > from the left.
> >
> > I don't. Please enlighten us.
>
> I don't think it is possible to enlighten you in that regard.
>
> >
> > > > > I would say the same thing, were it a liberal point man like
> > > > > Al Franken or James Carvile in the hot seat.
> > > >
> > > > Disagreed. They aren't rabble-rousers and hatemongers. In fact, it
> > > > wouldn't surprise me if Franken is on the record as supporting the
> > > > right side of the "drug issue".
> > >
> > > They are, as much as Limburgh is, which is not much.
> > > There is alot of blind intolerance on the left.
> >
> > You mean intolerance of bigotry, hypocrisy, and outright Dubya-style
> > lying to the electorate?
>
> YES!
>
> I think everybody should be intolerant of
> > behaviors like that. Do you have some cheap excuses for Bush's (and
> > Cheney's and Powell's, et al) lying about the invasion of Iraq?
>
> I think that they told us what was told to them by
> our intelligence agencies, who were suckered in
> by a masterful bluff by Saddam. He got us to
> believe he had the stuff, when he had already gotten rid of it.
> The problem was, the bluff was intended to scare us away,
> instead, it provided the impetus for us to march right in.
>
> Remember, the whole thing was because he wouldn't
> answer out questions.
>
> > How
> > about for the hate-mongering of Falwell and Robertson, et al?
> >
>
> I don't like the political behavior of the Fundamentalist Christian
> movement. I find it counter to traditional American values.
>
> >
> > > You just don't see it. Actually, you tend towards exhibiting it
> yourself.
> > > Now, I am not calling you a hate monger or rabble rouser,
> > > but I think that you are, by your strongly held principals,
> > > prone to detest individuals who hold different political opinions.
> >
> > You mean like Krooger? Or Dickless? Or the Bug Eater? There are plenty
> > of reasons to "detest" those "people" that have little to do with
> > principles. (Assuming that's the word you meant.)
> >
>
> I mean like you.
>
> > > Do you want to be like Sanders, whose leftist beliefs prevent him
> > > from maintaining a friendship with someone like me, who resides, but
> > > moderately, on the other side of the road?
> >
> > Sure. Where do I sign up?
>
> You don't have to, you rebuffed my offer of friendship a long time ago.
> >
>
> > > BTW, I am:
> > > pro choice (though I don't particularly like abortions, making them
> illegal
> > > is just not workable, nor is it correct)
> >
> > Good for you.
> >
> > > pro drug legalization
> >
> > Good on this one too.
> >
> > > in favor of programs that will truly help the working poor and
> > > those not able to work (such as accountability in schools, vouchers
only
> > > where schools are failing, no or low interest loans for small
> > > businesses and housing, subsidized day care)
> > > pro legalization of prostitiution
> > > pro condoms for teenagers
> >
> > All very good. Shows you're not consumed by your blind spots.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael Mckelvy

October 25th 03, 11:52 PM

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <TtDlb.2292$d87.848@okepread05>,
> Nexus 6 > wrote:
>
> > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> > > heard such rumors.
> > > BTW, I have much more sympathy
> > > for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> > > That's a hypocrite!
> >
> > The two are equally hypocritical.
> >
> > Where are the differences in the two cases?
>
> Bill Bennett has those enormous lats from pulling the one-armed bandit...
>
> Stephen

Not illegal, not immoral. He didn't harm himself or his family, he could
afford it.

Michael Mckelvy

October 25th 03, 11:58 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:xyHlb.2493$d87.2380@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:TtDlb.2292$d87.848@okepread05...
> >
> >>
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> >>>heard such rumors.
> >>>BTW, I have much more sympathy
> >>>for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> >>>That's a hypocrite!
> >>
> >>The two are equally hypocritical.
> >>
> >>Where are the differences in the two cases?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Limbaugh's regimen of excruciating back pain.
>
> I refuse to cut either any slack, and I suffer from
> non-correctable back pain, every single day.
>
As do I. What have you done to treat it?

What has this to do with him becoming addicted to meds prescribed by a
doctor? When has he advocated a hard line for people in that situation?

Answer: Never.

> No slack for Bennett making huge cash off his hypocritical
> moralizing (do whjat I say and all that), and none for Rush
> for all of his vicious commentary about dsrug users
> generally and addicts specifically.
>
People who use drugs for nothing other than to get high is who he's railed
against.

> In the karmic sense, prison is exactly what he deserves.
>
Why? he's not the only one who disapproves of this, there are plenty of
Democrat politicians who publicly espouse the same type of view.

> Being both compassionate and an opponent of criminalization
> of drugs (it is a health issue in my view) he ought to be
> forced into recovery for a slong as it takes.
>
> Nexus 6
>
I think they should be left alone.

Michael Mckelvy

October 26th 03, 12:01 AM

Michael Mckelvy

October 26th 03, 12:05 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > I don't know, I haven't been keeping up. The Libertarian candidate for
> > Governor of California was such a dipship that I may have look
elsewhere.
> > He was on a local radio talk show and didn't like a question he was
asked
> > and actually spit on one of the hosts. :-(
> >
>
> What is "ARNY" doing running for governor of California?
> What about past allegations of....well....you know what!
>
>

What about them? Most of them were 20 or 30 years ago when he had no
intention of running for any office.

The more recent ones are very suspect in terms of the credibility of the
people making the accusations.

If he were a native born citizen he could be president.
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael Mckelvy

October 26th 03, 12:07 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:Brfmb.4563$d87.1922@okepread05...
> >
> >
> > Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> >
> > > "Nexus 6" >
> > >>You know Mikey, except for your vigorous defense of
> > >>Republicans, you are closing in on that Libertarian ideal a
> > >>little more each year. :)
> > >>
> > >
> > > I'm a registerd Libertarian, have been for over 20 years.
> > >
> > > I defend Republicans when they are being lied about.
> > > I do the same for Democrats when they are being lied about. The
problem
> is
> > > that the Democrats IMO are far more bankrupt and far more dishonest.
> >
> > I think they can be equally dishonest, and usually are.
> >
> > A need for campaign cash will do that.
> >
> > >
> > > Bot parties have major flaws that keep me from voting for either.
> >
> > Who is the Libertarian candidate in 2004?
> >
> Someone or other trying to piggyback it on his next book tour.
>
>
I don't vote for personalities, I vote for principles.
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael Mckelvy

October 26th 03, 12:25 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:zw%lb.2571$d87.750@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>
> >>>I feel that the last 40 years of Democratic politics has been
> >>>mostly a disservice to the poor, and hence, to
> >>>the rest of society. At first, well intentioned
> >>>mistakes, but now, blind stupidity.
> >>
> >>Calling it "40 years of Democratic politics" is a alittle
> >>disingenuous. Many of Nixon's social programs were passed
> >>with the aid of Democratic congresses, and those policies
> >>originated in the White House.
> >>
> >
> >
> > No, not at all. I am talking about the Great Society,
> > the War on Poverty, and even earlier efforts.
>
> Again, you miss my point. Those programs, and many like
> them, were not the *sole* creation of the Democratic party.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>I'd say the same for Reagan, but he held a particular
> >>distaste for the poor, and it showed.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I don't think he hated them.
>
> I used the word "distaste."
>
> >
OSAF! He believed that people capable of work should do it. He believed
that the country should create an atmosphere where those who want to work
can.

