OT: Red States to Secede

Electronics
Circuits, theory, electrons and discussions.

FAQ

Memberlist

Profile

OT: Red States to Secede
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Electronics Forum Index -> Design

Author

Message

Jim Thompson
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:44 am Post subject: Re: OT: Red States to Secede

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:30:04 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:39:08 -0600, "jason" <jpop@carrollsweb.com
wrote:

Bush has the brain of a retarded clam.

He has a BS from Yale and a Masters from Harvard. He got better
grades than Kerry, and wasn't expelled for cheating like Teddy
Kennedy.

Where did you go to school?

Kansas State Institution for Juvenile Rehabilitation ?:-)

Quote:

Oh, his inauguration speech today was inspired, historical. He
explained what he's trying to do, and it's magnificent. Not easy, but
noble as all getout.

Oh, my spell checker suggests "sorry" for "Kerry." Right.

John

jason
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:32 am Post subject: Re: OT: Red States to Secede

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:hvi0v09fs91fp0v2ngq9iqfu851c21j904@4ax.com...

Quote:

The implication being that what school you went to correlates to how
intelligent you are, and further that if you went to a "better" school than
someone else, then you must be smarter than them.
I don't accept that. I am old enough and have been around enough to know
what an Ivy league education can be for someone who is wealthy and
connected. Hell, even summa cum laudes get off easy if they choose the right
classes.

Therefore, it is irrelevant where I went to school. If I tell you an Ivy
league school, what does that prove? If I tell you a state school, then you
will just use that as an example of how much dumber I must be than George.
If I did not go to college at all, well, then, you won your argument, right?

I do not believe that Bush got better grades than Kerry. Show me the proof.

Here is some interesting reading:

http://s88172659.onlinehome.us/bushprofessor.htm

http://www.thebatt.com/news/2004/05/26/News/Same-School.Different.Personalities.Defined.Candidates.Since.Yale-683302.shtml

Jim Thompson
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:03 am Post subject: Re: OT: Red States to Secede

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:32:38 -0600, "jason" <jpop@carrollsweb.com>
wrote:

Quote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:hvi0v09fs91fp0v2ngq9iqfu851c21j904@4ax.com...
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:39:08 -0600, "jason" <jpop@carrollsweb.com
wrote:

Bush has the brain of a retarded clam.

He has a BS from Yale and a Masters from Harvard. He got better
grades than Kerry, and wasn't expelled for cheating like Teddy
Kennedy.

Where did you go to school?

The implication being that what school you went to correlates to how
intelligent you are, and further that if you went to a "better" school than
someone else, then you must be smarter than them.
I don't accept that. I am old enough and have been around enough to know
what an Ivy league education can be for someone who is wealthy and
connected. Hell, even summa cum laudes get off easy if they choose the right
classes.

Therefore, it is irrelevant where I went to school. If I tell you an Ivy
league school, what does that prove? If I tell you a state school, then you
will just use that as an example of how much dumber I must be than George.
If I did not go to college at all, well, then, you won your argument, right?

I do not believe that Bush got better grades than Kerry. Show me the proof.

Here is some interesting reading:

http://s88172659.onlinehome.us/bushprofessor.htm

http://www.thebatt.com/news/2004/05/26/News/Same-School.Different.Personalities.Defined.Candidates.Since.Yale-683302.shtml

I stopped reading when I came to "Air America". White trash leftist
propaganda... right at Michael Moore's sub-mentality level.

I didn't go to an Ivy League school, I graduated from MIT, about the
same time dear old high-calorie-ass-fart Teddy was kicked out of
Harvard, wanna fight?

So far you have exhibited no credentials sufficient to warrant any
further reading of your diatribes.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

jason
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:07 am Post subject: Re: OT: Red States to Secede

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:cspnat$2ctd$1@news.iquest.net...

Quote:

In article <aLKdnZ4dQtmG3G3cRVn-sw@kans.com>,
"jason" <jpop@carrollsweb.com> writes:

"gwhite" <gwhite@deadend.com> wrote in message
news:41F017F8.5BEFC321@deadend.com...
jason wrote:

I don't know why the left hates Bush.

Gee, where do I begin?

He lied to get us into a war.

There is no proof that Bush lied. Please refer to a dictionary
for the definition of a lie, and you'll see that claim to be untrue.
Perhaps that untrue claim is a lie in itself (in fact, is more probable
than Bush telling lies -- because I cannot believe that you don't know
what a lie is.)

