winsor

Tax status.

It's been a while since I saw _Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas_. I read the book, but would be interested to see Johnny Depp's take on the good Doctor. Anyhow, it sounds like Slim Pickens to me.

Its My Little Pony. Not My Pink Pony Does my avatar throw a wrench in your heterosexual males confident in their sexuality would never have a pink avatar theory? I have a pink rig, and I'm pretty sure I'm straight. Why the pink rig? I bought it online, the description included model dimensions and condition. The color was mentioned when it was enroute. The upside of having a pink rig? Even full of free beer at a boogie, nobody is going to mistake it for theirs and stow it. The downside? If you hose a big way, even blurry video will get you axed. FWIW, none of the gay jumpers I know would be caught dead jumping something so tacky. BSBD Winsor

So what if bumper stickers tend to cut to the chase? The sentiment is still valid.

One of the problems I have with the whole liberal/conservative thing is that none of it is particularly well suited to a one-dimensional treatment. Even drawing a distinction between social/fiscal liberals/conservatives does little to clarify quite what is what. I am somewhat torn when it comes to religion, for example. I figure one is free to pursue whatever delusion gets them through the day, but I begrudge any group the right to regulate what I think. Since I am subject to summary execution in a nontrivial part of the world on the basis of my religious views, I do not think my objection to creeds from which this mandate arises are unreasonable. Thus, I think religion is like genitals - okay to have, fine to be proud of if you so choose, but bad manners to wave about in public - and certainly a crime to force upon the unwilling and/or children. As far as people's sexual predilections go, the saying goes that perversion is something that you, personally, won't do. I have known plenty of couples that I assume were gay (or straight), but they had the good taste to keep the particulars to themselves. I would much rather have a responsible gay/lesbian look after my kid than a straight person who felt compelled to proselytize their religious beliefs. Where I find myself at odds with Progressives/Social Liberals (my objection to Conservatives covered elsewhere) is when they seek to use the Government to inflict their views on the world, and me in particular. It's the old road to hell paved with good intentions thing. When the Gov't sets forth a "war on" something besides a military opponent (drugs, poverty, whatever), it is sure to be a disaster. The War on Poverty, for example, has served to institutionalize the poverty-stricken as a class, and to make poverty an industry in and of itself. When you build "projects," you are making an investment to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars that there will be sufficient poverty-stricken people to keep them filled for decades on end. By subsidizing poverty-stricken children, you ensure the next generation of poverty; designating kids as a cash crop for the indigent serves to keep those in poverty in poverty. If you attempt to dissuade people who cannot afford children from having them, the door is opened to allegations of racism, genocide and the like. Nevertheless, a policy of "if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" would have served to cut off poverty at its source, had it been implemented instead of social welfare programs which serve to proliferate poverty. Mike Judge's "Idiocracy" was, if anything, optimistic. His portrayal of a dystopian future was nowhere near as virulent as the history of societies in decline would indicate. In any event, the problem with either side of the political spectrum would seem to come with flawed models of quite what constitutes the ideal state. As luck would have it, both sides seek to defend the indefensible, and to do so in the most offensive manner possible. At least true fiscal conservatives understand the difference between a profit and a loss, which makes liberals penultimate losers. BSBD, Winsor

Maybe Pope Ghoes de Huiesel?

you have a point. its based on your dislike of the profession and manipulation of the English language, though. hah i feel we do create great wealth. we provide the capital to people with good ideas. And where did that capital come from? Did you create it out of thin air, or skim it from a real creator of wealth? some of it is ours and others is outside investors. i have mostly worked for privately held banks, partnerships with alot of their own capital at risk. including my current job. we are paid for our services. its not abnormal. i understand you feel it is shameful. im not bothered. i am proud of my job. we recently financed a water facility. we took some of the profits from the deal to hire a disabled veteran. the rest will be used to finance another deal. i feel its creating wealth and important. not to mention people appreciate clean drinking water. edited to add: i am aware municipal water facilities do not create wealth even though needed. hiring new people does. that was my point. also, i am aware my post was a bit dramatic. it was meant to be since most of you think i am an evil man. wanted to show you all a softer side. . One thing that concerns me is when referees begin to think of themselves as players. Congress would appear to suffer from the delusion that they can create affluence by means of appropriate legislation. Similarly, banks fancy themselves as prime movers of the economy. You are either the house, a player, a shill or a tout. You incur risk when you seek to blur those distinctions. BSBD, Winsor

They intend to mail it. They are trying to beat the deadline before Saturday delivery is ended.

As usual I did not run the numbers, but in broad strokes this: http://www.youtube.com/embed/Li0no7O9zmE does a pretty good job of describing our plight.

Yes, this and limiting the size and power of the government to identified Constitutional levels Counting on the government to act with restraint, absent adult supervision, is pointless. This piece came from last year, but the basics still apply: "If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand." - Dave Ramsey The core issue is that our government has behaved like a teenager with a no-limit credit card; it is not possible to make enough to keep up with their expenditures. The problem is that we have been spending money we don't have for the past half century, and we are beyond the tipping point. It is no longer a question of 'if' so much as 'when, and how bad.' It was fun while it lasted. BSBD, Winsor That example is not very accurate. The spending cuts are not cutting what US Gov is currently spending. It's instead cutting the increase to what they are currently spending. So instead of cutting the $75,000 a year budget, the budget is increasing by $5,000 a year to $80,000 and that is being cut to $78,000 a year. It was posted in August of 2011, and it seemed appropriate in light of whatever our enlightened leadership proposed at the time. I did not bother to modify it to fit current conditions. My personal analogy is one being a few hundred grand in debt, spending, say, $1,500 a month more than being deposited. If one then spoke to their banker (with annoyance at being expected to slow down on the Very Important expenditures), and said "okay, I'll only spend $1,400 more than I deposit per month - are you satisfied?," I expect they would have Bernie Madoff as a roommate. I think there should be a Math - or at least basic Arithmetic - requirement for any office where handling of finances is involved. Our elected officials are truly innumerate. BSBD, Winsor

Yes, this and limiting the size and power of the government to identified Constitutional levels Counting on the government to act with restraint, absent adult supervision, is pointless. This piece came from last year, but the basics still apply: "If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand." - Dave Ramsey The core issue is that our government has behaved like a teenager with a no-limit credit card; it is not possible to make enough to keep up with their expenditures. The problem is that we have been spending money we don't have for the past half century, and we are beyond the tipping point. It is no longer a question of 'if' so much as 'when, and how bad.' It was fun while it lasted. BSBD, Winsor

Who knows? Had his real pals won their little dust-up, they just might have considered you one of the "few of the right type", and not transformed you into macadam. Then again, with your skill set, you just might have been considered too dangerous. Eh, but he was a good pilot with guts, and he helped kill Japs (of course); so whatever. So he was a nazi. Nobody's perfect.

One you do not hear much about is Aldo Ray. He survived the war after serving as a UDT diver. My father worked a Bofors 40mm on the bow of LCIG 365, and took part in a number of invasions. You hear about a handful of islands the Marines stormed, but they took about one island a week when up to pace, IIRC. In any event, my father once noted that the terror he felt while being just off the beach under withering fire from Japanese defenses a short distance away, and was stunned by the UDT guys who blithely zipped further toward the beach, rolled out of their little boats and did their job. He described it as the most amazing demonstration of courage he had ever seen. Aldo Ray was one of those guys. My father never said a kind word about John Wayne. He viewed The Duke as the worst kind of draft dodger wannabe. FWIW, Ronald Reagan, though he never served overseas, was a Captain in the USAAF, serving from 1937 to 1945. He was a reserve officer when hostilities were declared, and called to active duty thereafter. Though turned down for a commission by the White House, Charles Lindbergh managed to become a fighter ace, flying some 50 combat missions as a civilian "technical adviser." My Thesis Adviser was with the Signal Corps in the Pacific. Knowing I was a Paratrooper, he told me about his experience at Fort Benning before going overseas. It seems that Paratroopers in the vicinity of Benning made a habit of pushing leg-mobile types out of their way when walking down the street. I do not know if Dr. Beard was one of those bullied by the newly-minted Elite Troops, but he took umbrage at the practice. In any event, there were a number of combat veterans who found themselves stateside, at Benning in particular. A couple of Paratroopers tried to push these guys out of the way - assuming their lack of swagger mean they were easy pickings - and the Paratroops were then hospitalized with severe injuries. John Wayne had a reputation for picking fistfights with people he thought he could best. He, like the untested Paratroops, seemed both full of himself and needing to prove something. Maybe he took a stab at being active duty; I have no first hand knowledge. However, the fact that he was a civilian who played military heroes in the movies makes him no less of a poser than Sylvester Stallone (who was 4-F, IIRC). BSBD, Winsor

