|
Why we can't have good things
On 4/4/2013 1:14 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 4/4/2013 11:25 AM, True North wrote: On Thursday, 4 April 2013 11:51:24 UTC-3, Hank© wrote: On 4/4/2013 10:42 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 4/4/2013 10:35 AM, Hank� wrote: On 4/4/2013 10:27 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 4/4/2013 10:13 AM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 09:33:29 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/4/13 9:08 AM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 08:51:45 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/4/13 8:42 AM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 08:15:38 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/4/13 8:12 AM, J Herring wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:19:15 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/3/13 6:06 PM, Eisboch wrote: "J Herring" wrote in message ... On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:31:58 -0400, Hank� wrote: I'd keep pressing him until he gives you a thoughtful answer, right or wrong. He backed himself into a corner. He'd have to admit that his thumb safety is unused, and therefore useless. ---------------------------------------- John, correct me if I am wrong but I am under the understanding that you do all your live round gun handling at a shooting range. You do not have a permit for concealed carry. Is that correct? The reason I ask is because I think it depends on what you are doing with regard to a safety. At the range a thumb safety isn't used much in the normal protocol of shooting but if you carry, it may be. Some people carry with the safety off. Some with it on. Some with a round in the chamber, some with the chamber empty. Me? The few times I carry, I have a full clip inserted, but the chamber is empty and the thumb safety is "on". People will disagree, but I feel it is safer that way, for me and for others. If I ever had to use it, the time it would take to snap the safety off and rack the slide would be a matter of a second or two. I've carried outside of the house with a round in the pipe and the safety on. I've only done that a few times under special circumstances. When I do carry, typically, I have a mag inserted but I haven't yet racked the slide, so there's no need to use the safety. I have a belt carry holster so when I do carry, I have to wear a jacket to keep the firearm covered. It's a custom molded holster, and while it holds the weapon snugly, the trigger guard is completely free of the holster. It's not an expensive holster. I think it was about $75. Ah, the story changes. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. No, Herring, there was always more to it. Remember, I said I would give you "an" example. Perhaps your next hobby should be enrolling in a remedial reading course. Bull****. Go read your essay. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. Hehehe. I've become Herring's obsession. What a giggle. Well, it's more like enthralled with your knowledge. You've got us all wondering...earlier you said you never carry with a round in the chamber, now you say you do so under 'special circumstances'. What would those be? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. A good place to do so, if you have the right permit, would be in the parking lot at that Springfield Mall down the road from you a short way, in order to avoid being carjacked by the friendly MS-13 gangsters who hang out there. If there were more posters here, we could start up a "guessing pool" as to your next obsessive hobby. Does crocheting interest you? Could it? Nope, been there many, many times with only my car keys for protection. You referred to 'special circumstances', not me. What were those special circumstances that required you to chamber a round? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. There are a lot of people out there that literally hate harry krause... I am sure "special circumstances" are any time he loads his wheelchair into the van... Hate is such a strong word. Don't forget the "literally".... http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally Why, that's a very useful site. Think I'll send this poster to Lil' Snottie in South Windsor. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling You would be better to clean your yard... pig... When you come upon a Donnie thread with gobs of extra lines, please trim the post to what you are responding to. At least until Donnie learns to operate his appliance. |
Why we can't have good things
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:23:40 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote: On 4/4/2013 2:00 AM, wrote: So, you're claiming that all the big oil subsidies and all the infrastructure that supports that is somehow equal to the paltry sums that are used to subsidize wind/solar, two technologies that don't pollute nearly as much and are completely renewable. Complete bull****... Solar pollutes way more than fraking. Look at China, near the manufacturing plants. You are an ignoramus. And, I'm being generous. I used a big word. |
Why we can't have good things
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:53:42 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:51:02 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: Complete bull****. Stop listening to fox. http://open.salon.com/blog/sickofstu..._you_t o_know This article says exactly what I have been saying all along " Loaning money to the federal government is a very bad idea, as the only money the federal government has comes from the taxpayers. When the government borrows money from the taxpayers, the only way they have to pay our money back to us is to get even more money from us. We, essentially, pay ourselves back. The federal government can only raise money by raising our taxes or by borrowing money, which requires the taxpayers to pay back the amount of the loan, plus interest. Either way, the taxpayer will still be paying for their Social Security benefits twice over or more as a result of loaning money to the federal government." They start out saying this is not a Ponzi and then prove it is. No they don't. They said it's a trust fund. Look up the word trust and the phrase "full faith and credit". The only defense they have for saying it isn't is that we knew what we were getting into when we did it so it can't be a fraud. Nope. Never said. They also act like all of the baby boomers paid over a quarter of a million into the system, based on what a kid today will pay at the current rate. I have my statement from SAA. I paid them a tad over $100k (both sides 50k/50k), paying the max, every year I worked (66-96) and nobody paid a dime more than that in those years. I will get all of that back in less than 5 years of collecting. I have half already. That number is actually a bit worse for me because I have to pay taxes on my SS so it will really be more like 6-7 years to clear that much. Actuarially I am supposed to live to 79-80, I will have been collecting for 16 years by then at over 20,000 a year. How is that sustainable? BTW I really got a kick out of their way to "fix" it. Two of the 4 suggestions are simply higher taxes. The other two are basically to privatize it, get rid of the trust fund and invest in equities. Where have we heard that before? Your buddy Bush. Next question. |
Energy was "why we can't have ..."