Hint: making a statement that might be incorrect is not necessarily
a lie. The same statements that Bush had made were essentially the
same as being presented by Blair/Clinton and other democrat/GOP
leaders. Even the French had effectively admitted to misbehavior
by the Iraqis, but didn't believe that the misbehavior reached
the level that would necessitate the loss of their illegal oil
for food income.

I'm not playing your semantic games. EVERYBODY KNEW there was nothing
there!!!
The whole fucking world knew there was nothing there! Scott Ritter knew!
Shinseki knew we needed more troops. There was worldwide protests against
the Iraq war. The Pope was against the Iraq war.

And let us suppose we accept your rediculous parsing of the argument, and
assume that Bush simply stated an untruth and did not lie. Then where is the
outrage at over 1,300 American men and women who have died going to war to
disarm an immediate threat of Saddam with WMD!!! Why has nobody been held
accountable? How can we go to war on false information and then laugh about
it like Bush did at a press dinner???

Quote:

The soldiers are not adequately supplied.

Whose fault? Perhaps Clintons' ongoing undersupply of the military
was difficult to overcome? Why weren't the uparmor kits already
supplied well before Bush?

Unbelievable. Clinton has been out of office for over four years, and the
humvees without armor are his fault, the troops without kevlar are his
fault, while Bush spends 40 million dollars on a 4 day party.

Quote:

Rest of your comments elided, because it seems like they are mostly
very very easy to refute or dismiss. It is very clear that your emotions
have overwhelmed your thinking process.

John

Yes, I do get emotional when my country is hijacked by liars and thieves,
and men who send our troops to die in unnecessary wars and tell us lies to
send them there. I get very emotional about that. Why the hell don't you?

I am done with this thread. Congratulations on 4 more years of failure. Four
more years of mediocrity. Four more years of your demise.

and one more thing,

9/11 happened on Bush's watch!!!!!!!!!!!

Jim Thompson
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:16 am Post subject: Re: OT: Red States to Secede

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:07:30 -0600, "jason" <jpop@carrollsweb.com>
wrote:

Quote:

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:cspnat$2ctd$1@news.iquest.net...
In article <aLKdnZ4dQtmG3G3cRVn-sw@kans.com>,
"jason" <jpop@carrollsweb.com> writes:
[snip]

I'm not playing your semantic games. EVERYBODY KNEW there was nothing
there!!!

Really?

Quote:

The whole fucking world knew there was nothing there!
[snip]
The Pope was against the Iraq war.

He's senile. Most ineffective Pope EVER!

Quote:

And let us suppose we accept your rediculous parsing of the argument, and
assume that Bush simply stated an untruth and did not lie. Then where is the
outrage at over 1,300 American men and women who have died

We lose almost that many Americans WEEKLY on our streets and highways.

[snip]

Quote:

The soldiers are not adequately supplied.

Probably so.

Quote:

Whose fault? Perhaps Clintons' ongoing undersupply of the military
was difficult to overcome? Why weren't the uparmor kits already
supplied well before Bush?

Clinton was too busy getting a blow job ;-)

Quote:

Indeed I agree we should pump more money and manpower in there.
Perhaps DRAFT you ?:-)

[snip]

Quote:

and one more thing,

9/11 happened on Bush's watch!!!!!!!!!!!

John Larkin
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:26 am Post subject: Re: OT: Red States to Secede

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:32:38 -0600, "jason" <jpop@carrollsweb.com>
wrote:

Quote:

No summa cum laude gets off easy!

Quote:

Therefore, it is irrelevant where I went to school. If I tell you an Ivy
league school, what does that prove? If I tell you a state school, then you
will just use that as an example of how much dumber I must be than George.
If I did not go to college at all, well, then, you won your argument, right?

Harvard does not grant Masters degrees to clams.

Quote:

I do not believe that Bush got better grades than Kerry. Show me the proof.

Well, for one, he's President and Kerry isn't.

Actually, Kerry's college grades aren't known. Slate and some other
sources rate W's IQ a bit above Kerry's, based on what test material
is publically available. But W certainly isn't stupid. You call him
stupid because you disagree with him.

John

jason
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:44 am Post subject: Re: OT: Red States to Secede

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:22p0v014iurg4i51d90o6aptvk7la26ilc@4ax.com...

Quote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:07:30 -0600, "jason" <jpop@carrollsweb.com
wrote:

And let us suppose we accept your rediculous parsing of the argument, and
assume that Bush simply stated an untruth and did not lie. Then where is
the
outrage at over 1,300 American men and women who have died

We lose almost that many Americans WEEKLY on our streets and highways.

