[Mariss Freimanis]

I think you placing my wife's 4D space-time continuum coordinates relative to mine in that specific proximity is a sexist and misogynistic juxtaposition.:-)

Mariss

[Milo]

Usually when I've seen this, the Board has golden parachutes and are voting huge million dollar pay raises for themselves. When the Board is gutting the company while telling the workers there is no money, it's hard for them to willingly accept that as truth.

Sounds like freddie mac

[handlewanker]

That's the trouble with yo'all over there, too much politics guiding you, and for what good?

Another thing yo'all are forgetting, you may be the UNITED STATES OF A but you don't have a clue when it comes to working together for the common good.

It is without a doubt, that if you can score a notch on your pistol by gunning someone down, then that is what you do, every time.

This is not to be taken as an indication of your crazy gun laws, but as an attitude of mind you have developed by only having 200 to 300 at most years of being a nation, and have yet to learn the value of your fellow man.

I quite like yo'all as a bunch of people, but while you run around kicking arses in foreign lands, which goes for your quaint form of foreign policy, you become very tiresome with your every four year or so political upheavals.

The coming climate change which has been prophesised by the most eminent scientific minds we have, (yours and everyone elses), is also disputed by a like group of eminent scientific minds, so don't run away with the idea that merely quoting some peer reviewed scientific findings is going to convince anyone that you pseudo scientists know what you are ranting about.
Ian.

[Mariss Freimanis]

MrWild,

Come on, you know me. Leave all that aside; leave the caveats, exceptions and exclusions to the lawyers. Will you or will you not play a "living and breathing" game of poker with me?

I give you the same opportunity as I have reserved for myself; your poker rules can "live and breathe" as you interpret them too. I wonder what kind of a game we would have.:-)

Therein is the problem; personal perspective. You kind of gave it away in your description of conservatives, "Obviously Liberals had their way and drug the Conservatives kicking and screaming towards enlightenment".

You know enlightenment, others that don't believe as you aren't. How were you ever blessed with this knowledge of revealed truth? That's treacle and you know it.

I lack your sense of enlightenment so I have to live life as best I can. Hurt no one intentionally or for sport, help others where I can, work hard and treat everyone as I would like to be treated myself. I would never dream of inflicting my world view on you even while you lust to destroy mine.

Mariss

[MrWild]

Mariss, I was thinking maybe Chess would be better. If I got the first move, naturally I'd win... Of course, the winner would be determine by who got the first move. :-)

I didn't mean to impose my world view on you perse'. I've read a lot of bitterness and narrow minded thinking (from others) that tends to deny freedoms even when those freedoms don't impose an iota upon the ones feeling offended. Seriously, I don't see how two people getting married can affect anyone but those involved in that particular contract. That isn't enlightenment, that is just giving my neighbor the right to do what he or she wants to for their own personal freedom. It shouldn't even be my business, why would I want to stick my nose into another's world?

My point to you in regards to telling your wife she shouldn't have her rights as they were amended, is because if the constition shouldn't be changed ever, then her rights shouldn't be considered because they were never addressed in the original document. It was an example of how the constitution has been changed and change isn't always a bad thing, is it?.

Further observation is that over the years, many Conservatives have shown to be closed minded in regards to equal rights for all. I want everyone to have the same oportunities I've been blessed with. Maybe I take the Golden Rule too much at face value. I don't see it as a "Don't hit them because I don't want to be hit," I see it as a way for all to have the freedoms I take for granted everyday.

Change has to start somewhere, and it's usually the Liberals that accept it and push it forward while Conservatives balk and don't wish to rock the boat, claiming that they in some way will be made to suffer. I could have asked you to make a seperate facility for your black workers to eat and relieve themselves, or that schools should once again be segregated. In those cases, again, conservatives claimed they would be hurt and suffer if equal rights were afforded to all. In those regards, wasn't the constitution amended? Was it wrong to do so? I don't think so, and Conservatives today accept many things as a given when their counterparts of the day, didn't.

In just about every case of a paradigm shift, there have been stalewart conservatives refusing to allow basic freedoms to go forward. All have claimed that they would be hurt in some obscure way. All refused to see it wasn't something that hurt them directly, but they suffered emotionally because their status quo had been ripped asunder. Yes I used too broad a brush when I said Conservatives had to be dragged kicking and screaming. Some refuse to be enlightened at all. :-)

About your last paragraph, I don't lust to destroy your world view. I'm not out walking the streets carrying a sign, or donating to some ultra liberal antithesis of a John Birch organization. it bothers me you've come away with that impression. All I wish is that all can be blessed with the freedoms I take for granted. Is that a bad thing to yearn? Yearning and lusting are two different emotions. I don't lust for equality, but I truely yearn it.

[One of Many]

As individuals, we all have the same basic rights. By individual choice of behavior, there are hard limits of disapproval we all endure and will prefer not promote as beneficial to our fundamental culture. Purportedly directed by all of society, as we the people, not just a few that force yearning into demands; militantly or by legislation. That fine line always seems based in degrees of sodomy and what is being pushed against the will of the nonparticipating masses as acceptable behavior/lifestyles.

Considering this repulsive, disgusting and offensive behavior or any expressed aversion there in, is now turned over to sensitivity retraining. Or it is spun back into a personal flaw on those with moral endearments that find it reprehensible with the constant barrage of how some think everyone needs to know about their unabashed intimate proclivities. I really don't get that, so why do we NEED to know?

I always find it amazing how open minded and intolerant the "enlightened" jump to judgments with hatred, bigotry and ignorance claims of the majority position across our land, over these issues. I sincerely do not care what they do in private, and I sure as he!! Don't see the need to broadcast it publicly via window stickers as depraved in-your-face insults to most, with these insolent/impudent symbols of pride for their insider's.

Stating it has no affect on our lives is deniable when we are forced to put up with the charade of gender confusion and any other gamut the goes with that territory. We have seen that evidence when the likes of gaybcnews can prevaricate to us a "man" is pregnant. How is this hyped provocation an enlightened benefit to man kind?

We are supposed to be silenced not to offend the offenders? Is it this kind of intolerance, the only thing that keeps us equal or lends true power to the people that a few would rather do away with and let the courts decide for us? That is insanity and history shows what social engineering that has gained us. There are legitimate methods to civil unions, wills and living trusts that do not encroach on marriage as its traditionally intended institution.

This has nothing to do with liberal race baiting issues to make it palatable. Although I see the context as another form of usury to gain a voting bloc. History does not show this troubling time to have been liberated by liberals either as some would have us believe!

One sides view, but not the only view!

The point being, I see nothing wrong with protecting traditional rights and have no need for special rights protecting behavioral choices other than my own. I can sympathize with their position, but also have the right to agree to disagree by choice as well. That does not mean I hold hate for them as private citizens. Just reviled where it interferes with the issue I consider as on the surface vulgarity we are suppose to ignore. Keep it private and I'd prefer to be ignorant. As with all other offensive unspeakable perversions that may utilize the same path toward forceful recognition and coercion to strong arm the main stream.



DC

[dufas]

Just picking one of your rants, how does allowing gay marriage impinge upon your personal freedoms? I find myself not really carng one way or another on this "right." I'm curious how something that has no affect on you except emotionally should be a law you impose on others.

If you would read what I wrote in my "rant" correctly, you would have noticed that I did NOT say that I was against same sex couples. In fact, if you had perused the post correctly without involving your emotions, you would have seen that my freedoms was never mentioned. I stated that I objected to the use of the term "marriage" in describing a homosexual union. If I told you that I watched a gay movie last night, the first thing that would pop into your mind would be that I viewed a video depicting homosexuals. when in fact, it was a classic movie called "The Gay Divorcee". The word 'gay' used to mean happy, content, enjoyable, now it only means one thing.....did you have a gay time last night ????