> >
> >>Think Clinton, and you have "welfare to work," which has
> >>been a major disaster in those states which have most
> >>aggressively adopted it.
> >
> >
> > Not from what I read.
>
> The "work" folks have been moved to is hardly that, and
> fails to provide a working wage. This leaves the people
> being forced off welfare or other support into the same
> place they started from - unable to make even rudimentary
> ends meet. Many of these people are single mothers who now
> have no health care or shild care, and a job that will not
> pay rent or all of their bills, much less support a child.
>
> Where is the logic in that?
>
> >
> > Now the states are all in budgetary
> >
> >>troubles thanks to a regressive economy and rabid tax
> >>cutting, and what few social programs remain are drying up
> >>and blowing away.
> >>
> >
> >
> > you are dead wrong about the cause, as far as taxes.
>
> They are, right this moment, certainly a part of the mix.
> Not only have federal taxes been massively cut,

That's a flat out lie. The Bush tax cuts are tiny.

but states
> have been doing the same thing. It is not the only cause,
> but it is certainly part of the equation.
>
No they haven't. Provide data.
> >
> >>So the blame goes both ways, for those things that have gone
> >>wrong.
> >>
> >>And those that havbe gone *right*.
> >>
> >
> >
> > No, the culture of massive social programs
> > is a liberal Democratic phenomenum,
> > not a Conservative Republican one.
>
> Maybe not a *conservative* Republican one, but Republicans
> have certainly been involved.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>>And I grant that many conservatives just don't care,
> >>>which is very, very stupid. Poverty and race relations
> >>>has an impact on our whole society.
> >>
> >>It is part and parcel of Republican economic theory to
> >>maintain an underclass - the better to beat the rest of us
> >>into working harder and longer for less.
> >>
> >
You are completely wrong. The Republican economic theory is to make it
possible for business to thrive and therefore put people to work who want to
work.

> >
> > That is not true.
> > But, there will always be an underclass.
> > It's how things work in the real world.
> > It couldn't work any other way.
> > A world or country where evryone is of equal economic condition
> > just can't exist. Not even at the end of a barrel of a gun.
>
> There will always be an underclass, true, but how does that
> class live and function in our society, and how does the
> rest of that society, which relies on that class for sdome
> of its own well being, treat those people?
>
> I say, in this, the richest nation in all of time, we do
> pretty poorly.
>
You beleive that we have an obligation to people simply because they exist?
If that is so do what you can yourself, don't ask government to use force to
help people.
> >
> >
> >>>However, I think that in recent years, there seems to
> >>>be a growing group of Conservatives that do care.
> >>
> >>I would contend that group is shrinking. Older style
> >>Republicans who were fiscally conservative (bot not rabid
> >>tax cutters) and socially moderate are disappearing, being
> >>replaced by so-called "neo-conservatives," who view social
> >>programs of any type as the enemy of larger defense budgets
> >>and tax giveaways to those who don't really need it.
> >>
> >
> >
> > No, there is Giuliani, Schwartzenegger, Pataki,
> > Kemp, Ehrlich, Ridge, etc.
>
> Some good examples there.
>
> >
> > Note, these are Republcans who have been elected in liberal areas.
> > Neo conservatives have a harder time getting elected, unless they are
> > from more conservative sparsley populate rural areas. Look at
> > the McClintock and Simon flops in California.
>
Simon only lost by 5 points against a massively better funded Davis
campaign. Simon was about the most inept person to ever campaign for
anything.

McClintock might very well have gotten elected if Arnold hadn't been in the
recall race.

> California is an exception - the hard right has never done
> well there, and the state Republican party hasn't been taken
> over by the hard line folks.
>
I seem to remember Reagan being elected here.

> Why they allowed Simon to win the primary and get beat in
> the gubernatorial election is still something I can't fathom.
>
See above.
> >
> > I think you have those ultra lib blinders on,
> > and are all to quick to demonize anyone appearing
> > to be any type of conservative(even dunping on
> > Democrats who are less liberal than they)
>
> I'm not demonizing anyone. I recognize that there are
> Republicans who have a conscience and a heart - my
> contention is simply that the hard right wing of the party
> exerts an influence over Republican policy nationwide all
> out of proportion to their actual numbers. Think about talk
> radio - no "compassionate conseravtism" to be found there.
> The most popular hosts are closely allied to the neocon
> faction of the party.
>
> I would rather see people like those you list above have
> more influence on policy than they do now. They are popular
> figures, bot not particularly powerful in the present context.
>

A fact of life for teh GOP is that without the far right GOP candidates
don't get elected.
> >
> > The Democratic libs keep pushing the same tired old agendas.
>
> A few.
>
> Most have long ago adopted a very corporatist agenda,
> basically in competition with their Republican brothers for
> the same pool of campagin contributions. It is one of the
> reasons Democrats have fared so poorly in recent elections:
> Given the choice between a real Republican and a wannabe,
> Republicans win every time.
>
> A few others are being extremely pragmatic about issues. I
> disagree with Howard Dean on a number of issues, but admire
> his stance on others. It's kind of funny to see him being
> called a "flaming liberal" by both Republicans and the other
> Democrats vying for the nomination. Nice to see they can
> agree on *something*. :)
>
> > Its time to open our minds and take a critical introspective look
> > at issues and programs relating to coities, miborities and the poor.
> > Dems just don't want to do that. Its the same
> > ols dtuff, decade after decade.
>
> I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this. Democrats have
> abandoned their traditional core base, moving to the
> "center" in search of the winning balance of campaign cash
> and electoral success. In that regard, they have adopted
> policies, a la Clinton (who was no liberal), that mimic
> Republican policies. It is a losing combination, and I hope
> the current party leadership goes down hard.
>
> Similarly, I'd like to see neocon influence over the
> Republican party mitigated by the majority members of thgat
> party.
>
> It might come as a shock to you, but in state elections, and
> one congressional one, I voted for a Republican because I
> thought he was better qualified for the job and had ideas
> more similar to my own.
>
> Ok, you can get your jaw off the floor now!
>
> Nexus 6
>

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 26th 03, 12:31 AM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...