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:20:45 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:52:12 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:32:37 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:17:21 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:48:10 -0400, wrote: So the range, without underlying infrastructre and related cost, per year is, let's say in the middle... $32B. That of course, won't help the Social Security situation if it were funneled to it. Is that what you're claiming? Nice try. When you read what they are trying to include in the "oil subsidy" like keeping the shipping lanes are open you understand we would be spending that money anyway. The real subsidies are going to wind and solar and they are direct payments or tax credits So, you're claiming that all the big oil subsidies and all the infrastructure that supports that is somehow equal to the paltry sums that are used to subsidize wind/solar, two technologies that don't pollute nearly as much and are completely renewable. The problem with these "oil subsidies" is that the detractors are calling a lot of things a subsidy that are clearly not. "Defending shipping lanes"? Get real. Feel free to identify those costs that are specificially targeted toward big oil. Those can be eliminated?? So you think the US would allow terrorists to close a major shipping lane important to the US if there was no oil? Huh? What does this have to do with subsidies to big oil? When you look at the subsidies for wind and solar you also need to look at how much electricity is actually being produced per subsidy dollar. That is when the numbers really start to soar. No, that's not necessarily correct. When oil first came around, not much in the way of electricity was being generated. It takes a while. Are you disputing that wind/solar can cover a lot of our energy needs? If so, try doing some research. Solar only works in the day and wind only works when and where the wind is blowing. We need power 24x7 so you still need a 24x7 infrastructure. The only thing you are saving is fuel cost. Clearly, you know very little about the technology or how it would be used. Being deliberately stupid again? There is an interesting article in this month's Scientific American (Apr 2013) about the EROI on the tar sands. It says the tar sands are not really that efficient because of all of the processing costs but when you actually look at these "costs" it is mostly "jobs" for people in North America. I can see why Canada is pushing it. They also stretch this cost thing to the limit, even including roads, food and the schools for the worker's kids in the price of the oil. At a certain point, isn't that the definition of an economy? Canadian jobs? Not much in the way of US jobs. Is it worth the spill and pollution potential? No. How long will it take? Years. The Keystone will create some jobs and the refineries in the South will have a lot of jobs. Untrue. Citation please and don't quote a big oil funded think tank. How come nobody talks about how long it will take to build a renewable energy system? I thought such a think couldn't work because solar only works during the day and wind only when it blows? Oh yeah, you're just bsing again. For electricity generation The EROI on solar PV is second to last, only having nuclear being worse. Best is hydro but you can't build a dam in this country. We are blowing them up. The numbers are Hydro 40+ Wind 20 Coal 18 Nat gas 7 Solar 6 Nukes 5 We get 160 times as much power from gas and 290 times as much from coal as we do solar. Wind is about 10x solar. Looking at liquid fuels It really gets ugly when you look at corn ethanol. They set an arbitrary EROI of 5-9 "required for the basic functions of an industrial society" and ethanol comes in at 1.4, far behind heavy oil from California at 4. They seem to like sugar cane ethanol (9) but they ignore the ecological cost of that. The Brazilians are filling wet lands and burning the rain forest to grow sugar. That has a worse effect on carbon than just about anything man does and it destroys ecosystems that exist nowhere else on earth. In the US we really do not have that many places where sugar will grow and most of them are environmentally sensitive (like the Everglades or the bayou where most of our sugar comes from) Blah, blah... stats that don't mean anything. We're talking about billions in subsidies to oil companies that don't need them. nice try. I am in favor of dropping ALL of the energy subsidies but that would be the end of the renewables. Oil and gas still get a tiny part of it http://www.instituteforenergyresearc...-Subsidies.png Thus, you didn't read what I wrote. Oil got subsidies in the beginning, as should wind/solar. Oil doesn't need it any more. |
Why we can't have good things
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:52:45 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:58:56 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:53:42 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:51:02 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: Complete bull****. Stop listening to fox. http://open.salon.com/blog/sickofstu..._you_t o_know This article says exactly what I have been saying all along " Loaning money to the federal government is a very bad idea, as the only money the federal government has comes from the taxpayers. When the government borrows money from the taxpayers, the only way they have to pay our money back to us is to get even more money from us. We, essentially, pay ourselves back. The federal government can only raise money by raising our taxes or by borrowing money, which requires the taxpayers to pay back the amount of the loan, plus interest. Either way, the taxpayer will still be paying for their Social Security benefits twice over or more as a result of loaning money to the federal government." They start out saying this is not a Ponzi and then prove it is. No they don't. They said it's a trust fund. Look up the word trust and the phrase "full faith and credit". They say "Social Security lacks the secrecy and the element of fraud." The "secret" SSA conceals is spelled out a few paragraphs later when they say " Loaning money to the federal government is a very bad idea, as the only money the federal government has comes from the taxpayers." That makes it a ponzi by their definition. " A pyramid scheme takes the funds paid by investors and distributes it amongst the people who invested before them." ... and that is exactly how SS works. They take money from OASDI tax and immediately distribute it to the recipients. There is no investment component, only an unfunded obligation to pay when payments exceed income, which it does now. They say "The federal government can only raise money by raising our taxes or by borrowing money, which requires the taxpayers to pay back the amount of the loan, plus interest." I couldn't have said it better myself. The only defense they have for saying it isn't is that we knew what we were getting into when we did it so it can't be a fraud. Nope. Never said. See above They also act like all of the baby boomers paid over a quarter of a million into the system, based on what a kid today will pay at the current rate. I have my statement from SAA. I paid them a tad over $100k (both sides 50k/50k), paying the max, every year I worked (66-96) and nobody paid a dime more than that in those years. I will get all of that back in less than 5 years of collecting. I have half already. That number is actually a bit worse for me because I have to pay taxes on my SS so it will really be more like 6-7 years to clear that much. Actuarially I am supposed to live to 79-80, I will have been collecting for 16 years by then at over 20,000 a year. How is that sustainable? BTW I really got a kick out of their way to "fix" it. Two of the 4 suggestions are simply higher taxes. The other two are basically to privatize it, get rid of the trust fund and invest in equities. Where have we heard that before? Your buddy Bush. Next question. Echoed by the article YOU cite. Why do you and Kevin keep linking articles that confirm what I say? Who the **** is kevin?? Well, for all your negative statements about Social Security, you're sure not doing much about it. You're pocketing the money instead of sending it back. Why aren't you doing that? Oh yeah, you're a hypocrite. |
Energy was "why we can't have ..."
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:20:14 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:39:22 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:20:45 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:52:12 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:32:37 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:17:21 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:48:10 -0400, wrote: So the range, without underlying infrastructre and related cost, per year is, let's say in the middle... $32B. That of course, won't help the Social Security situation if it were funneled to it. Is that what you're claiming? Nice try. When you read what they are trying to include in the "oil subsidy" like keeping the shipping lanes are open you understand we would be spending that money anyway. The real subsidies are going to wind and solar and they are direct payments or tax credits So, you're claiming that all the big oil subsidies and all the infrastructure that supports that is somehow equal to the paltry sums that are used to subsidize wind/solar, two technologies that don't pollute nearly as much and are completely renewable. The problem with these "oil subsidies" is that the detractors are calling a lot of things a subsidy that are clearly not. "Defending shipping lanes"? Get real. Feel free to identify those costs that are specificially targeted toward big oil. Those can be eliminated?? So you think the US would allow terrorists to close a major shipping lane important to the US if there was no oil? Huh? What does this have to do with subsidies to big oil? It has everything to do with it when people start expanding the scope of an oil subsidy out to the pentagon budget. Ok. So, where do YOU think it should end? Why shouldn't part of the subsidy that includes pentagon expenses be a factor? Don't they count for something? Wouldn't the price to the pentagon be less if we weren't being charged more than we needed to be? When you look at the subsidies for wind and solar you also need to look at how much electricity is actually being produced per subsidy dollar. That is when the numbers really start to soar. No, that's not necessarily correct. When oil first came around, not much in the way of electricity was being generated. It takes a while. Are you disputing that wind/solar can cover a lot of our energy needs? If so, try doing some research. Solar only works in the day and wind only works when and where the wind is blowing. We need power 24x7 so you still need a 24x7 infrastructure. The only thing you are saving is fuel cost. Clearly, you know very little about the technology or how it would be used. Being deliberately stupid again? Do you know of a solar panel that works at night or a wind turbine that works when the wing isn't blowing? Nobody has a working storage scheme for power on the grid scale. They even abandoned the idea of storage in residential systems if the grid is available. Germany is such a failure. And, they have so much sunshine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany Do you seriously believe that our energy use can't be significantly enhanced and our oil consumption reduced by wind/solar???? There is an interesting article in this month's Scientific American (Apr 2013) about the EROI on the tar sands. It says the tar sands are not really that efficient because of all of the processing costs but when you actually look at these "costs" it is mostly "jobs" for people in North America. I can see why Canada is pushing it. They also stretch this cost thing to the limit, even including roads, food and the schools for the worker's kids in the price of the oil. At a certain point, isn't that the definition of an economy? Canadian jobs? Not much in the way of US jobs. Is it worth the spill and pollution potential? No. How long will it take? Years. The Keystone will create some jobs and the refineries in the South will have a lot of jobs. Untrue. Citation please and don't quote a big oil funded think tank. That pipeline is going to build itself? Those refineries are run by robots? The oil ports where we will be exporting this oil will not have any longshoremen? OK. And, when it's done being build? What refineries? We already have the refineries. How many more do we need? How long will it take to get everything running? Years. Longshoreman? Union workers? Oh ****! How many more are required to have oil piped onto ships? How come nobody talks about how long it will take to build a renewable energy system? I thought such a think couldn't work because solar only works during the day and wind only when it blows? Oh yeah, you're just bsing again. Which has nothing to do with what I said. You are talking about how long it will take to get Canadian oil online and I asked how long it will take to get any significant amount of wind and solar online. How long will it take to get Canadian oil online? Can't answer the question? The answer is years. http://www.gizmag.com/us-solar-produ...icture/123000/ http://ycharts.com/indicators/us_sol...rgy_production http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/w...d_capacity.asp For electricity generation The EROI on solar PV is second to last, only having nuclear being worse. Best is hydro but you can't build a dam in this country. We are blowing them up. The numbers are Hydro 40+ Wind 20 Coal 18 Nat gas 7 Solar 6 Nukes 5 We get 160 times as much power from gas and 290 times as much from coal as we do solar. Wind is about 10x solar. Looking at liquid fuels It really gets ugly when you look at corn ethanol. They set an arbitrary EROI of 5-9 "required for the basic functions of an industrial society" and ethanol comes in at 1.4, far behind heavy oil from California at 4. They seem to like sugar cane ethanol (9) but they ignore the ecological cost of that. The Brazilians are filling wet lands and burning the rain forest to grow sugar. That has a worse effect on carbon than just about anything man does and it destroys ecosystems that exist nowhere else on earth. In the US we really do not have that many places where sugar will grow and most of them are environmentally sensitive (like the Everglades or the bayou where most of our sugar comes from) Blah, blah... stats that don't mean anything. We're talking about billions in subsidies to oil companies that don't need them. nice try. I am in favor of dropping ALL of the energy subsidies but that would be the end of the renewables. Oil and gas still get a tiny part of it http://www.instituteforenergyresearc...-Subsidies.png Thus, you didn't read what I wrote. Oil got subsidies in the beginning, as should wind/solar. Oil doesn't need it any more. I read what you wrote, you said oil was getting massive subsidies. I would be OK with cutting them out totally. That still does not mean the Iranians should be able to shut down the straights of Hormuz. Huh? Iran the boogie man? Sort of like McCain's bomb, bomb, bomb iran only catchyier The reality is, subsidies had nothing to do with the development of oil in the beginning. Rockefeller and Carnegie did just fine without the government. Nope. Read up: http://news.yahoo.com/history-u-oil-...215500548.html Most of the subsidies came about to make US developed oil more competitive with middle east oil. The Nixon, Ford and Carter administration were the driving force behind this after we had the supply troubles in the 70s. They traded direction subsidies on new production for tougher rules that virtually eliminated the old oil depletion allowance as they knew it. (Ford) What the **** does this have to do with removing them? Nothing. You're just blowing the same smoke. |
Why we can't have good things
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:54:52 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:53:55 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:54:54 -0400, wrote: You can't argue with the facts so you throw out another juvenile insult. I can see why your last name is Asshole. The "facts" are made up nonsense from someone who's using a made up anecdote. I can see why you can't figure out my name. Here in English: You're an Asshole. ... and that is your name? OK Mr Asshole Ok Mr. ****head. Is that your name? It's certainly your bull****. |
Why we can't have good things
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 08:58:27 -0400, Hank©
wrote: On 4/3/2013 10:28 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 18:06:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: The few times I carry, I have a full clip inserted, but the chamber is empty === Unless you are doing law enforcement work I think that's a good strategy. I'd argue that without a round in the chamber, you don't even need the safety. It's like having a pitbull with a muzzle. ==== We've already got a pitbull or two running around here, now we need the muzzle. |
Why we can't have good things
On Mar 29, 11:54*am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
Why we can't have good things (continued) http://tinyurl.com/ckot44q Half of Christians Think Jesus Will Return Within 40 Years Christian views in America on the return of Christ. I don't really think 50% of all Christians take credence in that statement, and I'm not sure He'll return in the next 40 or not, But I do believe He shall return. But I have plenty of good things, and not all are materialistic either. I'm satisfied. |
Why we can't have good things
On Mar 29, 11:54*am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
A Pew Research Center survey on the religious beliefs of Christians in the United States shows that about half believe Jesus will either definitely or probably return in the next 40 years. * - - - If that's the case, why are conservative Christians so worried about social security and deficits? I'm not... ?;^ ) |
Why we can't have good things
On 4/4/2013 10:03 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:17:17 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:54:52 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:53:55 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:54:54 -0400, wrote: You can't argue with the facts so you throw out another juvenile insult. I can see why your last name is Asshole. The "facts" are made up nonsense from someone who's using a made up anecdote. I can see why you can't figure out my name. Here in English: You're an Asshole. ... and that is your name? OK Mr Asshole Ok Mr. ****head. Is that your name? It's certainly your bull****. I think enough about my opinions that I sign them with my real name. There you go, that's why your rants count and kevin's don't. |
Why we can't have good things
On Mar 30, 4:02*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar201309:21:10 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar201310:12:11 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar201309:34:37 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 29 Mar201314:16:21 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar201316:45:59 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar201312:49:00 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: What "facts"? The whole program is based on the ability of the government to borrow more money and raise taxes more. There is no "trust funds" they spent every dime of that money and it is unclear how they will ever pay it back. Feel free to dispute the facts. That don't make you right. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html That demonstrates that the federal government spent all of the surplus and they promise to pay it back but they have not said how. If you loan someone or some entity money, do you really care how they made the money to pay you back as long as it's legitimate? . I would not willingly put money in aPonzischeme in the first place. So, you haven't participated in Social Security, Medicare, and all the other federal and state programs supported by taxes. As usual, you're full of it. ... at the point of a government gun. You can call SS aPonzi, but that's just your and your right wing ****head's view. It's a promise.. made by some of the people in this country to other people in this country. That is what Bernie said This guy probably will too... http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...?tid=obnetwork |
Energy was "why we can't have ..."