Oh, then that makes it okay.

Quote:

No, not me. I served my time. Five proud years in the United States Marine
Corps, under Clinton's command.
And guess what? I never heard any complaints about lack of weapons or armor.

Quote:

Rich Grise
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:37 am Post subject: Re: OT: Red States to Secede

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:31:10 -0800, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

Quote:

Just costs that society will pay one way or another. Businesses aren't
very efficient when it comes to purchasing things like health care
benefits for employees. They would be better off if they didn't have to
concern themselves with such expenses.

The way I heard it, this whole entitlements fiasco was caused by the
imposition of the income tax. Companies started offering benefits, instead
of cash. If you make, say, $100.00 more per month, you'll take home maybe
60, 70 bucks from it - Uncle Sugardaddy gets "his" (stolen - remember,
taxation is theft) piece of flesh before you even see it. $100.00 per
month in medical insurance, however, isn't taxed, and probably costs the
employer less that $100.00 because they can get some kind of group
discount.

So, originally, all the benefits were self-defense against the rapacious
bureaucracy; but they've done an end-around by using that stolen money to
get schools to turn out generations of ignorami. Sigh.

Thanks,
Rich

John S. Dyson
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:16 pm Post subject: Re: OT: Red States to Secede

In article <pan.2005.01.21.09.34.08.841000@westcontrol.removethis.com>,
David <david.nospam@westcontrol.removethis.com> writes:

Quote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 04:21:46 +0000, John S. Dyson wrote:

I don't know why the left hates Bush.

Gee, where do I begin?

He lied to get us into a war.

There is no proof that Bush lied. Please refer to a dictionary

Look, it's quite simple - what Bush said about WMD in Iraq was untrue.

That doesn't make it a lie... Note that the info sources had been damaged

by the Demoncrats (e.g. the CIA/Church Commission or Clinton in 1995/1996.)
That doesn't guarantee that Bush was telling the truth, but you have still
not given ANY ANY proof that Bush had lied. You keep on making up supposition,
and that isn't sufficient to condemn somone to be a liar. In essense,
you show your own dishonesty.

John

John Woodgate
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 2:06 pm Post subject: Re: OT: Red States to Secede

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote (in <22p0v014iurg4i51d90o6aptvk7la26ilc@
4ax.com>) about 'OT: Red States to Secede', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:

Quote:

He's senile. Most ineffective Pope EVER!

Popes are always against war - it goes with the job in the same way as
they tend to be against sin. But this Pope hasn't been ineffective; he's
pronounced, often, very conservative dogma that I thought you would
support.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

David
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: OT: Red States to Secede

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 04:21:46 +0000, John S. Dyson wrote:

Quote:

I don't know why the left hates Bush.

Gee, where do I begin?

He lied to get us into a war.

There is no proof that Bush lied. Please refer to a dictionary

Look, it's quite simple - what Bush said about WMD in Iraq was untrue. He
has repeatedly said things that are untrue, regarding both international
and domestic affairs. That much is clear and simple fact.

The question is whether he knew they were untrue at the time (i.e., he
lied), whether he believed them to be true but was duped by those around
him (i.e., he was stupid and had appointed liars to trusted positions), or
whether everyone around him believed them to be true (i.e., the people
responsible for providing the information got it wrong).

So either Bush is a liar, or he is stupid and surrounded by liars, or
everyone from Bush downwards in the "intelligence" branch is incompetent.
Given the numbers of reports and complaints about people "higher up"
doctoring, changing, or dictating intelligence reports, I'd assume that,
in most cases, it's one of the first two. My personal opinion is that
while Bush probably knowingly lied on several occasions (he apparently has
no feelings of responsibility or scrupples), it's mostly a case of him
being stupid and surrounded by liars.

Quote:

EVERYBODY KNEW there was nothing
there!!!

Not true. Again, further indication of visceral leftist dishonesty.

Ok, everyone outside of America knew there was very little real chance of
Saddam having real, dangerous WMD's. Even within the US, anyone with two
brain cells to rub together (and the guts to use them, in the face of
witch-hunting) could have worked it out. Remember, the USA stopped
selling WMD's to Saddam shortly before the first US-Iraq war. They (along
with the UK) destroyed most of Iraq's infrastructure, bombed them into the
dark ages, then starved them for a decade, while watching closely all the
time. It would have been an impressive feat indeed if Saddam had managed
to get real WMD capability.

Anyway, the whole concept of "weapons of mass destruction" is a made-up
phrase to sound good in propoganda speaches (as is the modern American
misuse of "terrorist" to mean anything from "someone who wants to fight
America or Americans" upwards). Just for an example, a few years back a
fanatical religious group in Japan used nerve gass canisters (a "WMD") in
an underground. Six people were killed. A Korean terrorist killed well
over 200 people in a South Korean underground station, using a good
old-fashioned petrol bomb. Which of these was the weapon of mass
destruction?

Rich Grise
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:42 pm Post subject: Re: OT: Red States to Secede

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:54:54 -0500, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

Quote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:50:07 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

Simple fix: neither subsidize nor tax corporations.
John

Works for me! But who would contribute to election campaigns if there
were no money to fight over?

Well, first, we kill all the lawyers...

;-)

Rich Grise
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:46 pm Post subject: Re: OT: Red States to Secede

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:05:25 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

Quote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Charles Edmondson
edmondson@ieee.org> wrote (in <41eff7fb$1@news.cadence.com>) about 'OT:
Red States to Secede', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:
Because that corporation employs thousands of persons whoe EACH pay
taxes...

and issues dividends to stockholders who EACH pay taxes...

They get their cut, eventually!

You could be right. If the corp pays little tax but high dividends, then
indeed there is a compensation effect. It's up to the government then to
set the corporation and personal tax rates to achieve a suitable
balance. There could even be an argument for abolishing corporation tax
and make it all personal. But then there are arguments against any
income tax at all ......

The primary one being, taxation is theft. The highwayman robs you once,
and goes away. The tax collector robs you repeatedly, year after year.

What gives any person the right to benefit from the fruits of another's
labor? Or Labour, for the Brits amongst us. ;-)

Thanks,
Rich

Rich Grise
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:48 pm Post subject: Re: OT: Red States to Secede

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:32:22 -0500, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

Quote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:19:14 -0700, the renowned Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:11:33 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHIS
landPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in <rlnvu0lqmbtaoe6n0fftb3kh31mdhkv0de@
4ax.com>) about 'OT: Red States to Secede', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:

Even simpler: if I pay taxes, and you don't, and we both receive
benefits, you are on welfare.

It sounds OK initially, but then what to make of these big corporations
that pay minute amounts in tax? How do they fit in?

They don't pay taxes. Only end consumers pay sales tax. So you only
get taxed if you spend any of your income, earned or unearned (as they
call dividends, etc.).

...Jim Thompson

Getting rid of personal income tax (and disbanding the IRS) would be
the equivalent of winning WWII in terms of improving the quality of
lives. Maybe better.

Then howcome you guys aren't voting Libertarian? That's one of the planks

of our platform, you know.

Maybe it's the unreasoning terror that's triggered by ideas like ending
the insane war on drugs.

I'm coming to the conclusion that people don't want Freedom - they want
Mommy.

Thanks,
Rich

Rich Grise
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:51 pm Post subject: Re: OT: Red States to Secede

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:02:43 -0500, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

Quote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:52:42 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:43:07 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:28:00 -0500, Chuck Harris
cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

John, Don't waste your breath. Leftists just can not cope with the
concept that LESS taxes is a GOOD thing. Leftists throw up this
"corporate welfare" BS to confuse the masses... the masses who have NO
CLUE what it really is to PAY massive taxes... the masses who have NO
CLUE that it is THEY who are on welfare.

...Jim Thompson

It is really quite simple: If I pay more taxes, so you can pay less,
I am paying your way, and you are on welfare.

-Chuck

Yup. Just what I said. I'd just like to pay LESS of your way.

I pray for tax reform... but I doubt that it will ever happen... the
leftists won't allow anything that approaches fair taxation.

...Jim Thompson

The only rational taxation is a universal sales tax, with exemptions
for basics.

Screw the exemptions for "basics" (that's the politically easier
route, however). Give people money if they need it. The exemptions
cause a LOT of complexity with a reasonable VAT/GST type system
because of the way input tax credits have to be handled. AFAIK no
country has been able to do that (politically) at a useful tax rate.

That would reduce the huge disadvantage that domestic
manufacturers/employers face.

Income tax is a job-destroying machine.
John

*Replacing* IT with a GST/VAT at a reasonable rate would be nothing
short of revolutionary. Estate taxes should probably be jacked up
(make it easier to make money in this generation rather than
accumulate it over many), but that's another story.

What really needs to be repaired is the mindset that there's any
justification whatsoever for institutionalized theft.

Thanks,
Rich

	Electronics Forum Index -> Design	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 7 of 9

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum