A.R.B.R. ain't dead yet??????

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
skip wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

skip wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Mark Leuck wrote:



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



So no Corvair crushing, then?

--


Single gunshot wound to the head wasn't it?....

Nope, broadside by a Chevrolet Sedan near Midland Texas on Nov. 6,
1963.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth


This what you guys are talking about?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

If Hillary Rodham Clinton had done the same thing, O'Reilly, Limbaugh,
Hannity et al would have spent the last 15 years (virtually) crucifying
here for it.

--


Who else, other than Teddy K who deserves what he gets, has O'Reilly,
et.al. attacked for having an automobile accident, unless a driving
impairment or something like that was involved.

I can't think of anyone.

But then you are willing to (virtually) crucify L.Bush for being
involved in an automobile accident when she was 17 years old. What does
that make you vis-a-vis
O'Reilly and the others you mentioned?

I did not say that at all. I was merely pointing out the double standards
for Republicans and non-Republicans.

--


One more time. Who can you name that has been attacked for years by
those you mentioned for having an auto accident when no driving
impairment or other criminal charges were filed? The only one I can
think of is your irrelevant Kennedy friend who is quite deserving of it
all.

What double standard are you thinking about? Didn't the Dems try to
influence the first Bush election by releasing Bush's 30 year old DUI
arrest information in the last moments of the campaign? Whatever are you
thinking about?

And Bush was given a complete pass on all his mistakes by the pundits.
Both Clintons, Kerry and Gore were not given the same pass. Double
standard.

--

Won't answer the question. Gibberish noted.

skip

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
$kip wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Howard Dean is a conservative.

Whatever. One of our local columnist wrote a column on Dean's passionate
nature. To illustrate she said Dean left the Episcopal Church because
they refused to approve a bike path proposal he had put forward. That is
all she said. I would like to know the rest of the story. Like when
does one lose their religion over a bike path?...

Bike paths are a religion. Do a "Gurgle Gropes" [1] search for "Martin
Krieg" to verify.

[1] As G. Daniels would write "Google Groups".

--


I can give you postive assurance that I will not be doing what you suggest.
Would you like to have another try?

skip

skip wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

$kip wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Howard Dean is a conservative.

Whatever. One of our local columnist wrote a column on Dean's passionate
nature. To illustrate she said Dean left the Episcopal Church because
they refused to approve a bike path proposal he had put forward. That is
all she said. I would like to know the rest of the story. Like when
does one lose their religion over a bike path?...

Bike paths are a religion. Do a "Gurgle Gropes" [1] search for "Martin
Krieg" to verify.

[1] As G. Daniels would write "Google Groups".

--



I can give you postive assurance that I will not be doing what you suggest.
Would you like to have another try?

I see that is not your style. Do a search for "Mike Vandeman" instead.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

skip wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

skip wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


skip wrote:



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



Mark Leuck wrote:




"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...




So no Corvair crushing, then?

--


Single gunshot wound to the head wasn't it?....

Nope, broadside by a Chevrolet Sedan near Midland Texas on Nov. 6,
1963.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth


This what you guys are talking about?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

If Hillary Rodham Clinton had done the same thing, O'Reilly, Limbaugh,
Hannity et al would have spent the last 15 years (virtually) crucifying
here for it.

--


Who else, other than Teddy K who deserves what he gets, has O'Reilly,
et.al. attacked for having an automobile accident, unless a driving
impairment or something like that was involved.

I can't think of anyone.

But then you are willing to (virtually) crucify L.Bush for being
involved in an automobile accident when she was 17 years old. What does
that make you vis-a-vis
O'Reilly and the others you mentioned?

I did not say that at all. I was merely pointing out the double standards
for Republicans and non-Republicans.

--


One more time. Who can you name that has been attacked for years by
those you mentioned for having an auto accident when no driving
impairment or other criminal charges were filed? The only one I can
think of is your irrelevant Kennedy friend who is quite deserving of it
all.