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:01:36 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:10:44 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:20:14 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:39:22 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:20:45 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:52:12 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:32:37 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:17:21 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:48:10 -0400, wrote: So the range, without underlying infrastructre and related cost, per year is, let's say in the middle... $32B. That of course, won't help the Social Security situation if it were funneled to it. Is that what you're claiming? Nice try. When you read what they are trying to include in the "oil subsidy" like keeping the shipping lanes are open you understand we would be spending that money anyway. The real subsidies are going to wind and solar and they are direct payments or tax credits So, you're claiming that all the big oil subsidies and all the infrastructure that supports that is somehow equal to the paltry sums that are used to subsidize wind/solar, two technologies that don't pollute nearly as much and are completely renewable. The problem with these "oil subsidies" is that the detractors are calling a lot of things a subsidy that are clearly not. "Defending shipping lanes"? Get real. Feel free to identify those costs that are specificially targeted toward big oil. Those can be eliminated?? So you think the US would allow terrorists to close a major shipping lane important to the US if there was no oil? Huh? What does this have to do with subsidies to big oil? It has everything to do with it when people start expanding the scope of an oil subsidy out to the pentagon budget. Ok. So, where do YOU think it should end? Why shouldn't part of the subsidy that includes pentagon expenses be a factor? Don't they count for something? Wouldn't the price to the pentagon be less if we weren't being charged more than we needed to be? The pentagon is not an oil subsidy any more than the pentagon subsidizes Kias and Samsung.. Please show me where I said the pentagon was an oil subsidy. I said pentagon expenses for oil is above what it would be without oil subsidies. Try again. When you look at the subsidies for wind and solar you also need to look at how much electricity is actually being produced per subsidy dollar. That is when the numbers really start to soar. No, that's not necessarily correct. When oil first came around, not much in the way of electricity was being generated. It takes a while. Are you disputing that wind/solar can cover a lot of our energy needs? If so, try doing some research. Solar only works in the day and wind only works when and where the wind is blowing. We need power 24x7 so you still need a 24x7 infrastructure. The only thing you are saving is fuel cost. Clearly, you know very little about the technology or how it would be used. Being deliberately stupid again? Do you know of a solar panel that works at night or a wind turbine that works when the wing isn't blowing? Nobody has a working storage scheme for power on the grid scale. They even abandoned the idea of storage in residential systems if the grid is available. Germany is such a failure. And, they have so much sunshine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany Do you seriously believe that our energy use can't be significantly enhanced and our oil consumption reduced by wind/solar???? Yup and the Germans pay about 60 euro cents per KWH. What do you pay? Well, that's an amazingly good question! http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/...-of-crude/2730 There is an interesting article in this month's Scientific American (Apr 2013) about the EROI on the tar sands. It says the tar sands are not really that efficient because of all of the processing costs but when you actually look at these "costs" it is mostly "jobs" for people in North America. I can see why Canada is pushing it. They also stretch this cost thing to the limit, even including roads, food and the schools for the worker's kids in the price of the oil. At a certain point, isn't that the definition of an economy? Canadian jobs? Not much in the way of US jobs. Is it worth the spill and pollution potential? No. How long will it take? Years. The Keystone will create some jobs and the refineries in the South will have a lot of jobs. Untrue. Citation please and don't quote a big oil funded think tank. That pipeline is going to build itself? Those refineries are run by robots? The oil ports where we will be exporting this oil will not have any longshoremen? OK. And, when it's done being build? What refineries? We already have the refineries. How many more do we need? How long will it take to get everything running? Years. Longshoreman? Union workers? Oh ****! How many more are required to have oil piped onto ships? More than there are now. Yes. How many more? Thousands, tens of thousands, or maybe a couple of hundred. Still waiting for your brilliance to shine through the bull****. |
Why we can't have good things
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:59:21 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: On Mar 29, 11:54*am, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Why we can't have good things (continued) http://tinyurl.com/ckot44q Half of Christians Think Jesus Will Return Within 40 Years Christian views in America on the return of Christ. I don't really think 50% of all Christians take credence in that statement, and I'm not sure He'll return in the next 40 or not, But I do believe He shall return. But I have plenty of good things, and not all are materialistic either. I'm satisfied. I hope to **** he stays the **** away from me. I've had enough of "Jesus" to last an eternity. |
Why we can't have good things
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:03:28 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:17:17 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:54:52 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:53:55 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:54:54 -0400, wrote: You can't argue with the facts so you throw out another juvenile insult. I can see why your last name is Asshole. The "facts" are made up nonsense from someone who's using a made up anecdote. I can see why you can't figure out my name. Here in English: You're an Asshole. ... and that is your name? OK Mr Asshole Ok Mr. ****head. Is that your name? It's certainly your bull****. I think enough about my opinions that I sign them with my real name. Feel free to invite all the crazies to your house. I think enough about my and my family's well being to be a bit more prudent. |
Why we can't have good things
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:18:38 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote: On 4/4/2013 10:03 PM, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:17:17 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:54:52 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:53:55 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:54:54 -0400, wrote: You can't argue with the facts so you throw out another juvenile insult. I can see why your last name is Asshole. The "facts" are made up nonsense from someone who's using a made up anecdote. I can see why you can't figure out my name. Here in English: You're an Asshole. ... and that is your name? OK Mr Asshole Ok Mr. ****head. Is that your name? It's certainly your bull****. I think enough about my opinions that I sign them with my real name. There you go, that's why your rants count and kevin's don't. You are one stupid mofo. |
Why we can't have good things
"Urin Asshole" wrote in message ... On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:59:21 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Mar 29, 11:54 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Why we can't have good things (continued) http://tinyurl.com/ckot44q Half of Christians Think Jesus Will Return Within 40 Years Christian views in America on the return of Christ. I don't really think 50% of all Christians take credence in that statement, and I'm not sure He'll return in the next 40 or not, But I do believe He shall return. But I have plenty of good things, and not all are materialistic either. I'm satisfied. I hope to **** he stays the **** away from me. I've had enough of "Jesus" to last an eternity. --------------------------------------------------- Jesus may already have plans for your eternity. |
Why we can't have good things