Could you point me to a news article where Liberals are looking for post birth abortion? I've never heard it from their mouths, but you are the second conservative to swear it is so. I guess I am one of those nasty Liberals you despise as I think first trimester abortions are okay. Beyond that, no way. I'm not going to go out and bomb churches that preach otherwise, unlike some Conservatives that shoot doctors and bomb clinics. Although I'd like more than you're willing to give, I'm far and away fromlate term abortions, partial birth aborthions, and born baby killing.

The term 'post birth abortion' has been cleaned up in the last few years. It now is called Euthanasia and as such now encompasses any person from the second of birth to the extreme elderly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/ma...erland&emc=rss

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/134254

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-stu050307.php

Global warming just so this post has something to do with the thread. I live where we are stuck with reformulated gas. It's supposed to help alleviate "Ozone action days." Kind if weird though. If I run good gas from the enxt county over, I get 30-34mpg. If I run the reformulated gas, I get 24-26 mpg. The particulates, CO2, etc is less per million with the reformulated gas, but I use much more of it. how in the heck is that helping my air? There has been no reduction in Ozone days. Oddly enough, Chicago is just 60 miles away, and they don't use the reformulated gas because they managed to convince congress it was all the fault of south-eastern Wisconsin. Say what???? Chicago and vicinity is FOUR times larger than Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha combined. Obviously the air hasn't improved even with the smog checks by DMV (another thing they don't suffer through).

That is nothing new...I live down wind from a large city that receaves awards for for their clean air and we get high taxes, rules and regulations that holds back our local economy and many freedoms. All of the large city's foul air blows into our area and we are the ones that pay for it...

[dufas]

--MrWild

I didn't mean to impose my world view on you perse'.

That is what liberals do, impose their world view on others using any method they can..

My point to you in regards to telling your wife she shouldn't have her rights as they were amended, is because if the constition shouldn't be changed ever, then her rights shouldn't be considered because they were never addressed in the original document. It was an example of how the constitution has been changed and change isn't always a bad thing, is it?.

Amendments would depend on what the change is. Righting wrongs that have been going on for hundreds of years is not bad. My point was that the Constitution is a contract with the citizens of this country and shouldn't be twisted to fit some groups political views. It's bad enough that the courts and the legal system is politicized without rogue judges making abstract constitutional interpretations to fit some eclectic world view.

In California, there is a couple of legislators that want to make a huge money grab. They are working on a bill that would allow the government to confiscate 52 percent of all of a person's total wealth over a certain total value. The value of that wealth keeps changing as they work out the details. Another federal politician wants to tax everything a person owns every year. If one has a big screen TV, it will be taxed again and again. Same with everything else.

Further observation is that over the years, many Conservatives have shown to be closed minded in regards to equal rights for all. I want everyone to have the same oportunities I've been blessed with. Maybe I take the Golden Rule too much at face value. I don't see it as a "Don't hit them because I don't want to be hit," I see it as a way for all to have the freedoms I take for granted everyday.

Change has to start somewhere, and it's usually the Liberals that accept it and push it forward while Conservatives balk and don't wish to rock the boat, claiming that they in some way will be made to suffer. I could have asked you to make a seperate facility for your black workers to eat and relieve themselves, or that schools should once again be segregated. In those cases, again, conservatives claimed they would be hurt and suffer if equal rights were afforded to all. In those regards, wasn't the constitution amended? Was it wrong to do so? I don't think so, and Conservatives today accept many things as a given when their counterparts of the day, didn't.

In just about every case of a paradigm shift, there have been stalewart conservatives refusing to allow basic freedoms to go forward. All have claimed that they would be hurt in some obscure way. All refused to see it wasn't something that hurt them directly, but they suffered emotionally because their status quo had been ripped asunder. Yes I used too broad a brush when I said Conservatives had to be dragged kicking and screaming. Some refuse to be enlightened at all. :-)

Again, [remembering your statement that you investigate the facts before you decide], you really missed the boat on this one or you have been drinking the liberal koolaide for too long. Look up the term 'Dixiecrats'... These were liberals who fought integration tooth and nail. When it appeared that they were going to lose, they came up with 'separate, but equal' to try for a compromise and reach 'middle ground', Some vague Republican named Lincoln pushed freedom for the blacks and even directed awar encompassing that cause. Remember, it was called "The Cicil War..." Another Republican by the name of Eisenhower re-affirmed the freedom of blacks. No Republican wanted to use the US military against US citizens. Johnson, a liberal, had no qualms about using the military and, true, he broke the stalemate. The South was primarily a Democrat stronghold until then.

About your last paragraph, I don't lust to destroy your world view. I'm not out walking the streets carrying a sign, or donating to some ultra liberal antithesis of a John Birch organization. it bothers me you've come away with that impression. All I wish is that all can be blessed with the freedoms I take for granted. Is that a bad thing to yearn? Yearning and lusting are two different emotions. I don't lust for equality, but I truely yearn it.

While I realize that your post was directed at someone else, I feel, [a liberal word, i know...], that your last comments need to be addressed.

First of all, liberals whether they are super moderate or raving, far left wing idealists all have one thing in common. They want everyone to live, think, and act in the liberal mindset. At the core of their being, no matter how tolerant they expound, no matter how free they state they want people to be, the liberal still wants to mold everyone to their world view and will use any method they can to achieve that goal. The majority of liberals lean towards socialism, many are downright communistic. The liberal darling, the ACLU was founded by socialists in order to use America's laws against America in order to bring the US in line with those socialist views. Search "ACLU socialist" and see what comes up. The average liberal dreads anyone other than liberal judges in the court system. Liberals love other people's money, can't get enough of it. In the name of freedom, liberals tell others how to live.

You intimate that liberals are more tolerant than anyone else......
Liberals don't tolerate anybody or anything that doesn't fit in the liberal's world view..... The liberal will fight to change that that doesn't fit that view, until then, a liberal can never be at peace...

Liberals pick and choose what and who they will tolerate.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801105_pf.html

Funny how tolerance works, especially Liberal tolerance........


PS...[and this will irk Handlewanker out of his gourd....] We have 10 kids, all but one is grown up and making a life for themselves.. What does this have to do with the conversation, you ask ??? I don't think you know the meaning of tolerance. The kids are 8 females and 2 males. One daughter is married to a Black man, another is married to a Latino. One has never married and has a Latino child. Another is engaged to a Black man. Three of them must be bigots because they married white men. The last daughter is still in school and lives at home. One of the sons is married to a white female and the other is still unmarried. Every holiday, they all descend on our house, just as they will this coming Thanksgiving. Most of them will bring their extended families, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, and children all with them along with food of all kinds. You have never feasted until you have had Latino, Soul Food, and country cooking all sitting just out of reach before you and you have to fight through a loving crowd for firsts and/or seconds and maybe, just a taste for thirds. We have a hell of a good time.

Not everyone fits into your world picture no matter how hard you try to put them there....

[MrWild]

Dufas,

Did you really just lump Klan members into the Liberal pot because they belonged to the Democratic party? This happened way back during the Yellow dog days of politics in the south. They felt that republicans were too open minded (your reference to Abe Lincoln comes to mind) and would rather vote for an old yeller dog than some pimped up republican. Now that Republicans embrace closed mindedness, the southern states have all become republicans. Amazing isn't it? A person's party affiliation doesn't automatically label them one way or another. History is very interesting because if you don't dig, you can spout facts thast aren't facts (and vice versa). Remember the Deocratic convention of 1968? I do, it was just 60 miles away. It sure seems like the parties have switched roles.

I had to add this. Thank you for explaining the California perspective on the grab of wealth. That is OUTLANDISH! I'd find myself up in arms in a huge way. This is what you conservatives in California are facing? Seriously, it sounds like time to buy guns. Yeah I feel you should pay income taxes based on your income with loopholes closed (flat rate tax?), but the grabbing of wealth? That is obsurd and should be squashed with arms if it comes to pass. Please don't lump my views in with those of liberal extremists. WOW, that idea floors me and it is a very dangerous land those idiots are treading. No wonder some are automatically equating liberals with socialism.