> >
> >
> >
> Companies that went out of business did so because they could no longer
> compete.
>

pure dogma
let's think a little

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 26th 03, 12:32 AM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> >
> > > > Equally, Limbaugh, a staunch proponent of jail time for
> > > > addicts, will not be charged, thanks to Jebbie.
> >
> > > He should be treated similarly to how others in his position
> > > have been treated.
> >
> > You mean the position of having publicly called for harsh punishment
> > for those who do what he did?
>
> He has never to my knowledge called for harsh or any punishment for people
> who become addicted to medication prescribed by one's doctor.
>
> Isn't it possible that Limbaugh's
> > yammering may have indirectly influenced the jail sentences inflicted
> > on other drug users?
> >
> > He should be made an example of. He abused a position of influence,
> > albeit an ad-hoc one, in order to deflect attention away from his own
> > bad behavior.
> >
> Proof?
>
> > > I would say the same thing, were it a liberal point man like
> > > Al Franken or James Carvile in the hot seat.
> >
> > Disagreed. They aren't rabble-rousers and hatemongers.
>
> Bull****. Franken especially is a liar and a hate monger.
>
"At least" he is funny.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 26th 03, 12:44 AM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >

> >
> > I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> > heard such rumors.
> > BTW, I have much more sympathy
> > for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> > That's a hypocrite!
> >
> > >
> What hypocrisy did he commit in your opinion?
>

First of all, if you are going to ignore long portions of the previous
posts,
you ought to snip them. It was quite a chore to find this one
little nugget that you contributed.

The hypocricy, Bennett's brand of conservatism
leans 90% on morality and family values.
He gambled away millions and deprived his children
of part of their inheritance. He has, in the past,
decried all sorts of wasteful behavior on the part of
others.

Now, if Liddy did the same thing, I would not call him a
hypocrite, as he his brand of conservatism doesn't harp
on the wailing against all sort of "vices".

I love being in the middle of these political threads, being wailed on
by George, Signal and Nexus from the left, and from Mikey, Arny
and Oberlander form the right.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 26th 03, 12:49 AM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <TtDlb.2292$d87.848@okepread05>,
> > Nexus 6 > wrote:
> >
> > > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> > > > heard such rumors.
> > > > BTW, I have much more sympathy
> > > > for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> > > > That's a hypocrite!
> > >
> > > The two are equally hypocritical.
> > >
> > > Where are the differences in the two cases?
> >
> > Bill Bennett has those enormous lats from pulling the one-armed
bandit...
> >
> > Stephen
>
> Not illegal, not immoral. He didn't harm himself or his family, he could
> afford it.
>

Oh yes he did!
That is the families money, it is not exclusively his money.
he deprived his children of part of their inheritance.

By your logic, it would be ok to be a drug addict,
an alcoholic, cheat on your wife, be married and spend a couple of
grand a week on lap dances, as long as you are rich and can afford it, but
were a poorer peson do the same thing, my my, what evil,
lookat what he is doing to his family.

Mikey, are there different moral standards for the rich and the poor?

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 26th 03, 12:52 AM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:A_Ylb.2558$d87.446@okepread05...
> >
> >
> > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>The phrase was *intentionally addicted.*
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > More like "I know that H is addictive and I will likely
> > > become an addict, but I don't
> > > give a **** cause I want to get high.
> >
> > That's not how a lot of them get started.
> >
> > Nexus 6
> >
> It's exactly how most of them get started.
>
>

You are right on that one.
If not, what else are they thinking?

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Lionel

October 26th 03, 12:52 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
>>>I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
>>>heard such rumors.
>>>BTW, I have much more sympathy
>>>for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
>>>That's a hypocrite!
>>>
>>>
>>What hypocrisy did he commit in your opinion?
>>
>
>
> First of all, if you are going to ignore long portions of the previous
> posts,
> you ought to snip them. It was quite a chore to find this one
> little nugget that you contributed.
>
> The hypocricy, Bennett's brand of conservatism
> leans 90% on morality and family values.
> He gambled away millions and deprived his children
> of part of their inheritance. He has, in the past,
> decried all sorts of wasteful behavior on the part of
> others.
>
>
> Now, if Liddy did the same thing, I would not call him a
> hypocrite, as he his brand of conservatism doesn't harp
> on the wailing against all sort of "vices".
>
> I love being in the middle of these political threads, being wailed on
> by George, Signal and Nexus from the left, and from Mikey, Arny
> and Oberlander form the right.
>
>
You should take care at the ones who arrive from behind.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 26th 03, 12:53 AM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > I don't know, I haven't been keeping up. The Libertarian candidate
for
> > > Governor of California was such a dipship that I may have look
> elsewhere.
> > > He was on a local radio talk show and didn't like a question he was
> asked
> > > and actually spit on one of the hosts. :-(
> > >
> >
> > What is "ARNY" doing running for governor of California?
> > What about past allegations of....well....you know what!
> >
> >
>
> What about them? Most of them were 20 or 30 years ago when he had no
> intention of running for any office.
>

Mikey, you just didn't get it.
You haven't a clue!!!

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 26th 03, 12:54 AM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>

> >
> I don't vote for personalities, I vote for principles.
> >

Do you vote for personalities who have no principles?

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

George M. Middius

October 26th 03, 01:01 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> I love being in the middle of these political threads, being wailed on
> by George, Signal and Nexus from the left, and from Mikey, Arny
> and Oberlander form the right.

Actually, Obie is ultra-leftist. Admittedly, he sounds quite confused
at times.

George M. Middius

October 26th 03, 01:03 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > What about them? Most of them were 20 or 30 years ago when he had no
> > intention of running for any office.

> Mikey, you just didn't get it.
> You haven't a clue!!!

There's a darned good reason we call him duh-Mikey.

Michael Mckelvy

October 26th 03, 02:17 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "GeoSynch" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > . net...
> > > > > > > > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I said that Socialists tried to infiltrate some unions.
> > > > > > > > > So did organized crime
> > > > > > > > > Of course, organized crime has been even more successful
> > > > > infiltrating
> > > > > > > > > some corporations.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Like, which ones, besides, of course, Vegas casinos?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > GeoSynch
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A nunber of building trade companies in NYC.
> > > > > > > particularly in concrete and windows.
> > > > > > > Trash haulers, many different cities
> > > > > > > Trucking companies
> > > > > > > some import/export companies
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Which goes right along with the Teamsters love affair with the
> mob.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, and they were always into infiltrating businesses too.
> > > > > That doesn't make unions innately evil and it doesn't make
> > > > > corporations innately evil.
> > > > >
> > > > I never claimed such. In the case of the Grocery strike the union
> wants
> > > to
> > > > keep unreasonable (in todays economic climate) of healthcare
benefits.
> > > > Current employees willbe asked to contribute $5.00 a week or $15.00
a
> > week
> > > > for health insurance and there will be increased copays.
> > > >
> > > > The union is IMO being unreasonable given the current state of
> > competition
> > > > and the level of skill need to be a grocery worker.
> > > >
> > > > The Wal Mart superstores are coming and they will drastically change
> the
> > > > landscape for grocery shopping.
> > > >
> > > > Asking the big chains to pay at the current levels will only hasten
> > their
> > > > downfall but put the unions workers on the street.
> > > >
> > > > The other major strike going on in LA is with the MTA's mechanics.
> The
> > > > people are just ****ing morons. They mismanaged their own pension
> fund
> > > > (nothing criminal, just stupid) and they want raises and more
> > > contributions
> > > > to the pension fund. The economic reality is that the city doesn't
> have
> > > any
> > > > money.
> > >
> > > I understand and accept that many times unions price
> > > their workers out of their jobs. Stupid businesses
> > > do similarly stupid things in their businesses, and
> > > they go bankrupt. It's capitalism at work.
> > >
> > But businesses don't claim moral high ground while doing it.
> >
> >
>
> Because they don't have any.
>
>
If you produce or distribute a product or service and do so ant a price the
public is willing to pay there is no immorality.
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael Mckelvy