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 00:09:09 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Urin Asshole" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:59:21 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Mar 29, 11:54 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Why we can't have good things (continued) http://tinyurl.com/ckot44q Half of Christians Think Jesus Will Return Within 40 Years Christian views in America on the return of Christ. I don't really think 50% of all Christians take credence in that statement, and I'm not sure He'll return in the next 40 or not, But I do believe He shall return. But I have plenty of good things, and not all are materialistic either. I'm satisfied. I hope to **** he stays the **** away from me. I've had enough of "Jesus" to last an eternity. --------------------------------------------------- Jesus may already have plans for your eternity. And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. |
Why we can't have good things
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 00:58:47 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 20:44:34 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:03:28 -0400, wrote: Ok Mr. ****head. Is that your name? It's certainly your bull****. I think enough about my opinions that I sign them with my real name. Feel free to invite all the crazies to your house. I think enough about my and my family's well being to be a bit more prudent. Cowardly punk hiding in your basement spewing bull**** anonymously. That is why we don't really take you seriously. Yet you seem to. I wonder what that says about some guy who pretends to actually think but is in reality no better than the overtly racist, ignorant ****s that frequent this newsgroup. You're not much of a man, and apparently have no regard for your "cherished" family. |
Why we can't have good things
On Apr 5, 1:29*am, Urin Asshole wrote:
And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. LOL! Somebody stick a crucifix in your face... |
Why we can't have good things
On 4/5/13 7:36 AM, Tim wrote:
On Apr 5, 1:29 am, Urin Asshole wrote: And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. LOL! Somebody stick a crucifix in your face... The "religious right" probably is the single greatest cause of agnosticism. |
Why we can't have good things
On 4/5/2013 7:36 AM, Tim wrote:
On Apr 5, 1:29 am, Urin Asshole wrote: And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. LOL! Somebody stick a crucifix in your face... Well, they are just doing it because you came back for a few hours:) LOL! While you were gone they were on to whatever troll was relevant at the time. It's clear they are democrats and have no tolerance for anybody different. Why do you think the party in general works so hard to keep the poor down? |
Why we can't have good things
On 4/5/13 8:02 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 4/5/2013 7:36 AM, Tim wrote: On Apr 5, 1:29 am, Urin Asshole wrote: And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. LOL! Somebody stick a crucifix in your face... Well, they are just doing it because you came back for a few hours:) LOL! While you were gone they were on to whatever troll was relevant at the time. It's clear they are democrats and have no tolerance for anybody different. Why do you think the party in general works so hard to keep the poor down? Most of us lefties who are not "religious" have absolutely no objections to those who are religious and are courteous enough to not try to shove their religious beliefs in our faces. Certainly Tim is religious and certainly it is fine with me if he wants to discuss his beliefs here. It is only offensive when the religious try to directly or indirectly force those beliefs on those who believe differently or not at all. Here's an example. Several times a year, members of the community of the religious ring our doorbell. Most of the time, the callers simply ask if we'd like to come to their church services or events. Sometimes they will leave behind a flyer or brochure. We have no objection to that. But once or twice a year, we're called upon by proselytizers, pushy representatives of the religious who apparently are looking for converts. "Have you found Jesus?" "Don't you want to?" "We have a minister who is very good at speaking to non-believers." And much ore and far worse. The anti-abortionists are particularly disgusting. The latter are also the same people who try to use the legislative processes to force their beliefs onto the general public. Screw that and them. |
Why we can't have good things
On Apr 5, 1:29 am, Urin Asshole wrote: And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. ----------------------------------------------------------------- You *do* realize (don't you?) that your attitude and feelings about what other people believe in represents a somewhat extreme "religion" unto itself. But, that's your right. I look at it this way: The norms, values and the laws that emerge in different societies really have their roots in religion. You are not born with a distinction of right or wrong. Those are values that you acquire from your parents. schools and those who directly influence you during your programming years. But where did they get the roadmap? From their parents, schools and quite often church organizations. If you could keep tracing it back, where did the basic values originate from? True, the Bible is often misconstrued by those who try to interpret it and made worse by some zealots who feel it's their duty to educate everyone else with their interpretation. But the fundamentals are there from which the norms and values of our society are based and they aren't particular to any one religion. Same for the Koran and other major religion based "roadmaps". A while back I happened to be reading something written by a lifelong atheist. I became interested because his skepticism about many of our religion based beliefs mirrored mine. Like him, I tend to need "proof" of things that I don't understand before I can accept them. In his case though, it became an obsession and he studied the origins of religion in vain, including the Christian Bible, seeking the proof he needed. Never found it. However, what he found was that many of the popular beliefs and conceptions held by believers didn't exist in the Bible either. I don't remember all the specific details, but I recall this: Due to our limited ability to comprehend the concept of a "God", the unknown or even the origin of the universe, we tend to put human terms on things. "God" is perceived by many as some dude sitting up in a place called heaven .... up in the sky ..... looking down on us and watching everything we do. But nowhere in the Bible does it come close to describing such a thing. The Bible describes "God" as a spirit .... not a super human. It's a feeling, not an entity and is expressed by faith. Your mileage may vary. |
Why we can't have good things
On 4/5/13 8:38 AM, Eisboch wrote:
On Apr 5, 1:29 am, Urin Asshole wrote: And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. ----------------------------------------------------------------- You *do* realize (don't you?) that your attitude and feelings about what other people believe in represents a somewhat extreme "religion" unto itself. But, that's your right. I look at it this way: The norms, values and the laws that emerge in different societies really have their roots in religion. You are not born with a distinction of right or wrong. Those are values that you acquire from your parents. schools and those who directly influence you during your programming years. But where did they get the roadmap? From their parents, schools and quite often church organizations. If you could keep tracing it back, where did the basic values originate from? True, the Bible is often misconstrued by those who try to interpret it and made worse by some zealots who feel it's their duty to educate everyone else with their interpretation. But the fundamentals are there from which the norms and values of our society are based and they aren't particular to any one religion. Same for the Koran and other major religion based "roadmaps". A while back I happened to be reading something written by a lifelong atheist. I became interested because his skepticism about many of our religion based beliefs mirrored mine. Like him, I tend to need "proof" of things that I don't understand before I can accept them. In his case though, it became an obsession and he studied the origins of religion in vain, including the Christian Bible, seeking the proof he needed. Never found it. However, what he found was that many of the popular beliefs and conceptions held by believers didn't exist in the Bible either. I don't remember all the specific details, but I recall this: Due to our limited ability to comprehend the concept of a "God", the unknown or even the origin of the universe, we tend to put human terms on things. "God" is perceived by many as some dude sitting up in a place called heaven .... up in the sky ..... looking down on us and watching everything we do. But nowhere in the Bible does it come close to describing such a thing. The Bible describes "God" as a spirit .... not a super human. It's a feeling, not an entity and is expressed by faith. Your mileage may vary. I posit that nothing has done more to destroy "belief" than organized religion. |
Why we can't have good things
In article ,
says... On 4/4/2013 10:03 PM, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:17:17 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:54:52 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:53:55 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:54:54 -0400, wrote: You can't argue with the facts so you throw out another juvenile insult. I can see why your last name is Asshole. The "facts" are made up nonsense from someone who's using a made up anecdote. I can see why you can't figure out my name. Here in English: You're an Asshole. ... and that is your name? OK Mr Asshole Ok Mr. ****head. Is that your name? It's certainly your bull****. I think enough about my opinions that I sign them with my real name. There you go, that's why your rants count and kevin's don't. Your real name is justwaitafrekinminute? |
Why we can't have good things
|
Why we can't have good things
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 4/5/13 8:02 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 4/5/2013 7:36 AM, Tim wrote: On Apr 5, 1:29 am, Urin Asshole wrote: And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. LOL! Somebody stick a crucifix in your face... Well, they are just doing it because you came back for a few hours:) LOL! While you were gone they were on to whatever troll was relevant at the time. It's clear they are democrats and have no tolerance for anybody different. Why do you think the party in general works so hard to keep the poor down? Most of us lefties who are not "religious" have absolutely no objections to those who are religious and are courteous enough to not try to shove their religious beliefs in our faces. Certainly Tim is religious and certainly it is fine with me if he wants to discuss his beliefs here. It is only offensive when the religious try to directly or indirectly force those beliefs on those who believe differently or not at all. Here's an example. Several times a year, members of the community of the religious ring our doorbell. Most of the time, the callers simply ask if we'd like to come to their church services or events. Sometimes they will leave behind a flyer or brochure. We have no objection to that. But once or twice a year, we're called upon by proselytizers, pushy representatives of the religious who apparently are looking for converts. "Have you found Jesus?" "Don't you want to?" "We have a minister who is very good at speaking to non-believers." And much ore and far worse. The anti-abortionists are particularly disgusting. The latter are also the same people who try to use the legislative processes to force their beliefs onto the general public. Screw that and them. --------------------------------------------------- I guess we must have led a very sheltered life despite having lived in many different states and countries, including two years in your general area (Annapolis, MD). In nearly 45 years we were only approached once by pushy, religious representatives trying to recruit or convert and that was in Zion, IL, back in 1972. The "conversation" lasted about 10 seconds and has never happened since. Oh, we did have some neighbors in Florida who tried to encourage us to attend their church but after a polite but firm refusal of interest by us, it never happened again. During the guitar shop adventure I've met many people who perform at their church services. Some are "worship leaders". In fact my buddy who took over the shop is very religious and often plays at his church. Not once in the almost 5 years that I've known him has he ever tried to influence me with any of his beliefs and we've had many discussions about religion and faith in general. I have visited his church from time to time however, mainly because they have a killer 10,000 watt sound system that was installed by one of the church members who is also an acoustic engineer. The music played through the system sounds incredibly good and the engineer has helped me with some of the acoustic treatments for the new performance venue I am involved with. |
Why we can't have good things
On 4/5/13 9:21 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 4/5/13 8:02 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 4/5/2013 7:36 AM, Tim wrote: On Apr 5, 1:29 am, Urin Asshole wrote: And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. LOL! Somebody stick a crucifix in your face... Well, they are just doing it because you came back for a few hours:) LOL! While you were gone they were on to whatever troll was relevant at the time. It's clear they are democrats and have no tolerance for anybody different. Why do you think the party in general works so hard to keep the poor down? Most of us lefties who are not "religious" have absolutely no objections to those who are religious and are courteous enough to not try to shove their religious beliefs in our faces. Certainly Tim is religious and certainly it is fine with me if he wants to discuss his beliefs here. It is only offensive when the religious try to directly or indirectly force those beliefs on those who believe differently or not at all. Here's an example. Several times a year, members of the community of the religious ring our doorbell. Most of the time, the callers simply ask if we'd like to come to their church services or events. Sometimes they will leave behind a flyer or brochure. We have no objection to that. But once or twice a year, we're called upon by proselytizers, pushy representatives of the religious who apparently are looking for converts. "Have you found Jesus?" "Don't you want to?" "We have a minister who is very good at speaking to non-believers." And much ore and far worse. The anti-abortionists are particularly disgusting. The latter are also the same people who try to use the legislative processes to force their beliefs onto the general public. Screw that and them. --------------------------------------------------- I guess we must have led a very sheltered life despite having lived in many different states and countries, including two years in your general area (Annapolis, MD). In nearly 45 years we were only approached once by pushy, religious representatives trying to recruit or convert and that was in Zion, IL, back in 1972. The "conversation" lasted about 10 seconds and has never happened since. Oh, we did have some neighbors in Florida who tried to encourage us to attend their church but after a polite but firm refusal of interest by us, it never happened again. During the guitar shop adventure I've met many people who perform at their church services. Some are "worship leaders". In fact my buddy who took over the shop is very religious and often plays at his church. Not once in the almost 5 years that I've known him has he ever tried to influence me with any of his beliefs and we've had many discussions about religion and faith in general. I have visited his church from time to time however, mainly because they have a killer 10,000 watt sound system that was installed by one of the church members who is also an acoustic engineer. The music played through the system sounds incredibly good and the engineer has helped me with some of the acoustic treatments for the new performance venue I am involved with. We live in an area that is far more "rural" than "cosmopolitan" Annapolis, even though the latter is only about 25 miles away. There are lots of churches down here. We probably get between six and nine home visits a year by "the church ladies," and, as I said, most of them are not offensive in any way. It's funny, but when I was growing up in New Haven and attending Sheridan Junior High, we'd end up playing basketball or kickball afterschool many afternoons in the recreation yard of the catholic church in the parish. It was pretty safe: the nuns kept an eye on everything and every so often several of the priests would come out to shoot some hoops. There never were any "religious" discussions initiated by the clergy there. I am sure, though, that if one of the kids wanted to discuss "faith issues," a nun or priest would have been glad to accommodate. Nowadays, too much of religion is "in your face." |
Why we can't have good things