[dufas]

Dufas,

Did you really just lump Klan members into the Liberal pot because they belonged to the Democratic party? This happened way back during the Yellow dog days of politics in the south. They felt that republicans were too open minded (your reference to Abe Lincoln comes to mind) and would rather vote for an old yeller dog than some pimped up republican. Now that Republicans embrace closed mindedness, the southern states have all become republicans. Amazing isn't it? A person's party affiliation doesn't automatically label them one way or another. History is very interesting because if you don't dig, you can spout facts thast aren't facts (and vice versa). Remember the Deocratic convention of 1968? I do, it was just 60 miles away. It sure seems like the parties have switched roles.

I had to add this. Thank you for explaining the California perspective on the grab of wealth. That is OUTLANDISH! I'd find myself up in arms in a huge way. This is what you conservatives in California are facing? Seriously, it sounds like time to buy guns. Yeah I feel you should pay income taxes based on your income with loopholes closed (flat rate tax?), but the grabbing of wealth? That is obsurd and should be squashed with arms if it comes to pass. Please don't lump my views in with those of liberal extremists. WOW, that idea floors me and it is a very dangerous land those idiots are treading. No wonder some are automatically equating liberals with socialism.

The Ku Klux Klan statement was in reference to tolerance. The liberals have a habit of digging dirt on any and every conservative they find and attempt to destroy the conservative while one of there own can get away with just about anything. Senator Byrd has been known to a card carrying Ku Klux Klan member since the start, yet the liberals let it slide, just as they are doing now with Jefferson of Louisiana and the graft and kick backs he has been getting. Clinton could get away with anything while the liberals went back thirty years in a conservative Oregon politician's life and screwed him and his career over a kiss in an elevator.

The current banking crisis can be laid directly at the feet of the liberals.

Barney Frank, and a few other Democrats pushed for the banking industry to loosen up the mortgage loans to allow lower income people to buy homes. Clinton sued Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac to back those ill conceived loans Since it was Democrats that pushed the industry into this bad position, no Democrat will be brought onto the carpet. [Dems protect their own no matter what, sort of like a mother does her kids...] If it was the Republicans that made this kind of move, the liberals would be screaming for the conservative's heads...

Addendum...The tax scheme is a lot like driving a car. Go too fast [earn too much] and you get a ticket. Drive really fast, [earn lots of money], and you really get nailed... Why try to better ones own lot in life when the government keeps taking a larger and larger cut.

It's like digging a post hole to put up a fence and the boss keeps throwing dirt in the hole, one never gets very far unless they can dig faster than the boss can fill the hole back up...

[dufas]

just for info.............

The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law that requires banks and savings and loan associations to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as "redlining." The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to under-served populations and commercial loans to small businesses. It has been subjected to important regulatory revisions.



The CRA was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community. Only one banker, Ron Grzywinski from ShoreBank in Chicago, testified in favor of the act. The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions after the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 repealed restrictions on interstate banking. However, until 1995 the Act was laxly enforced and banks only were required to advertise in local minority newspapers or sit on the boards of local community groups. The CRA is enforced by the financial regulators (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC"), Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS"), and the Federal Reserve System).


The bill encouraged mortgage lending through two government sponsored enterprises ("GSEs"). One, the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, enables mortgage companies, savings and loans, commercial banks, credit unions, and state and local housing finance agencies to lend to home buyers. The other, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, buys mortgages on the secondary market and sell them as mortgage-backed securities on the open market. It also charged the Federal Reserve System to implement the CRA through ensuring banks and savings and loans met their CRA obligations.


Bush 1 Administration Changes of 1989


The Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), enacted in the wake of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, increased public oversight of the process. It required the agencies to issue CRA ratings publicly and written performance evaluations using facts and data to support the agencies' conclusions. It also required a four-tiered CRA examination rating system with performance levels of "Outstanding," "Satisfactory," "Needs to Improve," or "Substantial Noncompliance."


Clinton Administration Changes of 1995


In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities. The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to target to groups to collect a fee from the banks.


The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were "risky mortgages." Banks set up CRA departments, a CRA consultant industry was created and new financial-services firms helped banks invest in packaged portfolios of CRA loans to ensure compliance. Established and new community groups began marketing such mortgages. The Senate Banking Committee estimated that as of 2000, as a result of CRA, such groups had received $9.5 billion in services and salaries. As of that time such groups also had received tens of billions of dollars in multi-year commitments from banks, including ACORN Housing $760 million; Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America $3 billion; a New Jersey Citizen Action-led coalition $13 billion; the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance $220 million. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.


Related rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks, encouraging banks to make even more loans to low income communities, often with no down payment and little documentation. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market. Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.


Bush 2 Administration Changes of 2005


In 2002 there was an interagency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered. In related 2003 proposals, the Bush Administration recommended that a new Department of the Treasury agency should supervise the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressional support was approximately split along Party lines and the proposal eventually failed. The New York Times, calling Barney Frank "the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee," quoted his opposition to the changes: "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."


The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency put new regulations into effect September of 2005. The regulations were opposed by a contingent of Democrats


The regulations included less restrictive new definitions of "small" and "intermediate small" banks. "Intermediate small banks" were defined as banks with assets of less than $1 billion, but allows banks to opt for examination as a large bank.[13] Currently banks with assets greater than $1.061 billion have their CRA performance evaluated according to lending, investment and service tests. The agencies use the Consumer Price Index to adjust the asset size thresholds for small and large institutions annually.


Some economists have questioned if CRA originally was, or at least had become, irrelevant because the CRA was not needed to force banks to make profitable loans to a variety of lenders. Economist Howard Husock writes that a CRA-connected community group The Woodstock Institute found in a survey in the Chicago-area that even banks not subject to CRA tended to loan in a variety of of neighborhoods. He also criticized as an "amateur delivery system" community groups' involvement in marketing loans.


Economist Stan Liebowitz has claimed that banks were forced to loan to consumers who were not credit worthy with "no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment." The chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the nation's largest mortgage lender, is said to have "bragged" that in order to approve minority applications, "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit."



The Wall Street Journal editorial recently argued that the law compelled banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often could not repay them and that this contributed to the subprime crisis.

[dufas]

Things depend on ones point of view........................

A list of possible political subjects using cows as an analogy......


SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbor.


COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.


FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.


NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.


BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away...


TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.


SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.


AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.


ENRON VENTURE
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of
credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release.

The public then buys your bull.


A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.


A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.

You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called 'Cowkimon' and market it worldwide.


A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.


AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.


A RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
You count them again and learn you have 2 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.


A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.


A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.


AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.


A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.


AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the stuffings out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy...


AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.


A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive..

[NinerSevenTango]

The difference between a moderate liberal and a moderate conservative is which of your freedoms they'd like to take away.

The real issue is liberty versus coercion. "Moderate" means "some" coercion.

My view on that probably makes me a "Radical". (Because I believe everyone has a right to keep the fruits of their own labor, a right to privacy and to ownership of themselves, and I think it is absurd to ask for permission from the state to live with a loved one. Fire at will!)

It has been said that the only thing to be found in the middle of the road is a yellow stripe.

As far as global warming -- ahem, climate change goes, the polar ice caps are melting and we are all going to drown. Or, maybe we will get frozen over like Greenland. Here's some evidence from today's Sydney paper:

http://news.smh.com.au/world/over-20...1122-6eas.html

--97T--

[dufas]

The difference between a moderate liberal and a moderate conservative is which of your freedoms they'd like to take away.

The real issue is liberty versus coercion. "Moderate" means "some" coercion.