Her numbers are perfectly reasonable. 47,300 American jobs + 169,952,700 Chinese jobs. When people refer to the 'Manufacturing Sector,' they certainly include jobs necessay to manufacture the goods which maintain our standard of living, so I am sure she just assumed everyone was on the same page. Of course, if she had said '170 million AMERICAN jobs' that would simply reaffirm the fact that she is a complete moron. I have had house plants that were brighter than her. BSBD, Winsor

Patriot Act would have been a better place to start. Agreed With EVERY law EVERY law should start with an examination of the Patriot Act's constitutionality? In Chicago ca. 1969 there was a group called the SVNA - the Students for Violent Non-Action. They were, of course, totally non-violent, and used a tongue in cheek approach to addressing issues instead of alienating by confrontation. When I hear sweetness-and-light monikers related to anything political, I shudder. To "Pacify" a village required extreme violence so the residents could "rest in peace," the "House Unamerican Activities Committee" was the most unamerican thing the House had ever fostered, and so forth. Going all Godwin here, "Homeland Security" and the "Patriot Act" were names that would have made Unser Giftzwerg (Josef Goebbels) proud. "Damn the Constitution, full speed ahead!" BSBD, Winsor

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate! Anyhow, here's another take on the matter. Onion is liberal bias. See how they twist it. Trying to make noted journalist insignificant. Wrong. It's just that conservatives have no sense of humor. Both extremes of the political spectrum could well heed Mahatma Gandhi's rejoinder to "fuck 'em if they can't take a joke." Then again, that may have been Mick Jagger. I get witty foreigners mixed up.

She is a major DUMB ASS...yet she is supported by Dumb Asses by the 10's of thousands. Maxine Waters is further proof of my claim that stupidity is our only limitless natural resource. She is a veritable wellspring.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate! Anyhow, here's another take on the matter.

Adolf was, of course, a (National) Socialist. Mussolini was a lifelong Communist. Think of it like curvilinear space - if you go far enough in either direction, you wind up in the same place. Are you better off being purged by Chairman Mao, Joe Stalin or Adolf Hitler? Six of one, half a dozen of the other (though Mao made Hitler look like a rank amateur by dint of sheer numbers). I really should take the time to finish reading Mein Kampf, but it is so badly written that doing so is downright painful. After the first hundred pages or so, the tone does not change and it does not get any better, so the inclination is to conclude that you get the drift and move on. Marx is not much, if any, better, but I forced my way through the "Communist Manifesto." In either case, you have a set of wretched writings that form the basis for political orthodoxy; on that basis the True Believers [tm] will justify doing ANYTHING. The distinction between Commies and Fascists is like that between Democrats vs. Republicans - the only significant difference is the constituencies to which they pander. Put them in power without adult supervision, and the results are pretty much the same. BSBD, Winsor

I hate to break it to you, but that sorry sonofabitch was a first class draft dodger. These guys were the real deal.

"For playing all night on a single quarter, reaching the level of 14 and a score of 2,406,500, we hereby award you the highest honor in the video game world. You should be proud." Those guys crawling around in the mud with things going bang around them should be ashamed of themselves.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/20/coal-cleanest-energy-source-there-is/ The fox article is wrong. The process still produces carbon dioxide, it has to. If you read the original source information they make this clear. The process produces a stream of nearly pure CO2. They are just assuming that the CO2 is magically captured and stored. They are also neglecting NOx emissions from the air oxidation to regenerate the iron oxide. Hey, it's twice as clean as cold fusion so what's the problem?

Bunch of shills for the oil companies, I'm sure.

I find this interesting Can you expand? I stumbled across this. It does a pretty good job of explaining why the issue is no so much working out how the bills are paid as it is why the bills are so insanely high in the first place.

That would be Argumentum Ad Verecundiam. This is both circumstantial and abusive Argumentum Ad Hominem.