Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sep 28, 7:32*pm, The D wrote:
H the K wrote:
On 9/27/09 9:39 PM, Don White wrote:
*wrote in message
...
*wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
*wrote:

*wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600,
wrote:

*wrote in message
news:12jvb598rahufdupok3bhp0nbave52kgge@4ax .com...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600,
wrote:

"Lu *wrote in message
. ..

First, most excellent post. *But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job. *You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every
turn.

I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for
their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the
government
control their lives. *Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into
too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their
liberty and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.

Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.

True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a
nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is
not an
impediment to individual liberties.

That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H

So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?

--
Nom=de=Plume

~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay& *benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.

Don't forget that until recently he took money from one or more of the
counties of northern Virginia to pretend to be a substitute teacher and
while he was doing that he made a number of racial remarks about his
students and their families.

If you tell Donnie to not forget it he will probably write it down, but
shouldn't you present him with facts, rather than bull****, before you
make those demands on him?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Donnie has an IQ of 87. Don't bother.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

H the K wrote:


Apparently herring likes to bite the hand that fed and feeds him. For an
ex-government employee like herring to be knocking the government and
government employees as much as he does, well, it seems a bit odd.


So teacher strikes are odd to you, too? They don't do it to thank the
government.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:29:25 -0400, The D wrote:


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume

~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay & benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.



And as a member of our military, he earned every penny, dummy.

Are you saying that you are reporting for work every day, and earning
your own income, or are you getting some Canadian subsidized money that
you deserve more than John?

LOL. The reply from Donnie should be interesting.
--

John H

Dedicated to Harry...
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:29:25 -0400, The D wrote:


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume

~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay & benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.



And as a member of our military, he earned every penny, dummy.

Are you saying that you are reporting for work every day, and earning
your own income, or are you getting some Canadian subsidized money that
you deserve more than John?

LOL. The reply from Donnie should be interesting.
--

John H


Ok lets look at a performance report during the period you collected money
from Uncle Sam.
WW2.. we'll pass on.... even if you were involved, I'm sure it was a jr
position
Korea..... North Koreans 1 USA 0
Viet Nam North Viet Nam 1 USA 0
Lebanon terrorists 1 USA 0
Somalia terrorists 1 USA 0
Do you see a pattern here?
Yes, things have turned around a bit lately but you've been retired for how
long?

Dedicated to Harry...
 

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:29:25 -0400, The D wrote:

So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume
~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay & benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.


And as a member of our military, he earned every penny, dummy.

Are you saying that you are reporting for work every day, and earning
your own income, or are you getting some Canadian subsidized money that
you deserve more than John?

LOL. The reply from Donnie should be interesting.
--

John H
Donny's had a prestigious job as the head tax stamp licker at the Crown
Royal bottling plant. A wet sponge took his livelihood away from him.
Sad story really. Now you can see why he's so bitter.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

Don White wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:29:25 -0400, The D wrote:

So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume
~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay & benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.


And as a member of our military, he earned every penny, dummy.

Are you saying that you are reporting for work every day, and earning
your own income, or are you getting some Canadian subsidized money that
you deserve more than John?
LOL. The reply from Donnie should be interesting.
--

John H


Ok lets look at a performance report during the period you collected money
from Uncle Sam.
WW2.. we'll pass on.... even if you were involved, I'm sure it was a jr
position
Korea..... North Koreans 1 USA 0
Viet Nam North Viet Nam 1 USA 0
Lebanon terrorists 1 USA 0
Somalia terrorists 1 USA 0
Do you see a pattern here?
Yes, things have turned around a bit lately but you've been retired for how
long?



You are a better label licker than statistician.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On 9/29/09 8:45 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:29:25 -0400, The wrote:


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume

~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay& benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.



And as a member of our military, he earned every penny, dummy.

Are you saying that you are reporting for work every day, and earning
your own income, or are you getting some Canadian subsidized money that
you deserve more than John?

LOL. The reply from Donnie should be interesting.
--

John H


Ok lets look at a performance report during the period you collected money
from Uncle Sam.
WW2.. we'll pass on.... even if you were involved, I'm sure it was a jr
position
Korea..... North Koreans 1 USA 0
Viet Nam North Viet Nam 1 USA 0
Lebanon terrorists 1 USA 0
Somalia terrorists 1 USA 0
Do you see a pattern here?
Yes, things have turned around a bit lately but you've been retired for how
long?




The only serious, large-scale war the U.S. was involved in during
herring's army internment was the Vietnam War, which he helped us lose.
Herring got a pension because he showed up. It wasn't like holding an
actual job.


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Dedicated to Harry...
 

H the K wrote:
On 9/29/09 8:45 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:29:25 -0400, The wrote:


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume

~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay& benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.



And as a member of our military, he earned every penny, dummy.

Are you saying that you are reporting for work every day, and earning
your own income, or are you getting some Canadian subsidized money that
you deserve more than John?

LOL. The reply from Donnie should be interesting.
--

John H


Ok lets look at a performance report during the period you collected
money
from Uncle Sam.
WW2.. we'll pass on.... even if you were involved, I'm sure it was a jr
position
Korea..... North Koreans 1 USA 0
Viet Nam North Viet Nam 1 USA 0
Lebanon terrorists 1 USA 0
Somalia terrorists 1 USA 0
Do you see a pattern here?
Yes, things have turned around a bit lately but you've been retired
for how
long?




The only serious, large-scale war the U.S. was involved in during
herring's army internment was the Vietnam War, which he helped us lose.
Herring got a pension because he showed up. It wasn't like holding an
actual job.


Oh hey. Isn't that the same war Krause failed to show up for. Harry's
excuse was his mommy didn't want him to go. The real reason? Harry's a
coward.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

In article , says...


Are you saying that you are reporting for work every day, and earning
your own income, or are you getting some Canadian subsidized money that
you deserve more than John?

LOL. The reply from Donnie should be interesting.
--

John H
Donny's had a prestigious job as the head tax stamp licker at the Crown
Royal bottling plant. A wet sponge took his livelihood away from him.
Sad story really. Now you can see why he's so bitter.

LOL...

Dedicated to Harry...
 

In article , says...

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:29:25 -0400, The D wrote:

So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume
~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay & benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.


And as a member of our military, he earned every penny, dummy.

Are you saying that you are reporting for work every day, and earning
your own income, or are you getting some Canadian subsidized money that
you deserve more than John?

LOL. The reply from Donnie should be interesting.
--

John H
Donny's had a prestigious job as the head tax stamp licker at the Crown
Royal bottling plant. A wet sponge took his livelihood away from him.
Sad story really. Now you can see why he's so bitter.

I hear it took an extra 6 months to get him out the door, they couldn't
tell him from all the other wet sponges..;)

Dedicated to Harry...
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:29:25 -0400, The D wrote:

So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume
~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay & benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.

And as a member of our military, he earned every penny, dummy.

Are you saying that you are reporting for work every day, and earning
your own income, or are you getting some Canadian subsidized money that
you deserve more than John?

LOL. The reply from Donnie should be interesting.
--

John H
Donny's had a prestigious job as the head tax stamp licker at the Crown
Royal bottling plant. A wet sponge took his livelihood away from him. Sad
story really. Now you can see why he's so bitter.

Lick this stamp...SpongeBoy!

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:08:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:05:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
. ..

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right
and
obligation to look for a job.

I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care, transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual. I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the Constitution.


I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective. Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In the
US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups on the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their politics.
If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position, you
mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.

You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.

I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold philosophy in my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.


I apologize for being obscure. The Woodhouse's were the family that
was at the center of Jane Austen's novel "Emma." Too, I don't know
that there has ever been a practical adaptation of objectivism in
modern history, at least not in the sense that it has ever been fully
adopted by any government of any industrialized nation. I agree that
objectivism is too stark. But, then, I'm of the opinion that true
benifence of heart, or altruism, can only come from the individual,
not government.


Sadly, I've not read her.


I think her works, or at least a modest offering, are available on the
Project Gutenberg Site. The Online Books Page at the
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu carries her works, or links to them, as
well.

I think you're right about the true altruism can only come from an
individual. A gov't can be set up to do good things, but it takes a person
to actually do them. I can imagine a "good" law, standing on it's own, could
be twisted by people to create a nightmare.

That could be said of the RICOH statute, Miss De Plume. It's
refreshing to see a person of a liberal bent, such as yourself, that
isn't so esconced in a personal political agenda that a reasonable
examination of political philosophy is possible.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Dedicated to Harry...
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:08:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:05:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:cmkvb5p5o6eakgr5e98hjiaa5loi0b10mg@4ax. com...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
.. .

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right
and
obligation to look for a job.

I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care, transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual.
I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the Constitution.


I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective. Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In the
US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the
European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups on
the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their politics.
If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position, you
mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.

You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.

I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but when
it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold philosophy in my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the reference
to
Woodhouse... sorry.


I apologize for being obscure. The Woodhouse's were the family that
was at the center of Jane Austen's novel "Emma." Too, I don't know
that there has ever been a practical adaptation of objectivism in
modern history, at least not in the sense that it has ever been fully
adopted by any government of any industrialized nation. I agree that
objectivism is too stark. But, then, I'm of the opinion that true
benifence of heart, or altruism, can only come from the individual,
not government.


Sadly, I've not read her.


I think her works, or at least a modest offering, are available on the
Project Gutenberg Site. The Online Books Page at the
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu carries her works, or links to them, as
well.

It's just a time issue... lots of things to do, much less time.

I think you're right about the true altruism can only come from an
individual. A gov't can be set up to do good things, but it takes a person
to actually do them. I can imagine a "good" law, standing on it's own,
could
be twisted by people to create a nightmare.

That could be said of the RICOH statute, Miss De Plume. It's
refreshing to see a person of a liberal bent, such as yourself, that
isn't so esconced in a personal political agenda that a reasonable
examination of political philosophy is possible.

Thanks! I appreciate the comment. I don't believe in political agendas with
the exception of doing right by the people who voted for the person. I also
think that sometimes a politician needs to do things differently than what
the group who elected him/her want to be done. Sometimes, you have to look
at the greater good. Pork barrel legislation is a good example. A senator
is, in some measure, elected to bring home the bacon for the state, for
example, but that doesn't mean going hog wild (sorry for the extended
metaphore). The civil rights movement is another example... sometimes change
needs to happen even though a particular population doesn't want it.

I also believe in keeping an open mind and keeping some perspective.
Screaming at someone rarely gets them to do something you want or better or
faster.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Dedicated to Harry...
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:08:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:05:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right
and
obligation to look for a job.
I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care, transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual.
I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the Constitution.

I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective. Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In the
US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the
European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups on
the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their politics.
If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position, you
mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.
You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.
I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but when
it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold philosophy in my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the reference
to
Woodhouse... sorry.

I apologize for being obscure. The Woodhouse's were the family that
was at the center of Jane Austen's novel "Emma." Too, I don't know
that there has ever been a practical adaptation of objectivism in
modern history, at least not in the sense that it has ever been fully
adopted by any government of any industrialized nation. I agree that
objectivism is too stark. But, then, I'm of the opinion that true
benifence of heart, or altruism, can only come from the individual,
not government.

Sadly, I've not read her.

I think her works, or at least a modest offering, are available on the
Project Gutenberg Site. The Online Books Page at the
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu carries her works, or links to them, as
well.

It's just a time issue... lots of things to do, much less time.

I think you're right about the true altruism can only come from an
individual. A gov't can be set up to do good things, but it takes a person
to actually do them. I can imagine a "good" law, standing on it's own,
could
be twisted by people to create a nightmare.
That could be said of the RICOH statute, Miss De Plume. It's
refreshing to see a person of a liberal bent, such as yourself, that
isn't so esconced in a personal political agenda that a reasonable
examination of political philosophy is possible.

Thanks! I appreciate the comment. I don't believe in political agendas with
the exception of doing right by the people who voted for the person. I also
think that sometimes a politician needs to do things differently than what
the group who elected him/her want to be done. Sometimes, you have to look
at the greater good. Pork barrel legislation is a good example. A senator
is, in some measure, elected to bring home the bacon for the state, for
example, but that doesn't mean going hog wild (sorry for the extended
metaphore). The civil rights movement is another example... sometimes change
needs to happen even though a particular population doesn't want it.

I also believe in keeping an open mind and keeping some perspective.
Screaming at someone rarely gets them to do something you want or better or
faster.

You should give Bama a tweet and let him know what you think.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:08:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:05:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job.
I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism
that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's
the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care,
transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual.
I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is
called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the
Constitution.

I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective.
Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In
the
US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the
European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups on
the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their
politics.
If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position, you
mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.
You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I
think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political
spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist
myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.
I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but
when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold philosophy in
my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the
reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.

I apologize for being obscure. The Woodhouse's were the family that
was at the center of Jane Austen's novel "Emma." Too, I don't know
that there has ever been a practical adaptation of objectivism in
modern history, at least not in the sense that it has ever been fully
adopted by any government of any industrialized nation. I agree that
objectivism is too stark. But, then, I'm of the opinion that true
benifence of heart, or altruism, can only come from the individual,
not government.

Sadly, I've not read her.

I think her works, or at least a modest offering, are available on the
Project Gutenberg Site. The Online Books Page at the
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu carries her works, or links to them, as
well.

It's just a time issue... lots of things to do, much less time.

I think you're right about the true altruism can only come from an
individual. A gov't can be set up to do good things, but it takes a
person
to actually do them. I can imagine a "good" law, standing on it's own,
could
be twisted by people to create a nightmare.
That could be said of the RICOH statute, Miss De Plume. It's
refreshing to see a person of a liberal bent, such as yourself, that
isn't so esconced in a personal political agenda that a reasonable
examination of political philosophy is possible.

Thanks! I appreciate the comment. I don't believe in political agendas
with the exception of doing right by the people who voted for the person.
I also think that sometimes a politician needs to do things differently
than what the group who elected him/her want to be done. Sometimes, you
have to look at the greater good. Pork barrel legislation is a good
example. A senator is, in some measure, elected to bring home the bacon
for the state, for example, but that doesn't mean going hog wild (sorry
for the extended metaphore). The civil rights movement is another
example... sometimes change needs to happen even though a particular
population doesn't want it.

I also believe in keeping an open mind and keeping some perspective.
Screaming at someone rarely gets them to do something you want or better
or faster.

You should give Bama a tweet and let him know what you think.


Why *******ize his name? Don't you have a capital O on your keyboard?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On 9/29/09 5:31 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:08:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:05:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600,
wrote:

"Lu wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job.
I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism
that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's
the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care,
transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual.
I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is
called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the
Constitution.

I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective.
Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In
the
US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the
European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups on
the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their
politics.
If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position, you
mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.
You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I
think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political
spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist
myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.
I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but
when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold philosophy in
my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the
reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.

I apologize for being obscure. The Woodhouse's were the family that
was at the center of Jane Austen's novel "Emma." Too, I don't know
that there has ever been a practical adaptation of objectivism in
modern history, at least not in the sense that it has ever been fully
adopted by any government of any industrialized nation. I agree that
objectivism is too stark. But, then, I'm of the opinion that true
benifence of heart, or altruism, can only come from the individual,
not government.

Sadly, I've not read her.

I think her works, or at least a modest offering, are available on the
Project Gutenberg Site. The Online Books Page at the
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu carries her works, or links to them, as
well.

It's just a time issue... lots of things to do, much less time.

I think you're right about the true altruism can only come from an
individual. A gov't can be set up to do good things, but it takes a
person
to actually do them. I can imagine a "good" law, standing on it's own,
could
be twisted by people to create a nightmare.
That could be said of the RICOH statute, Miss De Plume. It's
refreshing to see a person of a liberal bent, such as yourself, that
isn't so esconced in a personal political agenda that a reasonable
examination of political philosophy is possible.

Thanks! I appreciate the comment. I don't believe in political agendas
with the exception of doing right by the people who voted for the person.
I also think that sometimes a politician needs to do things differently
than what the group who elected him/her want to be done. Sometimes, you
have to look at the greater good. Pork barrel legislation is a good
example. A senator is, in some measure, elected to bring home the bacon
for the state, for example, but that doesn't mean going hog wild (sorry
for the extended metaphore). The civil rights movement is another
example... sometimes change needs to happen even though a particular
population doesn't want it.

I also believe in keeping an open mind and keeping some perspective.
Screaming at someone rarely gets them to do something you want or better
or faster.

You should give Bama a tweet and let him know what you think.


Why *******ize his name? Don't you have a capital O on your keyboard?



It's racial. Really.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Dedicated to Harry...
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:08:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:05:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job.
I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism
that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's
the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care,
transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual.
I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is
called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the
Constitution.
I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective.
Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In
the
US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the
European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups on
the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their
politics.
If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position, you
mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.
You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I
think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political
spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist
myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.
I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but
when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold philosophy in
my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the
reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.

I apologize for being obscure. The Woodhouse's were the family that
was at the center of Jane Austen's novel "Emma." Too, I don't know
that there has ever been a practical adaptation of objectivism in
modern history, at least not in the sense that it has ever been fully
adopted by any government of any industrialized nation. I agree that
objectivism is too stark. But, then, I'm of the opinion that true
benifence of heart, or altruism, can only come from the individual,
not government.
Sadly, I've not read her.

I think her works, or at least a modest offering, are available on the
Project Gutenberg Site. The Online Books Page at the
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu carries her works, or links to them, as
well.
It's just a time issue... lots of things to do, much less time.

I think you're right about the true altruism can only come from an
individual. A gov't can be set up to do good things, but it takes a
person
to actually do them. I can imagine a "good" law, standing on it's own,
could
be twisted by people to create a nightmare.
That could be said of the RICOH statute, Miss De Plume. It's
refreshing to see a person of a liberal bent, such as yourself, that
isn't so esconced in a personal political agenda that a reasonable
examination of political philosophy is possible.
Thanks! I appreciate the comment. I don't believe in political agendas
with the exception of doing right by the people who voted for the person.
I also think that sometimes a politician needs to do things differently
than what the group who elected him/her want to be done. Sometimes, you
have to look at the greater good. Pork barrel legislation is a good
example. A senator is, in some measure, elected to bring home the bacon
for the state, for example, but that doesn't mean going hog wild (sorry
for the extended metaphore). The civil rights movement is another
example... sometimes change needs to happen even though a particular
population doesn't want it.

I also believe in keeping an open mind and keeping some perspective.
Screaming at someone rarely gets them to do something you want or better
or faster.

You should give Bama a tweet and let him know what you think.


Why *******ize his name? Don't you have a capital O on your keyboard?

Sure do. I'm saving it for the Irishmen

Dedicated to Harry...
 

H the K wrote:
On 9/29/09 5:31 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:08:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:05:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600,
wrote:

"Lu wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job.
I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism
that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's
the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care,
transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the
individual.
I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is
called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the
Constitution.

I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective.
Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political
scale. In
the
US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the
European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into
groups on
the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their
politics.
If
you want to get elected in this country to a national
position, you
mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.
You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I
think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on
this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political
spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist
myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.
I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but
when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold
philosophy in
my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the
reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.

I apologize for being obscure. The Woodhouse's were the family that
was at the center of Jane Austen's novel "Emma." Too, I don't know
that there has ever been a practical adaptation of objectivism in
modern history, at least not in the sense that it has ever been
fully
adopted by any government of any industrialized nation. I agree
that
objectivism is too stark. But, then, I'm of the opinion that true
benifence of heart, or altruism, can only come from the individual,
not government.

Sadly, I've not read her.

I think her works, or at least a modest offering, are available on the
Project Gutenberg Site. The Online Books Page at the
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu carries her works, or links to them, as
well.

It's just a time issue... lots of things to do, much less time.

I think you're right about the true altruism can only come from an
individual. A gov't can be set up to do good things, but it takes a
person
to actually do them. I can imagine a "good" law, standing on it's
own,
could
be twisted by people to create a nightmare.
That could be said of the RICOH statute, Miss De Plume. It's
refreshing to see a person of a liberal bent, such as yourself, that
isn't so esconced in a personal political agenda that a reasonable
examination of political philosophy is possible.

Thanks! I appreciate the comment. I don't believe in political agendas
with the exception of doing right by the people who voted for the
person.
I also think that sometimes a politician needs to do things differently
than what the group who elected him/her want to be done. Sometimes, you
have to look at the greater good. Pork barrel legislation is a good
example. A senator is, in some measure, elected to bring home the bacon
for the state, for example, but that doesn't mean going hog wild (sorry
for the extended metaphore). The civil rights movement is another
example... sometimes change needs to happen even though a particular
population doesn't want it.

I also believe in keeping an open mind and keeping some perspective.
Screaming at someone rarely gets them to do something you want or
better
or faster.

You should give Bama a tweet and let him know what you think.


Why *******ize his name? Don't you have a capital O on your keyboard?



It's racial. Really.

How do you figure that , **** for brains?

Dedicated to Harry...
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:08:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:05:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job.
I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism
that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's
the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care,
transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the
individual. I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is
called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the
Constitution.
I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective.
Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale.
In the
US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the
European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups
on the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their
politics.
If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position,
you
mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.
You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I
think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on
this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political
spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist
myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.
I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but
when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold philosophy
in my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the
reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.

I apologize for being obscure. The Woodhouse's were the family that
was at the center of Jane Austen's novel "Emma." Too, I don't know
that there has ever been a practical adaptation of objectivism in
modern history, at least not in the sense that it has ever been
fully
adopted by any government of any industrialized nation. I agree
that
objectivism is too stark. But, then, I'm of the opinion that true
benifence of heart, or altruism, can only come from the individual,
not government.
Sadly, I've not read her.

I think her works, or at least a modest offering, are available on the
Project Gutenberg Site. The Online Books Page at the
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu carries her works, or links to them, as
well.
It's just a time issue... lots of things to do, much less time.

I think you're right about the true altruism can only come from an
individual. A gov't can be set up to do good things, but it takes a
person
to actually do them. I can imagine a "good" law, standing on it's
own, could
be twisted by people to create a nightmare.
That could be said of the RICOH statute, Miss De Plume. It's
refreshing to see a person of a liberal bent, such as yourself, that
isn't so esconced in a personal political agenda that a reasonable
examination of political philosophy is possible.
Thanks! I appreciate the comment. I don't believe in political agendas
with the exception of doing right by the people who voted for the
person. I also think that sometimes a politician needs to do things
differently than what the group who elected him/her want to be done.
Sometimes, you have to look at the greater good. Pork barrel
legislation is a good example. A senator is, in some measure, elected
to bring home the bacon for the state, for example, but that doesn't
mean going hog wild (sorry for the extended metaphore). The civil
rights movement is another example... sometimes change needs to happen
even though a particular population doesn't want it.

I also believe in keeping an open mind and keeping some perspective.
Screaming at someone rarely gets them to do something you want or
better or faster.

You should give Bama a tweet and let him know what you think.


Why *******ize his name? Don't you have a capital O on your keyboard?

Sure do. I'm saving it for the Irishmen


He's part Irish actually...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269836,00.html


--
Nom=de=Plume

Dedicated to Harry...
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:08:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:05:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job.
I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism
that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's
the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care,
transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the
individual. I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is
called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the
Constitution.
I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective.
Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale.
In the
US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the
European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups
on the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their
politics.
If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position,
you
mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.
You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I
think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on
this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political
spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist
myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.
I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but
when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold philosophy
in my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the
reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.

I apologize for being obscure. The Woodhouse's were the family that
was at the center of Jane Austen's novel "Emma." Too, I don't know
that there has ever been a practical adaptation of objectivism in
modern history, at least not in the sense that it has ever been
fully
adopted by any government of any industrialized nation. I agree
that
objectivism is too stark. But, then, I'm of the opinion that true
benifence of heart, or altruism, can only come from the individual,
not government.
Sadly, I've not read her.

I think her works, or at least a modest offering, are available on the
Project Gutenberg Site. The Online Books Page at the
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu carries her works, or links to them, as
well.
It's just a time issue... lots of things to do, much less time.

I think you're right about the true altruism can only come from an
individual. A gov't can be set up to do good things, but it takes a
person
to actually do them. I can imagine a "good" law, standing on it's
own, could
be twisted by people to create a nightmare.
That could be said of the RICOH statute, Miss De Plume. It's
refreshing to see a person of a liberal bent, such as yourself, that
isn't so esconced in a personal political agenda that a reasonable
examination of political philosophy is possible.
Thanks! I appreciate the comment. I don't believe in political agendas
with the exception of doing right by the people who voted for the
person. I also think that sometimes a politician needs to do things
differently than what the group who elected him/her want to be done.
Sometimes, you have to look at the greater good. Pork barrel
legislation is a good example. A senator is, in some measure, elected
to bring home the bacon for the state, for example, but that doesn't
mean going hog wild (sorry for the extended metaphore). The civil
rights movement is another example... sometimes change needs to happen
even though a particular population doesn't want it.

I also believe in keeping an open mind and keeping some perspective.
Screaming at someone rarely gets them to do something you want or
better or faster.

You should give Bama a tweet and let him know what you think.

Why *******ize his name? Don't you have a capital O on your keyboard?

Sure do. I'm saving it for the Irishmen


He's part Irish actually...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269836,00.html


Well then top of the mornin to ye Mr O'Bama.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

Jim wrote:
H the K wrote:
On 9/29/09 8:45 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:29:25 -0400, The wrote:


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume

~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay& benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.



And as a member of our military, he earned every penny, dummy.

Are you saying that you are reporting for work every day, and earning
your own income, or are you getting some Canadian subsidized money
that
you deserve more than John?

LOL. The reply from Donnie should be interesting.
--

John H


Ok lets look at a performance report during the period you collected
money
from Uncle Sam.
WW2.. we'll pass on.... even if you were involved, I'm sure it was a jr
position
Korea..... North Koreans 1 USA 0
Viet Nam North Viet Nam 1 USA 0
Lebanon terrorists 1 USA 0
Somalia terrorists 1 USA 0
Do you see a pattern here?
Yes, things have turned around a bit lately but you've been retired
for how
long?




The only serious, large-scale war the U.S. was involved in during
herring's army internment was the Vietnam War, which he helped us lose.
Herring got a pension because he showed up. It wasn't like holding an
actual job.


Oh hey. Isn't that the same war Krause failed to show up for. Harry's
excuse was his mommy didn't want him to go. The real reason? Harry's a
coward.

And...Flat feet and a bizarre pustule problem.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

Jim wrote:
H the K wrote:
On 9/29/09 5:31 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:08:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:05:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600,
wrote:

"Lu wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job.
I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism
that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's
the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care,
transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the
individual.
I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines
those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is
called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the
Constitution.

I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective.
Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political
scale. In
the
US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the
European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into
groups on
the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their
politics.
If
you want to get elected in this country to a national
position, you
mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.
You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I
think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion
on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political
spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist
myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism,
and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.
I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but
when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold
philosophy in
my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the
reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.

I apologize for being obscure. The Woodhouse's were the family
that
was at the center of Jane Austen's novel "Emma." Too, I don't
know
that there has ever been a practical adaptation of objectivism in
modern history, at least not in the sense that it has ever been
fully
adopted by any government of any industrialized nation. I agree
that
objectivism is too stark. But, then, I'm of the opinion that true
benifence of heart, or altruism, can only come from the individual,
not government.

Sadly, I've not read her.

I think her works, or at least a modest offering, are available on
the
Project Gutenberg Site. The Online Books Page at the
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu carries her works, or links to them, as
well.

It's just a time issue... lots of things to do, much less time.

I think you're right about the true altruism can only come from an
individual. A gov't can be set up to do good things, but it takes a
person
to actually do them. I can imagine a "good" law, standing on it's
own,
could
be twisted by people to create a nightmare.
That could be said of the RICOH statute, Miss De Plume. It's
refreshing to see a person of a liberal bent, such as yourself, that
isn't so esconced in a personal political agenda that a reasonable
examination of political philosophy is possible.

Thanks! I appreciate the comment. I don't believe in political agendas
with the exception of doing right by the people who voted for the
person.
I also think that sometimes a politician needs to do things
differently
than what the group who elected him/her want to be done. Sometimes,
you
have to look at the greater good. Pork barrel legislation is a good
example. A senator is, in some measure, elected to bring home the
bacon
for the state, for example, but that doesn't mean going hog wild
(sorry
for the extended metaphore). The civil rights movement is another
example... sometimes change needs to happen even though a particular
population doesn't want it.

I also believe in keeping an open mind and keeping some perspective.
Screaming at someone rarely gets them to do something you want or
better
or faster.

You should give Bama a tweet and let him know what you think.


Why *******ize his name? Don't you have a capital O on your keyboard?



It's racial. Really.

How do you figure that , **** for brains?

He is adopting Donny's method - don't think, just post and giggle.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

Don White wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:29:25 -0400, The D wrote:

So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume
~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay & benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.


And as a member of our military, he earned every penny, dummy.

Are you saying that you are reporting for work every day, and earning
your own income, or are you getting some Canadian subsidized money that
you deserve more than John?
LOL. The reply from Donnie should be interesting.
--

John H


Ok lets look at a performance report during the period you collected money
from Uncle Sam.
WW2.. we'll pass on.... even if you were involved, I'm sure it was a jr
position
Korea..... North Koreans 1 USA 0
Viet Nam North Viet Nam 1 USA 0
Lebanon terrorists 1 USA 0
Somalia terrorists 1 USA 0
Do you see a pattern here?
Yes, things have turned around a bit lately but you've been retired for how
long?



If that was even true, how would it have anything to do with his
service, dummy?

Dedicated to Harry...
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:08:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:05:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"

wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have
the right
and
obligation to look for a job.
I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism
that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and
it's the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care,
transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the
individual. I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines
those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is
called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the
Constitution.
I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective.
Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale.
In the
US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the
European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into
groups on the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their
politics.
If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position,
you
mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.
You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I
think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on
this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political
spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist
myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism,
and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.
I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but
when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold
philosophy in my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the
reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.

I apologize for being obscure. The Woodhouse's were the family
that
was at the center of Jane Austen's novel "Emma." Too, I don't
know
that there has ever been a practical adaptation of objectivism in
modern history, at least not in the sense that it has ever been
fully
adopted by any government of any industrialized nation. I agree
that
objectivism is too stark. But, then, I'm of the opinion that true
benifence of heart, or altruism, can only come from the
individual,
not government.
Sadly, I've not read her.

I think her works, or at least a modest offering, are available on
the
Project Gutenberg Site. The Online Books Page at the
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu carries her works, or links to them,
as
well.
It's just a time issue... lots of things to do, much less time.

I think you're right about the true altruism can only come from an
individual. A gov't can be set up to do good things, but it takes a
person
to actually do them. I can imagine a "good" law, standing on it's
own, could
be twisted by people to create a nightmare.
That could be said of the RICOH statute, Miss De Plume. It's
refreshing to see a person of a liberal bent, such as yourself, that
isn't so esconced in a personal political agenda that a reasonable
examination of political philosophy is possible.
Thanks! I appreciate the comment. I don't believe in political
agendas with the exception of doing right by the people who voted for
the person. I also think that sometimes a politician needs to do
things differently than what the group who elected him/her want to be
done. Sometimes, you have to look at the greater good. Pork barrel
legislation is a good example. A senator is, in some measure, elected
to bring home the bacon for the state, for example, but that doesn't
mean going hog wild (sorry for the extended metaphore). The civil
rights movement is another example... sometimes change needs to
happen even though a particular population doesn't want it.

I also believe in keeping an open mind and keeping some perspective.
Screaming at someone rarely gets them to do something you want or
better or faster.

You should give Bama a tweet and let him know what you think.

Why *******ize his name? Don't you have a capital O on your keyboard?

Sure do. I'm saving it for the Irishmen


He's part Irish actually...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269836,00.html


Well then top of the mornin to ye Mr O'Bama.


Everyone forgets about his mom's heritage. I guess because he was born in
Kenya.... lol


--
Nom=de=Plume