October 26th 03, 02:23 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article <TtDlb.2292$d87.848@okepread05>,
> > > Nexus 6 > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> > > > > heard such rumors.
> > > > > BTW, I have much more sympathy
> > > > > for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> > > > > That's a hypocrite!
> > > >
> > > > The two are equally hypocritical.
> > > >
> > > > Where are the differences in the two cases?
> > >
> > > Bill Bennett has those enormous lats from pulling the one-armed
> bandit...
> > >
> > > Stephen
> >
> > Not illegal, not immoral. He didn't harm himself or his family, he
could
> > afford it.
> >
>
> Oh yes he did!
> That is the families money, it is not exclusively his money.
> he deprived his children of part of their inheritance.
>
What utter horse****. If he's providing for his familiy (and he is quite
nicely) and chooses to spend some money of his own on recreation it's
nobody's business. No child has a claim on an inheritence until the parent
is dead.

> By your logic, it would be ok to be a drug addict,
> an alcoholic, cheat on your wife, be married and spend a couple of
> grand a week on lap dances, as long as you are rich and can afford it, but
> were a poorer peson do the same thing, my my, what evil,
> lookat what he is doing to his family.
>
If you earn (let's pick a random number) 20 million dollars a year and
choose to spend 2 million over 3 years on gambling, nobody is being
deprived.

> Mikey, are there different moral standards for the rich and the poor?
>
>
No. If you are providing for the needs of your dependents after that who
should care?

> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

MiNE 109

October 26th 03, 02:25 AM

In article >,
"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <TtDlb.2292$d87.848@okepread05>,
> > Nexus 6 > wrote:
> >
> > > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> > > > heard such rumors.
> > > > BTW, I have much more sympathy
> > > > for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> > > > That's a hypocrite!
> > >
> > > The two are equally hypocritical.
> > >
> > > Where are the differences in the two cases?
> >
> > Bill Bennett has those enormous lats from pulling the one-armed bandit...
> >
> > Stephen
>
> Not illegal, not immoral. He didn't harm himself or his family, he could
> afford it.

Agreed. Hypocritical, though.

Stephen

Michael Mckelvy

October 26th 03, 02:27 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
>
> > >
> > > I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> > > heard such rumors.
> > > BTW, I have much more sympathy
> > > for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> > > That's a hypocrite!
> > >
> > > >
> > What hypocrisy did he commit in your opinion?
> >
>
> First of all, if you are going to ignore long portions of the previous
> posts,
> you ought to snip them. It was quite a chore to find this one
> little nugget that you contributed.
>
> The hypocricy, Bennett's brand of conservatism
> leans 90% on morality and family values.
> He gambled away millions and deprived his children
> of part of their inheritance. He has, in the past,
> decried all sorts of wasteful behavior on the part of
> others.
>
>
I don't believe people have rights to inheritences until they have been left
to them. I feel fairly certain that Bennett's kids will be well provided
for and probably already are.

> Now, if Liddy did the same thing, I would not call him a
> hypocrite, as he his brand of conservatism doesn't harp
> on the wailing against all sort of "vices".
>
> I love being in the middle of these political threads, being wailed on
> by George, Signal and Nexus from the left, and from Mikey, Arny
> and Oberlander form the right.
>
>
Please don't consider me right wing, it would be an error.
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael Mckelvy

October 26th 03, 02:31 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> > >
> > > > > Equally, Limbaugh, a staunch proponent of jail time for
> > > > > addicts, will not be charged, thanks to Jebbie.
> > >
> > > > He should be treated similarly to how others in his position
> > > > have been treated.
> > >
> > > You mean the position of having publicly called for harsh punishment
> > > for those who do what he did?
> >
> > He has never to my knowledge called for harsh or any punishment for
people
> > who become addicted to medication prescribed by one's doctor.
> >
> > Isn't it possible that Limbaugh's
> > > yammering may have indirectly influenced the jail sentences inflicted
> > > on other drug users?
> > >
> > > He should be made an example of. He abused a position of influence,
> > > albeit an ad-hoc one, in order to deflect attention away from his own
> > > bad behavior.
> > >
> > Proof?
> >
> > > > I would say the same thing, were it a liberal point man like
> > > > Al Franken or James Carvile in the hot seat.
> > >
> > > Disagreed. They aren't rabble-rousers and hatemongers.
> >
> > Bull****. Franken especially is a liar and a hate monger.
> >
> "At least" he is funny.
>
So is Rush on occaison. Eye of the beholder.
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael Mckelvy

October 26th 03, 02:33 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > I don't know, I haven't been keeping up. The Libertarian candidate
> for
> > > > Governor of California was such a dipship that I may have look
> > elsewhere.
> > > > He was on a local radio talk show and didn't like a question he was
> > asked
> > > > and actually spit on one of the hosts. :-(
> > > >
> > >
> > > What is "ARNY" doing running for governor of California?
> > > What about past allegations of....well....you know what!
> > >
> > >
> >
> > What about them? Most of them were 20 or 30 years ago when he had no
> > intention of running for any office.
> >
>
> Mikey, you just didn't get it.
> You haven't a clue!!!
>
>
Sorry I can't get worked up about a little grab ass from a guy in his 20's.
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael Mckelvy

October 26th 03, 02:34 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > >
> > I don't vote for personalities, I vote for principles.
> > >
>
> Do you vote for personalities who have no principles?
>
>
Not that I'm aware of. :-)
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 26th 03, 04:51 AM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>

> If you produce or distribute a product or service and do so ant a price
the
> public is willing to pay there is no immorality.

Drugs?
Sex?
Rock 'n' Roll?

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 26th 03, 05:00 AM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Oh yes he did!
> > That is the families money, it is not exclusively his money.
> > he deprived his children of part of their inheritance.
> >
> What utter horse****. If he's providing for his familiy (and he is quite
> nicely) and chooses to spend some money of his own on recreation it's
> nobody's business. No child has a claim on an inheritence until the
parent
> is dead.
>

It's okay if he were palying around on his wife?
Nobody in the family is even losing a nickel on that game

> > By your logic, it would be ok to be a drug addict,
> > an alcoholic, cheat on your wife, be married and spend a couple of
> > grand a week on lap dances, as long as you are rich and can afford it,
but
> > were a poorer peson do the same thing, my my, what evil,
> > lookat what he is doing to his family.
> >
> If you earn (let's pick a random number) 20 million dollars a year and
> choose to spend 2 million over 3 years on gambling, nobody is being
> deprived.
>

Your family is being deprived of 2 million.
I wouldn't have gotten on Bennett qite as hard
if he were a single guy.
That's why I like being single. I can gamble, party and play around
as much as I want!

> > Mikey, are there different moral standards for the rich and the poor?
> >
> >
> No. If you are providing for the needs of your dependents after that who
> should care?
>

That's yout moral standard?
It's good to know that the poor are not immoral if they use
drugs, steal, prostitute, have children out of wedlock,
or get abortions. Their only moral lapse is not providing for their
families.
The poor commiting welfare fraud becomes a good thing, as it
provides for the family's needs, since welfare alone, doesn't.

And, you will give Clinton a ride. Who cares about lying under oath,
as long as his Presidential salary keeps the kids clothed and fed.
Mikey, do you really want to go there?

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 26th 03, 05:02 AM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> > > > I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> > > > heard such rumors.
> > > > BTW, I have much more sympathy
> > > > for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> > > > That's a hypocrite!
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > What hypocrisy did he commit in your opinion?
> > >
> >
> > First of all, if you are going to ignore long portions of the previous
> > posts,
> > you ought to snip them. It was quite a chore to find this one
> > little nugget that you contributed.
> >
> > The hypocricy, Bennett's brand of conservatism
> > leans 90% on morality and family values.
> > He gambled away millions and deprived his children
> > of part of their inheritance. He has, in the past,
> > decried all sorts of wasteful behavior on the part of
> > others.
> >
> >
> I don't believe people have rights to inheritences until they have been
left
> to them. I feel fairly certain that Bennett's kids will be well provided
> for and probably already are.
>

He lied to them while he was doing it. The lost money certainly
belongs to his wife, also. Community property.

> > Now, if Liddy did the same thing, I would not call him a
> > hypocrite, as he his brand of conservatism doesn't harp
> > on the wailing against all sort of "vices".
> >
> > I love being in the middle of these political threads, being wailed on
> > by George, Signal and Nexus from the left, and from Mikey, Arny
> > and Oberlander form the right.
> >
> >
> Please don't consider me right wing, it would be an error.

Don't consider me left wing.
Was it you that called me a Bolshevik?

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 26th 03, 05:07 AM

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > ...

> > >
> > > Bull****. Franken especially is a liar and a hate monger.
> > >
> > "At least" he is funny.
> >
> So is Rush on occaison. Eye of the beholder.

True, but not as funny as Al.
Rush didn't come up with the Coneheads. (from Remulak, a small town in
France)

Hey, Lionel, tell us what a conehead is ....... hehehehehe

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 26th 03, 05:08 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 26th 03, 05:11 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>

> >
> >
> You should take care at the ones who arrive from behind.
>

Please, leave Arny out of this.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Lionel

October 26th 03, 09:05 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>If you produce or distribute a product or service and do so ant a price
>
> the
>
>>public is willing to pay there is no immorality.
>
>
>
> Drugs?
> Sex?
> Rock 'n' Roll?
>
>
I know a guy who said the same thing but in a different order :
Sex 'n' Drugs 'n' Rock 'n' Roll !

Lionel

October 26th 03, 09:11 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>
>>You should take care at the ones who arrive from behind.
>>
>
>
> Please, leave Arny out of this.
>
>
I thought he was coming from your right ?

Lionel

October 26th 03, 09:19 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

>
> Don't consider me left wing.
> Was it you that called me a Bolshevik?
>
>
>
He thought that you belong to the "Middius supreme". ;O)

....Yes, I know but I have a terrible headache. :-(

Lionel

October 26th 03, 09:30 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>>>Bull****. Franken especially is a liar and a hate monger.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"At least" he is funny.
>>>
>>
>>So is Rush on occaison. Eye of the beholder.
>
>
> True, but not as funny as Al.
> Rush didn't come up with the Coneheads. (from Remulak, a small town in
> France)
>
> Hey, Lionel, tell us what a conehead is ....... hehehehehe
>
>
>
# Quick definition (conehead)
Guy-who-use-to-spend-days-and-nights-discussing-seriously-about-stupid
politic-subjects-on-an-audio-forum.

....Broken hearts are for assholes.

MiNE 109

October 26th 03, 01:26 PM

In article >,
Lionel > wrote:

> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>If you produce or distribute a product or service and do so ant a price
> >
> > the
> >
> >>public is willing to pay there is no immorality.
> >
> >
> >
> > Drugs?
> > Sex?
> > Rock 'n' Roll?
> >
> >
> I know a guy who said the same thing but in a different order :
> Sex 'n' Drugs 'n' Rock 'n' Roll !
>

Blockhead.

dave weil

October 26th 03, 04:11 PM

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:26:09 GMT, MiNE 109 >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Lionel > wrote:
>
>> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>> > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >
>> >>If you produce or distribute a product or service and do so ant a price
>> >
>> > the
>> >
>> >>public is willing to pay there is no immorality.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Drugs?
>> > Sex?
>> > Rock 'n' Roll?
>> >
>> >
>> I know a guy who said the same thing but in a different order :
>> Sex 'n' Drugs 'n' Rock 'n' Roll !
>>
>
>Blockhead.

Hit me! Hit me!

Lionel

October 26th 03, 07:01 PM

MiNE 109 wrote:

> In article >,
> Lionel > wrote:
>
>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you produce or distribute a product or service and do so ant a price
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>public is willing to pay there is no immorality.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Drugs?
>>>Sex?
>>>Rock 'n' Roll?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I know a guy who said the same thing but in a different order :
>>Sex 'n' Drugs 'n' Rock 'n' Roll !
>>
>
>
> Blockhead.

Today I play for the pair royal :
- conehead
- blockhead
- pinhead

MiNe 109

October 26th 03, 07:41 PM

In article >,
Lionel > wrote:

> MiNE 109 wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Lionel > wrote:

> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> >>>Drugs?
> >>>Sex?
> >>>Rock 'n' Roll?

> >>I know a guy who said the same thing but in a different order :
> >>Sex 'n' Drugs 'n' Rock 'n' Roll !

> > Blockhead.

> Today I play for the pair royal :
> - conehead
> - blockhead
> - pinhead

Beldar
Dury
Zippy

MiNe 109

October 26th 03, 07:43 PM

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:26:09 GMT, MiNE 109 >
> wrote:

> >Blockhead.
>
> Hit me! Hit me!

I'm doing very well.

Stephen

Lionel

October 26th 03, 08:31 PM

dave weil wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:26:09 GMT, MiNE 109 >
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>>Lionel > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If you produce or distribute a product or service and do so ant a price
>>>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>public is willing to pay there is no immorality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Drugs?
>>>>Sex?
>>>>Rock 'n' Roll?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I know a guy who said the same thing but in a different order :
>>>Sex 'n' Drugs 'n' Rock 'n' Roll !
>>>
>>
>>Blockhead.
>
>
> Hit me! Hit me!

Ask Trotsky... ;O)

Michael Mckelvy

October 26th 03, 09:51 PM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > If you produce or distribute a product or service and do so ant a price
> the
> > public is willing to pay there is no immorality.
>
>
> Drugs?
> Sex?
> Rock 'n' Roll?
>
Illegal is not always the same as immoral.

>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael Mckelvy

October 26th 03, 10:00 PM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh yes he did!
> > > That is the families money, it is not exclusively his money.
> > > he deprived his children of part of their inheritance.
> > >
> > What utter horse****. If he's providing for his familiy (and he is
quite
> > nicely) and chooses to spend some money of his own on recreation it's
> > nobody's business. No child has a claim on an inheritence until the
> parent
> > is dead.
> >
>
> It's okay if he were palying around on his wife?
> Nobody in the family is even losing a nickel on that game
>
Why are you changing the subject?
He did no harm to anybody, nor did he violate anybody's trust so far as I
know by gambling. If he did that's between him and them.

>
> > > By your logic, it would be ok to be a drug addict,
> > > an alcoholic, cheat on your wife, be married and spend a couple of
> > > grand a week on lap dances, as long as you are rich and can afford it,
> but
> > > were a poorer peson do the same thing, my my, what evil,
> > > lookat what he is doing to his family.
> > >
> > If you earn (let's pick a random number) 20 million dollars a year and
> > choose to spend 2 million over 3 years on gambling, nobody is being
> > deprived.
> >
>
> Your family is being deprived of 2 million.
> I wouldn't have gotten on Bennett qite as hard
> if he were a single guy.
> That's why I like being single. I can gamble, party and play around
> as much as I want!
>
>
>
>
> > > Mikey, are there different moral standards for the rich and the poor?
> > >
> > >
> > No. If you are providing for the needs of your dependents after that
who
> > should care?
> >
>
> That's yout moral standard?
> It's good to know that the poor are not immoral if they use
> drugs, steal, prostitute, have children out of wedlock,
> or get abortions. Their only moral lapse is not providing for their
> families.
> The poor commiting welfare fraud becomes a good thing, as it
> provides for the family's needs, since welfare alone, doesn't.
>
When did I say fraud was OK? If you EARN and spend what you EARN and it
does no harm it no business of anybody else.

> And, you will give Clinton a ride. Who cares about lying under oath,
> as long as his Presidential salary keeps the kids clothed and fed.
> Mikey, do you really want to go there?
>
>
I never went anywhere near there. You are twisting logic and my meaning.

Since when do children have a claim on anything more than what their parents
willingly give them? If Bennett's kids are well fed, well educated, well
clothed, why shold anyone care if he spends some of his earnings on a
pastime of his choice? If he gave the money to charity would it still be
harmful to his children?

>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael Mckelvy

October 26th 03, 10:02 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > I wish him well, I hope that when
> > he comes back, he will be a little more empathetic.
>
> If he does, that will be the end of his ride. The pinheads don't want
> a softie, they want a raging *******.
>
>
We already have you.

Michael Mckelvy

October 26th 03, 10:07 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > > Only a nitwit would say Limbaugh "espouses morality". He's vile and
> > > contemptible, self-serving and short-sighted, bigoted and filled with
> > > hate. He wants to use the government's power to interfere with
> > > people's right to freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. He is in
> > > favor of the proliferation of handguns and he has equated murdering
> > > abortionists with executing criminals.
> > >
> >
> > Some owuld say he is in favor of the people's Constitutional right to
bear
> > arms, the right to life, and protection of the people's Constitutional
> > right's regarding property.
>
> They are the pinheads.
>
> > The coin has two sides.
>
> Not.
>
> > I have never heard him say anything positive
> > about murdering abortionists, quite the opposite.
>
> Check back a few years.
>
> > Personally, I think he is a blowhard, ruffles his papers too much, and
hems and
> > haws too much, and takes an hour to tell you what G. Gordon Liddy
> > will tell you in two minutes.
>
> But he's still got moral authority because he's in favor of handguns,
> viciously bigoted against gay people, and against women's rights to
> control their own bodies. Right?
>
>
> > > This is a seriously evil individual, and you can't tell him from a
> > > bona-fide moralizer? For shame.
>
> No answer here?
>
>
> > > > > Wrong. For the same reason that the anti-gay hatemongers who
> > > > > hypocritically don clerical robes are not free of guilt for
violence
> > > > > against gay people.
> > >
> > > > If they actually committed it.
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > > > Otherwise we should have hung Jerry Rubin for acts
> > > > committed by memebrs of the Weather Underground, SLA, etc.
> > >
> > > Excuse me, did Jerry Rubin have a nationally syndicated radio show?
> > > Did he claim to be a moral leader along the lines of nationally
> > > televised preachers?
> > >
> > > That is a very bad comparison. Rubin was a political revolutionary. He
> > > was not, like Bimbaugh and Falwell, true wolves in sheep's clothing.
> > >
> >
> > He had lots of exposure.
> > Rush never told his audience to go out an kill gays.
>
> I didn't accuse him of that, I accused the pseudo-religionists of it.
>
> > If his pronouncements that gays are morally incorrect
>
> "Morally incorrect"? Sounds like meaningless camouflage for hatred.
>
> > motivated hate crimes, it is not his cross to bear.
>
> Once again, not what I accused Bimbo of.
>
> > What you are doing is like one of the bad things the
> > right does, blaming tv and movies for motivating criminals.
>
> The association may be "like" that to you, but the attribution of
> violence to the entertainment industry is speculation, whereas the
> attribution of violence to the followers of the pseudo-religionists is
> documented fact. To me that makes the accusations very much unlike,
> but maybe that's just me.
>
>
> > > > > No. Clinton never preached against infidelity or blow jobs or
whatever
> > > > > you think he did "wrong".
> > >
> > > > T'was lyoing under oath.
> > >
> > > Excuse me?
>
> > That's your problem
>
> You need to flush your toilet.
>
>
> > > > A few posts ago in another thread you drooled at the
> > > > prospect that Arny might do the same.
> > >
> > > Krooger? He might do what?
>
> > Lie under oath
>
> Wouldn't you love it if Mr. **** got caught doing that?
>
>
> > > > > Why should you care about anybody else's sex life? Don't be a
> > > > > hypocrite.
> > >
> > > > He used his position to try and worm out of responsibility for
> > > > lyiing under oath.
> > >
> > > That's a twisted way of recounting events.
> > >
> > > > Hillary can beter mete out punishments
> > > > for his sexual transgressions than I could.
> > >
> > > Now you're on the right track.
> > >
> > > > > > Anyway Rush developed his hard line attitude about drugs well
before
> > he got
> > > > > > hooked. He didn't do it for deflection,
> > >
> > > > > Sez you. Guaranteed he's been using some drugs or other, probably
to
> > > > > excess, for many, many years.
> > >
> > > > I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> > > > heard such rumors.
> > >
> > > You just started a rumor. You said he was a blowhard before he became
> > > an addict and a hypocrite. No evidence of that either, is there?
> > >
> >
> > Its an opinion. A lot of peolple thik he's a blowhard.
>
> I think he's a blowhard. So?
>
>
> > > > BTW, I have much more sympathy
> > > > for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> > > > That's a hypocrite!
> > >
> > > Yeah, he's a schmuck of the first order.
> > >
> > > > > Where is the condemnation of his hypocrisy?
> > >
> > > > I think he was not in his right mind at the time.
> > >
> > > Bull****. Why aren't you making excuses for Clinton's philandering?
> > >
> >
> > Cause I don't care about it. It's the lying under oath.
>
> He lied about whether he fooled around with Monica, and you call that
> a Constitutional crisis?
>
>
> > > > His major disappoint ment to me was his keeping it
> > > > secret for so long. But how could he tell us, when he kept denying
> > > > it to himself?
> > >
> > > Address his hypocrisy, not his addiction per se.
> > >
> >
> > The hypocricy is not in his antidrug views, but is in the fact
> > that he became an addict.
>
> That doesn't make sense. The hypocrisy lies in his failure to practice
> as he preached. Take away the behavior or the preaching and there's no
> hypocrisy. Only with both does the hypocrisy shine through.
>
>
> > > > > > Talk about lack of compassion in the right, I see as much
> > > > > > from the left.
> > >
> > > > > I don't. Please enlighten us.
> > >
> > > > I don't think it is possible to enlighten you in that regard.
> > >
> > > That's practically an admission you're just blowing hot air.
> > >
> >
> > No, its a realization that I can't do anything about your closed mind.
>
> Copout noted.
>
>
> > > > > > There is alot of blind intolerance on the left.
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean intolerance of bigotry, hypocrisy, and outright
Dubya-style
> > > > > lying to the electorate?
> > > >
> > > > YES!
> > >
> > > Shameful, isn't it?
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Do you have some cheap excuses for Bush's (and
> > > > > Cheney's and Powell's, et al) lying about the invasion of Iraq?
> > >
> > > > I think that they told us what was told to them by
> > > > our intelligence agencies, who were suckered in
> > > > by a masterful bluff by Saddam. He got us to
> > > > believe he had the stuff, when he had already gotten rid of it.
> > > > The problem was, the bluff was intended to scare us away,
> > > > instead, it provided the impetus for us to march right in.
> > >
> > > This is all BS. There was a report on 60 Minutes last week that blows
> > > your poor-Dubya-the-dupe theory to pieces. And before you start in
> > > about "liberal media bias", the witnesses they interviewed were
> > > genuine intelligence analysts employed by the government who are
> > > greatly ashamed of the conduct of our leaders.
> > >
> >
> > 60 minutes has mostly been 20 years of BS
>
> Talking about closed minds......
>
> I believe you disagree with their agenda of exposing frauds and liars
> and hypocrites, so you ignorantly claim their stories are untrue. Yet
> only once have they ever revised a story, and they've never recanted
> one completely.
>
> > > > Remember, the whole thing was because he wouldn't
> > > > answer out questions.
> > >
> > > What does that mean?
>
> > He wouldn't answer our questions, about what he did with WMD he
> > previously admitted he possessed.
>
> I can't believe you believe that. The invasion of Iraq has been on the
> books at neo-con think tanks for 10 years.
>
> > > > > How
> > > > > about for the hate-mongering of Falwell and Robertson, et al?
> > >
> > > > I don't like the political behavior of the Fundamentalist Christian
> > > > movement. I find it counter to traditional American values.
> > >
> > > They contribute to violence against gay people.
>
> > No, they are just expressing their moral outrage over gay behavior.
>
> <puke>
>
> > Blame for violence against gays rests at the hands of the actual
> > perpetrators.
>
> <puke>
>
> You need to wake up.
>

Michael Mckelvy

October 26th 03, 10:17 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > > Only a nitwit would say Limbaugh "espouses morality". He's vile and
> > > contemptible, self-serving and short-sighted, bigoted and filled with
> > > hate. He wants to use the government's power to interfere with
> > > people's right to freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. He is in
> > > favor of the proliferation of handguns and he has equated murdering
> > > abortionists with executing criminals.
> > >
> >
> > Some owuld say he is in favor of the people's Constitutional right to
bear
> > arms, the right to life, and protection of the people's Constitutional
> > right's regarding property.
>
> They are the pinheads.
>
> > The coin has two sides.
>
> Not.
>
All hail the king Middius the all knowing, the always correct. Now ****
off.

> > I have never heard him say anything positive
> > about murdering abortionists, quite the opposite.
>
> Check back a few years.
>
Provide quotes or shut up.

> > Personally, I think he is a blowhard, ruffles his papers too much, and
hems and
> > haws too much, and takes an hour to tell you what G. Gordon Liddy
> > will tell you in two minutes.
>
> But he's still got moral authority because he's in favor of handguns,
> viciously bigoted against gay people, and against women's rights to
> control their own bodies. Right?
>
He's opposed to abortion, so are many people who are pro choice.
>
> > > This is a seriously evil individual, and you can't tell him from a
> > > bona-fide moralizer? For shame.
>
His morality is not yours, it's not mine either. Most of it is more
rational than than the left's.

> No answer here?
>
>
> > > > > Wrong. For the same reason that the anti-gay hatemongers who
> > > > > hypocritically don clerical robes are not free of guilt for
violence
> > > > > against gay people.
> > >
> > > > If they actually committed it.
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > > > Otherwise we should have hung Jerry Rubin for acts
> > > > committed by memebrs of the Weather Underground, SLA, etc.
> > >
> > > Excuse me, did Jerry Rubin have a nationally syndicated radio show?
> > > Did he claim to be a moral leader along the lines of nationally
> > > televised preachers?
> > >
> > > That is a very bad comparison. Rubin was a political revolutionary. He
> > > was not, like Bimbaugh and Falwell, true wolves in sheep's clothing.
> > >
> >
> > He had lots of exposure.
> > Rush never told his audience to go out an kill gays.
>
> I didn't accuse him of that, I accused the pseudo-religionists of it.
>
> > If his pronouncements that gays are morally incorrect
>
> "Morally incorrect"? Sounds like meaningless camouflage for hatred.
>
> > motivated hate crimes, it is not his cross to bear.
>
> Once again, not what I accused Bimbo of.
>
> > What you are doing is like one of the bad things the
> > right does, blaming tv and movies for motivating criminals.
>
> The association may be "like" that to you, but the attribution of
> violence to the entertainment industry is speculation, whereas the
> attribution of violence to the followers of the pseudo-religionists is
> documented fact. To me that makes the accusations very much unlike,
> but maybe that's just me.
>
>
> > > > > No. Clinton never preached against infidelity or blow jobs or
whatever
> > > > > you think he did "wrong".
> > >
> > > > T'was lyoing under oath.
> > >
> > > Excuse me?
>
> > That's your problem
>
> You need to flush your toilet.
>
>
> > > > A few posts ago in another thread you drooled at the
> > > > prospect that Arny might do the same.
> > >
> > > Krooger? He might do what?
>
> > Lie under oath
>
> Wouldn't you love it if Mr. **** got caught doing that?
>
>
> > > > > Why should you care about anybody else's sex life? Don't be a
> > > > > hypocrite.
> > >
> > > > He used his position to try and worm out of responsibility for
> > > > lyiing under oath.
> > >
> > > That's a twisted way of recounting events.
> > >
> > > > Hillary can beter mete out punishments
> > > > for his sexual transgressions than I could.
> > >
> > > Now you're on the right track.
> > >
> > > > > > Anyway Rush developed his hard line attitude about drugs well
before
> > he got
> > > > > > hooked. He didn't do it for deflection,
> > >
> > > > > Sez you. Guaranteed he's been using some drugs or other, probably
to
> > > > > excess, for many, many years.
> > >
> > > > I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> > > > heard such rumors.
> > >
> > > You just started a rumor. You said he was a blowhard before he became
> > > an addict and a hypocrite. No evidence of that either, is there?
> > >
> >
> > Its an opinion. A lot of peolple thik he's a blowhard.
>
> I think he's a blowhard. So?
>
>
> > > > BTW, I have much more sympathy
> > > > for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> > > > That's a hypocrite!
> > >
> > > Yeah, he's a schmuck of the first order.
> > >
> > > > > Where is the condemnation of his hypocrisy?
> > >
> > > > I think he was not in his right mind at the time.
> > >
> > > Bull****. Why aren't you making excuses for Clinton's philandering?
> > >
> >
> > Cause I don't care about it. It's the lying under oath.
>
> He lied about whether he fooled around with Monica, and you call that
> a Constitutional crisis?
>
>
> > > > His major disappoint ment to me was his keeping it
> > > > secret for so long. But how could he tell us, when he kept denying
> > > > it to himself?
> > >
> > > Address his hypocrisy, not his addiction per se.
> > >
> >
> > The hypocricy is not in his antidrug views, but is in the fact
> > that he became an addict.
>
> That doesn't make sense. The hypocrisy lies in his failure to practice
> as he preached. Take away the behavior or the preaching and there's no
> hypocrisy. Only with both does the hypocrisy shine through.
>
>
> > > > > > Talk about lack of compassion in the right, I see as much
> > > > > > from the left.
> > >
> > > > > I don't. Please enlighten us.
> > >
> > > > I don't think it is possible to enlighten you in that regard.
> > >
> > > That's practically an admission you're just blowing hot air.
> > >
> >
> > No, its a realization that I can't do anything about your closed mind.
>
> Copout noted.
>
>
> > > > > > There is alot of blind intolerance on the left.
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean intolerance of bigotry, hypocrisy, and outright
Dubya-style
> > > > > lying to the electorate?
> > > >
> > > > YES!
> > >
> > > Shameful, isn't it?
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Do you have some cheap excuses for Bush's (and
> > > > > Cheney's and Powell's, et al) lying about the invasion of Iraq?
> > >
> > > > I think that they told us what was told to them by
> > > > our intelligence agencies, who were suckered in
> > > > by a masterful bluff by Saddam. He got us to
> > > > believe he had the stuff, when he had already gotten rid of it.
> > > > The problem was, the bluff was intended to scare us away,
> > > > instead, it provided the impetus for us to march right in.
> > >
> > > This is all BS. There was a report on 60 Minutes last week that blows
> > > your poor-Dubya-the-dupe theory to pieces
And before you start in
> > > about "liberal media bias", the witnesses they interviewed were
> > > genuine intelligence analysts employed by the government who are
> > > greatly ashamed of the conduct of our leaders.
> > >
> >
> > 60 minutes has mostly been 20 years of BS
>
> Talking about closed minds......
>
Yes, yours. 60 Minutes is as you say DOCUMENTED to be biased to the left.

> I believe you disagree with their agenda of exposing frauds and liars
> and hypocrites, so you ignorantly claim their stories are untrue. Yet
> only once have they ever revised a story, and they've never recanted
> one completely.
>
> > > > Remember, the whole thing was because he wouldn't
> > > > answer out questions.
> > >
> > > What does that mean?
>
> > He wouldn't answer our questions, about what he did with WMD he
> > previously admitted he possessed.
>
> I can't believe you believe that. The invasion of Iraq has been on the
> books at neo-con think tanks for 10 years.
>
> > > > > How
> > > > > about for the hate-mongering of Falwell and Robertson, et al?
> > >
> > > > I don't like the political behavior of the Fundamentalist Christian
> > > > movement. I find it counter to traditional American values.
> > >
> > > They contribute to violence against gay people.
>
> > No, they are just expressing their moral outrage over gay behavior.
>
> <puke>
>
> > Blame for violence against gays rests at the hands of the actual
> > perpetrators.
>
> <puke>
>
> You need to wake up.
>
You need to grow up.

Michael Mckelvy

October 26th 03, 10:38 PM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't seen any evidence, nor have I even
> > > > > heard such rumors.
> > > > > BTW, I have much more sympathy
> > > > > for Rush than I do for Bill Bennett.
> > > > > That's a hypocrite!
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > What hypocrisy did he commit in your opinion?
> > > >
> > >
> > > First of all, if you are going to ignore long portions of the previous
> > > posts,
> > > you ought to snip them. It was quite a chore to find this one
> > > little nugget that you contributed.
> > >
> > > The hypocricy, Bennett's brand of conservatism
> > > leans 90% on morality and family values.
> > > He gambled away millions and deprived his children
> > > of part of their inheritance. He has, in the past,
> > > decried all sorts of wasteful behavior on the part of
> > > others.
> > >
> > >
> > I don't believe people have rights to inheritences until they have been
> left
> > to them. I feel fairly certain that Bennett's kids will be well
provided
> > for and probably already are.
> >
>
> He lied to them while he was doing it.

If true, that puts a different light on things.

The lost money certainly
> belongs to his wife, also. Community property.
>
>
If he was being deceptive.

> > > Now, if Liddy did the same thing, I would not call him a
> > > hypocrite, as he his brand of conservatism doesn't harp
> > > on the wailing against all sort of "vices".
> > >
But then Liddy is nuts.

> > > I love being in the middle of these political threads, being wailed on
> > > by George, Signal and Nexus from the left, and from Mikey, Arny
> > > and Oberlander form the right.
> > >
> > >
> > Please don't consider me right wing, it would be an error.
>
>
> Don't consider me left wing.
> Was it you that called me a Bolshevik?
>
>>
I don't think so.

> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---