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 4/5/13 9:21 AM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 4/5/13 8:02 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 4/5/2013 7:36 AM, Tim wrote: On Apr 5, 1:29 am, Urin Asshole wrote: And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. LOL! Somebody stick a crucifix in your face... Well, they are just doing it because you came back for a few hours:) LOL! While you were gone they were on to whatever troll was relevant at the time. It's clear they are democrats and have no tolerance for anybody different. Why do you think the party in general works so hard to keep the poor down? Most of us lefties who are not "religious" have absolutely no objections to those who are religious and are courteous enough to not try to shove their religious beliefs in our faces. Certainly Tim is religious and certainly it is fine with me if he wants to discuss his beliefs here. It is only offensive when the religious try to directly or indirectly force those beliefs on those who believe differently or not at all. Here's an example. Several times a year, members of the community of the religious ring our doorbell. Most of the time, the callers simply ask if we'd like to come to their church services or events. Sometimes they will leave behind a flyer or brochure. We have no objection to that. But once or twice a year, we're called upon by proselytizers, pushy representatives of the religious who apparently are looking for converts. "Have you found Jesus?" "Don't you want to?" "We have a minister who is very good at speaking to non-believers." And much ore and far worse. The anti-abortionists are particularly disgusting. The latter are also the same people who try to use the legislative processes to force their beliefs onto the general public. Screw that and them. --------------------------------------------------- I guess we must have led a very sheltered life despite having lived in many different states and countries, including two years in your general area (Annapolis, MD). In nearly 45 years we were only approached once by pushy, religious representatives trying to recruit or convert and that was in Zion, IL, back in 1972. The "conversation" lasted about 10 seconds and has never happened since. Oh, we did have some neighbors in Florida who tried to encourage us to attend their church but after a polite but firm refusal of interest by us, it never happened again. During the guitar shop adventure I've met many people who perform at their church services. Some are "worship leaders". In fact my buddy who took over the shop is very religious and often plays at his church. Not once in the almost 5 years that I've known him has he ever tried to influence me with any of his beliefs and we've had many discussions about religion and faith in general. I have visited his church from time to time however, mainly because they have a killer 10,000 watt sound system that was installed by one of the church members who is also an acoustic engineer. The music played through the system sounds incredibly good and the engineer has helped me with some of the acoustic treatments for the new performance venue I am involved with. We live in an area that is far more "rural" than "cosmopolitan" Annapolis, even though the latter is only about 25 miles away. There are lots of churches down here. We probably get between six and nine home visits a year by "the church ladies," and, as I said, most of them are not offensive in any way. It's funny, but when I was growing up in New Haven and attending Sheridan Junior High, we'd end up playing basketball or kickball afterschool many afternoons in the recreation yard of the catholic church in the parish. It was pretty safe: the nuns kept an eye on everything and every so often several of the priests would come out to shoot some hoops. There never were any "religious" discussions initiated by the clergy there. I am sure, though, that if one of the kids wanted to discuss "faith issues," a nun or priest would have been glad to accommodate. Nowadays, too much of religion is "in your face." --------------------------------------------------- I guess it depends on how sensitive you are to it. I never feel any direct "in my face" religious influence by others. Our next door neighbors of 13 years are Baptists and she is an ordained minister at their church. He is an engineer at the Pilgram nuclear power plant. We see them often and there has never been an attempt by either of them to try to influence us with their beliefs nor by us in ours. |
Why we can't have good things
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:27:02 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 4/5/13 8:02 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 4/5/2013 7:36 AM, Tim wrote: On Apr 5, 1:29 am, Urin Asshole wrote: And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. LOL! Somebody stick a crucifix in your face... Well, they are just doing it because you came back for a few hours:) LOL! While you were gone they were on to whatever troll was relevant at the time. It's clear they are democrats and have no tolerance for anybody different. Why do you think the party in general works so hard to keep the poor down? Most of us lefties who are not "religious" have absolutely no objections to those who are religious and are courteous enough to not try to shove their religious beliefs in our faces. Certainly Tim is religious and certainly it is fine with me if he wants to discuss his beliefs here. It is only offensive when the religious try to directly or indirectly force those beliefs on those who believe differently or not at all. Here's an example. Several times a year, members of the community of the religious ring our doorbell. Most of the time, the callers simply ask if we'd like to come to their church services or events. Sometimes they will leave behind a flyer or brochure. We have no objection to that. But once or twice a year, we're called upon by proselytizers, pushy representatives of the religious who apparently are looking for converts. "Have you found Jesus?" "Don't you want to?" "We have a minister who is very good at speaking to non-believers." And much ore and far worse. The anti-abortionists are particularly disgusting. The latter are also the same people who try to use the legislative processes to force their beliefs onto the general public. Screw that and them. I assume that was one of the 'special circumstances' in which you had to chamber a round and use your thumb safety? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. |
Why we can't have good things
On 4/5/2013 9:50 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 4/5/13 9:21 AM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 4/5/13 8:02 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 4/5/2013 7:36 AM, Tim wrote: On Apr 5, 1:29 am, Urin Asshole wrote: And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. LOL! Somebody stick a crucifix in your face... Well, they are just doing it because you came back for a few hours:) LOL! While you were gone they were on to whatever troll was relevant at the time. It's clear they are democrats and have no tolerance for anybody different. Why do you think the party in general works so hard to keep the poor down? Most of us lefties who are not "religious" have absolutely no objections to those who are religious and are courteous enough to not try to shove their religious beliefs in our faces. Certainly Tim is religious and certainly it is fine with me if he wants to discuss his beliefs here. It is only offensive when the religious try to directly or indirectly force those beliefs on those who believe differently or not at all. Here's an example. Several times a year, members of the community of the religious ring our doorbell. Most of the time, the callers simply ask if we'd like to come to their church services or events. Sometimes they will leave behind a flyer or brochure. We have no objection to that. But once or twice a year, we're called upon by proselytizers, pushy representatives of the religious who apparently are looking for converts. "Have you found Jesus?" "Don't you want to?" "We have a minister who is very good at speaking to non-believers." And much ore and far worse. The anti-abortionists are particularly disgusting. The latter are also the same people who try to use the legislative processes to force their beliefs onto the general public. Screw that and them. --------------------------------------------------- I guess we must have led a very sheltered life despite having lived in many different states and countries, including two years in your general area (Annapolis, MD). In nearly 45 years we were only approached once by pushy, religious representatives trying to recruit or convert and that was in Zion, IL, back in 1972. The "conversation" lasted about 10 seconds and has never happened since. Oh, we did have some neighbors in Florida who tried to encourage us to attend their church but after a polite but firm refusal of interest by us, it never happened again. During the guitar shop adventure I've met many people who perform at their church services. Some are "worship leaders". In fact my buddy who took over the shop is very religious and often plays at his church. Not once in the almost 5 years that I've known him has he ever tried to influence me with any of his beliefs and we've had many discussions about religion and faith in general. I have visited his church from time to time however, mainly because they have a killer 10,000 watt sound system that was installed by one of the church members who is also an acoustic engineer. The music played through the system sounds incredibly good and the engineer has helped me with some of the acoustic treatments for the new performance venue I am involved with. We live in an area that is far more "rural" than "cosmopolitan" Annapolis, even though the latter is only about 25 miles away. There are lots of churches down here. We probably get between six and nine home visits a year by "the church ladies," and, as I said, most of them are not offensive in any way. It's funny, but when I was growing up in New Haven and attending Sheridan Junior High, we'd end up playing basketball or kickball afterschool many afternoons in the recreation yard of the catholic church in the parish. It was pretty safe: the nuns kept an eye on everything and every so often several of the priests would come out to shoot some hoops. There never were any "religious" discussions initiated by the clergy there. I am sure, though, that if one of the kids wanted to discuss "faith issues," a nun or priest would have been glad to accommodate. Nowadays, too much of religion is "in your face." --------------------------------------------------- I guess it depends on how sensitive you are to it. I never feel any direct "in my face" religious influence by others. Our next door neighbors of 13 years are Baptists and she is an ordained minister at their church. He is an engineer at the Pilgram nuclear power plant. We see them often and there has never been an attempt by either of them to try to influence us with their beliefs nor by us in ours. Mention religion and Harry goes off half cocked with the safety off. |
Why we can't have good things
On 4/5/2013 7:57 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 4/5/13 7:36 AM, Tim wrote: On Apr 5, 1:29 am, Urin Asshole wrote: And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. LOL! Somebody stick a crucifix in your face... The "religious right" probably is the single greatest cause of agnosticism. You said that without thinking, didn't you? |
Why we can't have good things
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:21:09 -0400, Hank© wrote:
On 4/5/2013 7:57 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 4/5/13 7:36 AM, Tim wrote: On Apr 5, 1:29 am, Urin Asshole wrote: And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. LOL! Somebody stick a crucifix in your face... The "religious right" probably is the single greatest cause of agnosticism. You said that without thinking, didn't you? And I doubt if Jeremiah and his crowd are 'religious right'! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. |
Why we can't have good things
On 4/5/13 10:50 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:21:09 -0400, Hank© wrote: On 4/5/2013 7:57 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 4/5/13 7:36 AM, Tim wrote: On Apr 5, 1:29 am, Urin Asshole wrote: And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. LOL! Somebody stick a crucifix in your face... The "religious right" probably is the single greatest cause of agnosticism. You said that without thinking, didn't you? And I doubt if Jeremiah and his crowd are 'religious right'! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. Two followup comments that make no sense...from two rightwing posters who make no sense. Figures. |
Why we can't have good things
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:55:37 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 4/5/13 10:50 AM, J Herring wrote: On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:21:09 -0400, Hank© wrote: On 4/5/2013 7:57 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 4/5/13 7:36 AM, Tim wrote: On Apr 5, 1:29 am, Urin Asshole wrote: And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. LOL! Somebody stick a crucifix in your face... The "religious right" probably is the single greatest cause of agnosticism. You said that without thinking, didn't you? And I doubt if Jeremiah and his crowd are 'religious right'! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. Two followup comments that make no sense...from two rightwing posters who make no sense. Figures. Your 'special circumstances' make sense? Do you believe Jeremiah was 'religious right'. Only with his last name. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. |
Why we can't have good things
On 4/5/13 11:08 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:55:37 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/5/13 10:50 AM, J Herring wrote: On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:21:09 -0400, Hank© wrote: On 4/5/2013 7:57 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 4/5/13 7:36 AM, Tim wrote: On Apr 5, 1:29 am, Urin Asshole wrote: And, **** Jesus while I'm at it. Or, rather **** what all the ****ing churches suppose Jesus was all about and DON'T promote. I have no use for dead people that other people fantasize about. It's really quite sick in the head. If anyone actually believes in a fantasy god and/or fantasy hell and thinks that "worship" or "faith" is going to fix them or anything, they are way more ****ed up and frankly more stupid that the lowliest creature. LOL! Somebody stick a crucifix in your face... The "religious right" probably is the single greatest cause of agnosticism. You said that without thinking, didn't you? And I doubt if Jeremiah and his crowd are 'religious right'! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. Two followup comments that make no sense...from two rightwing posters who make no sense. Figures. Your 'special circumstances' make sense? Do you believe Jeremiah was 'religious right'. Only with his last name. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand. My posit: "The "religious right" probably is the single greatest cause of agnosticism." Whatever you and manure-breath from Florida are raving about has nothing to do with my posit. |
Why we can't have good things
|
Why we can't have good things
On 4/3/2013 6:08 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:05:29 -0500, amdx wrote: On 3/29/2013 7:15 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:16:10 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:16:21 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:45:59 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:49:00 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: What "facts"? The whole program is based on the ability of the government to borrow more money and raise taxes more. There is no "trust funds" they spent every dime of that money and it is unclear how they will ever pay it back. Feel free to dispute the facts. That don't make you right. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html That demonstrates that the federal government spent all of the surplus and they promise to pay it back but they have not said how. The don't have to "pay it back". It's a trust fund. Do you need me to tell you to look it up? How far do you have to go back to actually see the federal government paying down a dime of the debt? (hint: new cars had tail fins) Which has nothing to do with anything. Medicare is in worse shape, but not catastrophically so... and again, it will be decades before it becomes so. A fix is indicated, but not on the backs of middle and lower income. There are not enough rich people to save these programs, who do you think will have to pay? You're just being deliberately dense. The worst thing we can right now is make middle and lower income families pay more. When the economy recovers, then the middle income families will be able to afford to help a bit more. If you took every dime from the Forbes 400, it would run SS for about 175 days. The middle class is going to have to pay more, at least the Clinton tax rates and maybe even the Reagan tax rates. Which has nothing to do with anything. Feel free to hide under your house if you're that afraid. http://www.nasi.org/learn/medicare/financial-problems $32 billion out of whack 3 years ago ... What I said. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3130421 Do you really think medical care will ever cost less? Don't know. I do know that the rate of increase can be slowed. It doesn't need to exceed inflation the way it does. But you know, right? I can look at the trends. Feel free. The US has been solvent and paid it's debts since the 1700s. Well fine, let's see us pay off the 17 trillion debt. If our debt was called today, we would be insolvent. The problem for our debtees, is we are to big to force us into insolvency. Mikek You ****ing moron. Most of the "debt" is held by Americans. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...it-isnt-china/ Jesus you people are ignorant. Even fox gets it right. You sure read a lot into comments that is not even hinted at. I never said the word China. The US has been solvent, but with 17 trillion in debt, the governments option to remain solvent is to raise taxes. Great for the economy and job creation. (sarcasm) Financial planners are advising clients to pay taxes now vs. delaying them until retirement, because taxes are expected to be higher in later years. BTW, do you know where the SS trust fund is? It is part of the 17 trillion debt. That means it has been spent. That means it will be paid back with taxes collected from today's worker, with interest tacked on. That means I paid it in once, then the younger people will pay it in again, to pay me. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com