What double standard are you thinking about? Didn't the Dems try to
influence the first Bush election by releasing Bush's 30 year old DUI
arrest information in the last moments of the campaign? Whatever are you
thinking about?

And Bush was given a complete pass on all his mistakes by the pundits.
Both Clintons, Kerry and Gore were not given the same pass. Double
standard.

--


Won't answer the question. Gibberish noted.

The question is not deserving of an answer.

--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
skip wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

$kip wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Howard Dean is a conservative.

Whatever. One of our local columnist wrote a column on Dean's
passionate nature. To illustrate she said Dean left the Episcopal
Church because they refused to approve a bike path proposal he had put
forward. That is all she said. I would like to know the rest of the
story. Like when does one lose their religion over a bike path?...

Bike paths are a religion. Do a "Gurgle Gropes" [1] search for "Martin
Krieg" to verify.

[1] As G. Daniels would write "Google Groups".

--



I can give you postive assurance that I will not be doing what you
suggest. Would you like to have another try?

I see that is not your style. Do a search for "Mike Vandeman" instead.

--

I can give you double postive assurance I won't be googling Vandeman.

I accept the reality that you will not answer the question. The
Krieg/Vandeman prattle is your way of taking the fifth.

skip

skip wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

skip wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


$kip wrote:



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



Howard Dean is a conservative.

Whatever. One of our local columnist wrote a column on Dean's
passionate nature. To illustrate she said Dean left the Episcopal
Church because they refused to approve a bike path proposal he had put
forward. That is all she said. I would like to know the rest of the
story. Like when does one lose their religion over a bike path?...

Bike paths are a religion. Do a "Gurgle Gropes" [1] search for "Martin
Krieg" to verify.

[1] As G. Daniels would write "Google Groups".

--



I can give you postive assurance that I will not be doing what you
suggest. Would you like to have another try?

I see that is not your style. Do a search for "Mike Vandeman" instead.

--


I can give you double postive assurance I won't be googling Vandeman.

I accept the reality that you will not answer the question. The
Krieg/Vandeman prattle is your way of taking the fifth.

Skip,
Leaving a church is not the same as changing religious belief - your
question is based on an assumption that is not true and therefore no
reasonable answer is possible.

In many ways the organized church has been the worst possible thing that
could happen to Christianity (and the same could be said about other
religions). In most cases, the religious "authorities" put personal
and/or group aims and beliefs ahead of the doctrine established by the
religion's founder and/or prophet(s).

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
skip wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

skip wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


$kip wrote:



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



Howard Dean is a conservative.

Whatever. One of our local columnist wrote a column on Dean's
passionate nature. To illustrate she said Dean left the Episcopal
Church because they refused to approve a bike path proposal he had put
forward. That is all she said. I would like to know the rest of the
story. Like when does one lose their religion over a bike path?...

Bike paths are a religion. Do a "Gurgle Gropes" [1] search for "Martin
Krieg" to verify.

[1] As G. Daniels would write "Google Groups".

--



I can give you postive assurance that I will not be doing what you
suggest. Would you like to have another try?

I see that is not your style. Do a search for "Mike Vandeman" instead.

--


I can give you double postive assurance I won't be googling Vandeman.

I accept the reality that you will not answer the question. The
Krieg/Vandeman prattle is your way of taking the fifth.

Skip,
Leaving a church is not the same as changing religious belief - your
question is based on an assumption that is not true and therefore no
reasonable answer is possible.

In many ways the organized church has been the worst possible thing that
could happen to Christianity (and the same could be said about other
religions). In most cases, the religious "authorities" put personal and/or
group aims and beliefs ahead of the doctrine established by the religion's
founder and/or prophet(s).

--
Tom Sherman - Earth


To my way of thinking, leaving the Espiscopal church, or the Methodist
church, or the Catholic church, etc., etc., is generally preceded by a
change in belief otherwise you would just go on down the street to the next
Espiscopal church, etc. and give them a try.

I'm not to hot to trot on the organized part of religion myself so your
point on that is taken.

skip

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
skip wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

skip wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


skip wrote:



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



Mark Leuck wrote:




"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...




So no Corvair crushing, then?

--


Single gunshot wound to the head wasn't it?....

Nope, broadside by a Chevrolet Sedan near Midland Texas on Nov. 6,
1963.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth


This what you guys are talking about?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

If Hillary Rodham Clinton had done the same thing, O'Reilly,
Limbaugh, Hannity et al would have spent the last 15 years
(virtually) crucifying here for it.

--


Who else, other than Teddy K who deserves what he gets, has O'Reilly,
et.al. attacked for having an automobile accident, unless a driving
impairment or something like that was involved.

I can't think of anyone.

But then you are willing to (virtually) crucify L.Bush for being
involved in an automobile accident when she was 17 years old. What
does that make you vis-a-vis
O'Reilly and the others you mentioned?

I did not say that at all. I was merely pointing out the double
standards for Republicans and non-Republicans.

--


One more time. Who can you name that has been attacked for years by
those you mentioned for having an auto accident when no driving
impairment or other criminal charges were filed? The only one I can
think of is your irrelevant Kennedy friend who is quite deserving of it
all.

What double standard are you thinking about? Didn't the Dems try to
influence the first Bush election by releasing Bush's 30 year old DUI
arrest information in the last moments of the campaign? Whatever are
you thinking about?

And Bush was given a complete pass on all his mistakes by the pundits.
Both Clintons, Kerry and Gore were not given the same pass. Double
standard.

--


Won't answer the question. Gibberish noted.

The question is not deserving of an answer.

--

You seem to be taking the fifth a lot today.

skip

skip wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

skip wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


skip wrote:



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



skip wrote:




"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...




Mark Leuck wrote:





"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...





So no Corvair crushing, then?

--


Single gunshot wound to the head wasn't it?....

Nope, broadside by a Chevrolet Sedan near Midland Texas on Nov. 6,
1963.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth


This what you guys are talking about?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

If Hillary Rodham Clinton had done the same thing, O'Reilly,
Limbaugh, Hannity et al would have spent the last 15 years
(virtually) crucifying here for it.

--


Who else, other than Teddy K who deserves what he gets, has O'Reilly,
et.al. attacked for having an automobile accident, unless a driving
impairment or something like that was involved.

I can't think of anyone.

But then you are willing to (virtually) crucify L.Bush for being
involved in an automobile accident when she was 17 years old. What
does that make you vis-a-vis
O'Reilly and the others you mentioned?

I did not say that at all. I was merely pointing out the double
standards for Republicans and non-Republicans.

--


One more time. Who can you name that has been attacked for years by
those you mentioned for having an auto accident when no driving
impairment or other criminal charges were filed? The only one I can
think of is your irrelevant Kennedy friend who is quite deserving of it
all.

What double standard are you thinking about? Didn't the Dems try to
influence the first Bush election by releasing Bush's 30 year old DUI
arrest information in the last moments of the campaign? Whatever are
you thinking about?

And Bush was given a complete pass on all his mistakes by the pundits.
Both Clintons, Kerry and Gore were not given the same pass. Double
standard.

--


Won't answer the question. Gibberish noted.

The question is not deserving of an answer.

--


You seem to be taking the fifth a lot today.

Well, I never claimed there were any other exact parallels, so I do not
see what your point is, except to be argumentative [1].

[1] Something I am quite familiar with.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"skip" wrote in message
...


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


skip wrote:



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



Actually, the unemployed in Scandinavia have better discretionary
incomes [1], housing and health care than the working poor in the US,
not to mention a whole lot more free time to ride bicycles. Pretty
terrible, huh?

[1] Enough to afford a recumbent bicycle, especially since practical
mass transportation make owning a motor vehicle for most people.



It's only pretty terrible for those poor suckers who are working to
provide this life of leisure for the "unemployed". But hey, if
everybody is happy then it's fine with me.

Are you happy for all the people in the US working for $6/hour at
crappy jobs where they are treated as disposable workers?

They can not afford recumbent bicycles, and they are likely working at
two or three jobs, so they have no time to ride.

Yes, it is a great country for those born into the lower classes.

--
Tom Sherman ?Earth


Why they don't go to Scandinavia where they could find happiness, afford
a recumbent bicycle, and have all day to ride it. Seems to me they would
be much off there rather than having to be lower class and work three
jobs at $6 per hour in the USA. In Scandinavia they could be unemployed
and middle class. That's what you would call a great country.


Americans aren't taking advantage of that opportunity, but Muslims are.
That's the dark cloud looming on Paradise's horizon.



P.S. I think they should also check out the unemployment opportunities
currently available in Germany.


Over 10% now.

But the truth is, no one has this problem worked out. Although Americans
work more, they're less productive per hour. France is moving back in
the other direction, and they're about to eliminate the 35 hour week, and
cut back on benefits, vacation time, etc. The problem is that we're
stuck with laboristic economies. There really is no ideal solution,
short of a genuine "ownership society." So I hope Bush is sincere about
that. But I'm not holding my breath....

Finally, you are making some sense.


The reason I stopped listening to the left is that their judgment is so
awful on the War on Terror that I figured it just couldn't be any good on
these other issues. And it's not. They're still retooling the same old
needs-based remedies they've always relied on. And they're still dead wrong
on foreign policy and the misnamed "War on Terror." Anyone who'd like to
know just how bad their judgment is, and how selective their memory, read
Hanson's "Merchants of Despair:"

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson...0502250748.asp



The answer is cooperation, where people help each other to lead
emotionally fulfilling lives, with basic needs met and some luxuries from
whatever surplus exists. Unfortunately, most people have not reached the
moral maturity to achieve that goal.


Do you know anything about John Nash and Game Theory? How about Public
Choice economics, which is based on a Game Theoretical approach? The
problem is that the sort of "cooperation" you envision can't happen without
the destruction of liberty. Plus (and this is documented in an enormous
amount of literature) the market failures that supposedly justify these
interventions actually exist only rarely. Even in the case of the railroad
cartels, for instance, the cartels didn't become stable until the government
intervened to remedy "inefficient competition." And it turns out that
there's little, if any, evidence of long run economies of scale, which is
the primary market failure that's used to justify these antics. In most
cases we're better off without the interventions.


What all the promoters of capitalism miss or ignore are the destructive
side effects of competition, where there must by necessity be losers in a
world of finite resources. The psychological damage is immense - one only
needs to compare young children raised in decent environments to the
average adults to see that.


So, you admit that the issue is child rearing practices and not
socio-economic? Why then, do you support interventions that perpetuate and
reward bad child-rearing practices?


We are failing as a species, and things are almost guaranteed to get much
worse over then next century. After that, hopefully the survivors will
have learned some important lessons and will build a society that
approaches human potential, or the species will become extinct to make way
for another that at least has the potential to be better.


I think you've misidentified the problem. It's not capitalism, but a
particular form of capitalism that concentrates capital in a few hands. And
no, compared to where we'd be if we adopted Marxism (which would be a dark
night of the spirit indeed) we're not doing too badly. Central tendancy
measures of wealth (not just mean, but median and mode) in the third world
are rising. If you want a phenomenal success story, just look at Chile.
Thanks to privatization of retirement there most retirees, and especially
women, will be able to retire with substancial income. And the
privatization and deregulation of infrastructure has also raised the general
standard of living. We just need to expand capital ownership, is all. And
that requires somewhat differently structured financial institutions. As
those are instituted we can gradually dispense with the welfare state life
rafts.

No, you like most people are unwilling to see things as they are and how
they could be. This is understandable, because the normal human brain is
not capable of handling such a disconnect - to know than only a small
handful of the six billion have the true freedom to pursue real
opportunities, while the rest are held in servitude by economic or
social restrictions will certainly lead to mental disorders.

You can not handle the truth of how bad things are, so you create clever
intellectual arguments to convince yourself that things are acceptable
and getting better. It is why you refuse to see evil where it clearly
exists. We are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth