Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
29-05.-2008, 08:52 AM
|
#46 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Memorial Day (OT)
On May 28, 6:46*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote: > Your fault is that that small state you want is an (evil) pipe dream. Why do you hate America? |
|
|
29-05.-2008, 09:33 AM
|
#47 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Memorial Day (OT)
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On May 28, 4:35*pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Donald Munro wrote: >> > Bill C wrote: >> >> You can hate on us out here in the rain, but we were pushed out. >> >> > Don't worry, with global warming the rain might stop. >> >> Total precipitation increases in a warmer planet. *It's a specific >> humidity thing. *Don't get me started. > > If we get you started, then sacrifices must be made. Afternoon > training rides will have to end. I would hate to have to make any sacrifices personally. Couldn't you just work harder to make up the difference? -- Bill Asher |
|
|
|
29-05.-2008, 10:15 AM
|
#48 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Memorial Day (OT)
On May 28, 5:12*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote: > > Your political views are a jumble and your political actions, at least > in terms of national voting, haven't help your principles. Yep, my views are pretty complex. I don't live in a simple world. My vote says that neither party, at that point currently was worth my vote. I voted for change, just the thing Obama's asking people to do. Except I voted to let them know I wanted another choice, or better choices. Given what I know now I may well ahve done something different. More personal attacks and comparisons to Limbaugh on the helath care. I seem to remember, thoug I could be mistaken, Ben and others questioning that health care, and Moores statements on it in Cuba as compared toi the US were questionable also. My research and reading, including stuff from the Guardian tells me that there are two health care systems in Cuba, one for the elite, and foreign visitors, and the one the vast majority of the people there are forced to use that has limited, at best supplies, antiquated equipment, and is basically at the third world level. Even the elite system is not comparable to most of Europe, Canada, or the US. I read through tons of stuff on this because I was discussing it with you, and that's why I was so conscientous, and slow in making my conclusions. I'd be happy to look at reading and information that could change my viewpoint on this. I do object to you telling me that my basic Constitutional concerns are invalid. Different people develop different priorities and concerns, and I'm not going to be telling anyone theirs aren't valid. I may say that I disagree, and this is why, but I haven't lived their lives, so I'm in no position to be prioritizing their lives, and beliefs for them, and telling them what they should be concerned with. Live and let live. Bill C |
|
|
|
29-05.-2008, 10:24 AM
|
#49 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Memorial Day (OT)
On May 28, 7:33*pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote: > > > On May 28, 4:35*pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Donald Munro wrote: > >> > Bill C wrote: > >> >> You can hate on us out here in the rain, but we were pushed out. > > >> > Don't worry, with global warming the rain might stop. > > >> Total precipitation increases in a warmer planet. *It's a specific > >> humidity thing. *Don't get me started. > > > If we get you started, then sacrifices must be made. *Afternoon > > training rides will have to end. > > I would hate to have to make any sacrifices personally. *Couldn't you just > work harder to make up the difference? * Nice bite. That has always been my working assumption when the line "sacrifices must be made" is bellowed. You must work for the Bush Admin, or vote democrat. |
|
|
|
29-05.-2008, 10:30 AM
|
#50 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Memorial Day (OT)
On May 28, 5:31*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote: > On Wed, 28 May 2008 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), Bill C > > <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote: > > As for Micheal > >Moore, or any of the others, right or left, don't twist the facts. > >Have enough respect for me, and your case to present it cleanly and > >let me decide on it. > > I'm still wondering how health care is better in > >a country where the average person has a hard time even getting > >aspirin. > > What are you talking about? Oh yeah, you're responding to > Limbaugh-style critique of the Moore health care film by putting an > extreme statement out there and knocknig it down. *Great. * > > That's my fundamental point. *There are all these buzzwords/bogeymen > out there and you totally fall for them to avoid voting for people > that are actually doing better against most of the stuff you bitch > about. > > That's all it takes to make you poltically impotent as a voter: > PCness at UMass, disrespect for vets in the 70s, Jane Fonda, George > Soros, etc. Michael Moore. Now Rev. Wright. *And the true kryptonite - > "liberal." *Excuses for inaction. Here's a good piece from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/12/film.health How many doctors do you think we'd have in the US at $20, a month? They make it quite clear that the primary reason behind the success is the cultural focus on prevention. Got a magic wand here to change the basic culture? The Guardian has always bent over backwards in support of Cuba, and this is the most positive they could come up with. Moore's claims don't hold up, and are a distorted image no matter who looks at it even vaguely objectively. The basic philosophy of prevention, and care for all is a great one, and the most cost effective IMO, but that's not his argument. The Guardian also makes the point that it's hard to know the real story since people who complain are likely to end up in prison as political prisoners, and this isn't exactly coming from Fox news. If you interpret the information differently then we are going to disagree. I don't like it, but I'm comfortable with my evaluation,and the breadth of my sources until you or others can provide me with other information to evaluate. Bill C |
|
|
|
29-05.-2008, 10:44 AM
|
#51 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Memorial Day (OT)
On May 28, 8:15*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I do object to you telling me that my basic > Constitutional concerns are invalid. They are invalid in the sense the constitution really is dead and buried. He doesn't give a shit about the constitution -- it is a barrier to overcome to him. He is a leftist and thus a statist. He spoke with more candor than most when said that "Your fault is that that small state you want is an (evil) pipe dream." He's saying a strict enumerated powers guvmint -- necessarily small guvmint -- is evil. He wants an unconstitutional large guvmint. He could not care less that a national health care program would be flatly illegal. You don't see him saying SS, Welfare, DeptOfEd, Ag subsidies, Fema, and on and on and on and on ought to be immediately abolished as they are all illegal (unconstitutional). He hates the constitution for the same reason that all statists do, and that is exactly why it had to go. It is a barrier. Anytime a statist whines about constitutional violations, it is mere power politics. _Always_. Whether the complaint happens to be true or not is merely incidental. When a leftist complains about unconstitutional acts of George Bush, you must know it is not out of concern for general lawful conduct of the guvmint, it is rather politicization, regardless of whether the complaint is in fact true. The statists will "win" in the end, although I'll say it is more hollow than a Giro stage win. |
|
|
|
29-05.-2008, 10:49 AM
|
#52 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Memorial Day (OT)
On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:15:54 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote: >I seem to remember, thoug I could be mistaken, Ben and others >questioning that health care, and Moores statements on it in Cuba as >compared toi the US were questionable also. My research and reading, >including stuff from the Guardian tells me that there are two health >care systems in Cuba, one for the elite, and foreign visitors, If Moore didn't say what you think he did, that doesn't matter. See, you think you're being thoughtful but in reallity you're just knocking down a straw man. The "Michael Moore" as bogeyman tactic has worked on you! And you read the Guardian so you feel open-minded. Great. > I do object to you telling me that my basic > Constitutional concerns are invalid. No, I said you're not taking action in ways that support your concerns. Biggest threat to free speech today is media consolidation and re-alignment of many forms of intellectual property in favor of a handful of corporations. But excess PC-ness on college campuses gets your attention. I'm not saying that's not an issue, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the massive disinformation and disempowerment. And what good is the 2nd amendment if the government can just grab *you* (not your guns - *you*) anyway and put you away. Like gun control is really going to make it any easier for them to declare people enemy combatants. Ha. You may *think* your'e working toward your principles, but you've bought a load of right-wing talking points that lead to inaction in protecting them. |
|
|
|
29-05.-2008, 10:54 AM
|
#53 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Memorial Day (OT)
On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:30:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote: >Here's a good piece from The Guardian: >http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/12/film.health > How many doctors do you think we'd have in the US at $20, a month? That's not the pont. Michael Moore says US healthcare is in shambles, which it is, and could be better, which it could, if less money was spent on profit and on different components of the system fighting each other overf who pays. He never said US healthcare should be replaced by Cuba's or that Cuba's is better overall. I believe his point is that for the ridiculously low expenditures on health care, the results there are surprisingly good. Not that is is better than the US. So fixate on that baloney anti-Moore arugment all you want. You've been played. You've been distracted. At best. At worse, you're using those things consciously to pretend to be open-minded. |
|
|
|
29-05.-2008, 11:42 AM
|
#54 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Memorial Day (OT)
On May 28, 8:49*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote: > *Biggest threat to free speech today is media consolidation > and re-alignment of many forms of intellectual property in favor of a > handful of corporations. * > ...it's a drop in > the bucket compared to the massive disinformation and disempowerment. Marxist claptrap. > And what good is the 2nd amendment if the government can just grab > *you* (not your guns - *you*) anyway and put you away. *Like gun > control is really going to make it any easier for them to declare > people enemy combatants. Ha. You are one scary dude. You think the second was put there so rednecks could go sport hunting? You think the revolution (a revolt against the legal authority) was won against a "tyrannical government" without weapons? So mere insults did the trick? One of the purposes of the second was that a tyrannical government might think twice about the costs of tyrannical behavior if they could get a bullet between the eyes when they "just grab *you*," as you say. "What would have happened" after arrest is why the armed resistance would have occurred in the first place. I don't recommend that you try this at home. |
|
|
|
29-05.-2008, 12:06 PM
|
#55 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Memorial Day (OT)
On May 28, 1:00 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 6:59 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> > wrote: > > Re "treason" > > > Anyway, I think there is an interesting Con Law question > > here. > > By saying that, you imply there is such a thing as a constitution. > Curious. No, I just imply that there is such a thing as Con Law. The Supreme Court makes rulings about what is or is not Con Law, for example. They may be contradictory, or whimsically interpreting a 200-year-old document written in semi-archaic English, or reading tea leaves or pulling it out of their collective bungholes. It doesn't really matter unless you're trying to to deduce an entire civil structure from first principles. Just because they may be making Con Law up as they go along does not mean there is no Con Law. > I hope your search for tenure proves less difficult than your search > for the constitution. If the institutions of our civil society are in any worse shape than my sordid career in our educational institutions, we're really up shit creek. Ben They always said I belonged in an institution. |
|
|
|
29-05.-2008, 12:39 PM
|
#56 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Memorial Day (OT)
On May 28, 10:06*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote: > On May 28, 1:00 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote: > > > On May 27, 6:59 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> > > wrote: > > > Re "treason" > > > > Anyway, I think there is an interesting Con Law question > > > here. > > > By saying that, you imply there is such a thing as a constitution. > > Curious. > > No, I just imply that there is such a thing > as Con Law. I was reading a book by a law prof and he seemed sorta pissed that Con Law had little or nothing to do with the constitution. > > I hope your search for tenure proves less difficult than your search > > for the constitution. > > If the institutions of our civil society are > in any worse shape than my sordid career in > our educational institutions, we're really > up shit creek. If you would make some "sacrifices" for solving global warming, you could quit that dead end. You could do something like help develop wind gens, or something else useful. Just remember your ideological roots if you sell to me: profits are evil. > They always said I belonged in an institution. Okay. Then can you get old articles from The Journal of Math and Physics? |
|
|
|
29-05.-2008, 04:06 PM
|
#57 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Memorial Day (OT)
SLAVE of THE STATE <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in news:2a927437-2846-4255-83fe-
5db137c5cf08@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: <snip> > You must work for the Bush Admin, or vote democrat. Why can't I do both? That would make me complicated. Chicks dig complicated probably as much as they dig a shaved nutsack and I'm just not ready to commit to the latter. -- Bill Asher |
|
|
|
29-05.-2008, 04:59 PM
|
#58 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Memorial Day (OT)
William Asher wrote:
> Why can't I do both? That would make me complicated. Chicks dig > complicated probably as much as they dig a shaved nutsack and I'm just not > ready to commit to the latter. Close your eyes and think of the flag. If it will make it any easier it could be arranged for Tammy Thomas to do the shaving. |
|
|
|
29-05.-2008, 06:07 PM
|
#59 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Memorial Day (OT)
On May 28, 2:35*pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Donald Munro wrote: > > Bill C wrote: > >> You can hate on us out here in the rain, but we were pushed out. > > > Don't worry, with global warming the rain might stop. > > Total precipitation increases in a warmer planet. *It's a specific humidity > thing. *Don't get me started. Yeah, but you'll get more water and we'll get less, so the Arizona Territory is just going to have to come up there and take its rightful share. On the bright side, think of the increased market for Assos raingear. Ben |
|
|
|
29-05.-2008, 09:34 PM
|
#60 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Memorial Day (OT)
On May 28, 9:54*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote: > On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:30:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill C > > <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote: > >Here's a good piece from The Guardian: > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/12/film.health > > How many doctors do you think we'd have in the US at $20, a month? > > That's not the pont. *Michael Moore says US healthcare is in shambles, > which it is, and could be better, which it could, if less money was > spent on profit and on different components of the system fighting > each other overf who pays. > JT we agree that the system here has problems. If that was Moore's whole argument I'd support it wholeheartedly. It's not. The US was built to be a capitalist country, our founding folks were VERY concious of that. Profit is NOT evil, and is allowed. Unless you plan to make this into a different country, or use what's left after FDR and Bush used the Constitution for toilet paper you can't just "nationalize" all the insurance and healthcare providers. Two ways to go about this in a vaguely American way. Since we've already decided to do medicare/medicaid expand that to cover those who arent,t covered and put teeth into making people accept it, beef up the care review panels so people aren't screwed over and denied care they need. Or how about this really twisted concept, someone sets up a non-profit insurance plan that removes that evil profit motive, and gives better service at lower rates and buries the big evil insurance companies? That'd be too capitalist I guess. > He never said US healthcare should be replaced by Cuba's or that > Cuba's is better overall. I believe his point is that for the > ridiculously low expenditures on health care, the results there are > surprisingly good. Not that is is better than the US. > Wow does the target keep moving here. > So fixate on that baloney anti-Moore arugment all you want. *You've > been played. *You've been distracted. * At best. *At worse, you're > using those things consciously to pretend to be open-minded. I'm not fixated on Moore the people who believe him are. I dismissed him long ago as a propagandist, and nothing I've seen changes that, and noone is pointing me at source documents that would change that. I suppose that I really need to stop reading everything available on the net, and go into the head shops, and book stores to find folks handing out broadsheets to understand what the real news is. It amazes me that we can agree on SO much, but since I actually question some things and disagree with some that I'm a brainwashed by the right wing corporate media, and am not aloowed under the tent. You complain about the right wing nutjobs labeling the folks on the left elitists and intolerant but this makes their argument for them, and this is what I and others have repeatedly run into from activists. If you aren't unquestioningly of the collectivist mind then you are an ignorant, brain washed enemy, or have evil motives. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree, and can come to different interpretations just isn't part of the collective is it? I finally will admit that I'm more reactionary than you are, because I do change what I think based on what's going on in the world, not try to force the world into what I think it should be. I guess in that sense I'm proud to be reactionary. Bill C |
|
|
Linear Mode