My view on that probably makes me a "Radical". (Because I believe everyone has a right to keep the fruits of their own labor, a right to privacy and to ownership of themselves, and I think it is absurd to ask for permission from the state to live with a loved one. Fire at will!)

It has been said that the only thing to be found in the middle of the road is a yellow stripe.

As far as global warming -- ahem, climate change goes, the polar ice caps are melting and we are all going to drown. Or, maybe we will get frozen over like Greenland. Here's some evidence from today's Sydney paper:

http://news.smh.com.au/world/over-20...1122-6eas.html

--97T--

One doesn't know where a moderate stands at any given moment but in the long run, it is usually to the left....even the moderate conservatives....

As far as rights go, the only right we seem to have left is the right to remain silent else anything one says will be used against one....oh, and the right to free health care...............

As far as the trapped whales go, we have been instructed that global warming is going to cause global cooling, remember ????

[dufas]

Dufas,

This happened way back during the Yellow dog days of politics in the south.

I ran across this little gem of liberals going back in the past and penalizing someone for their thoughts and actions. Again, Senator 'Ku Klux Klan' Byrd gets a pass and keeps on trucking down the liberal highway while the liberals get rid of a dead person's memory that they don't like. Both Byrd and Goethe, [pronounced Gate-eee] both have despicable pasts but one was a Democrat and therefore, must be protected at all costs. I still call this hypocrisy and the height of situational ethics....

http://www.ranchocordovapost.com/200...igns-replaced/

And for an added attraction, Senator Byrd being given a pass for later actions on his part.. Even the Blacks were upset, but, so what...he's a Democrat, so everything is OK...


http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PRByrd301.html

http://news.aol.com/political-machin...the-byrd-coop/

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...?msg_id=004jop

[MrWild]

Dufas,

I voted one republican, one libertatrian, and two democrats. Yeah, I guess that makes me a democrat by default then. Wrong is wrong. I get it, do you?

[dufas]

Dufas,

I voted one republican, one libertatrian, and two democrats. Yeah, I guess that makes me a democrat by default then. Wrong is wrong. I get it, do you?

That would depend on who is defining the wrong..... you still don't get it...

[One of Many]

That would depend on who is defining the wrong.....

Nope! When you're enlightened and open minded.....only one definition exists. Dissent is not an option liberals allow unless it meets their concept of wrong. If you are not in lock step with that narrow view, expect repercussions until you do see things as they demand. Look how they treated the minority vote that helped get Dear Leader elected, then chastized them as useful idiots for supporting HR8.

As a side joke to lighten things up a bit:

A guy goes into a bar alone, bellies up to the bar and always asks for 2 beers at a time. The Bartender keeps an eye on him just in case he gets too loaded, but then She notices him drinking one beer and pouring the other in his hand. The guy say's Bartender 2 more beers please. This went on for several rounds, so the Bartender brought him 2 more and asked why he only drank one and poured the other in his hand. The guy replied, "Well, my wife left, then my girl friend walked out, so I figured I'd get my Date drunk and go home for the even'n, if that's alright with you!"

Makes me wonder if the left will say this guy has the right to petition to marry his date legally?:cheers:

DC

[handlewanker]

One of many, would that be a left handed solution or a right hander? Seems like a waste of beer to me.

Come to think of it, using the correct definition of a sexual attitude, would this guy be cinsidered gay or bisexuall, even if he underwent a sex change?

Taking it a bit further, how would you stand with shaking hands with him? Would you then also be considered gay or bisexuall?

All this crap about far left and middle of the road Democratic Conservatism is also a state of mind.

It just depends on which way the wind is blowing at the time.

Dufa left out one description in his rant (many of them) a couple of posts back, The American way.

The American Way:- A farmer has two bulls. After trying to milk them for two years...........I can't remember the rest, but he had a lot of bullsh!t to clear up.
Ian.

[martinw]

Dear All,

Hey! Climate Change!

It is only a couple of years before the US elections crank up again for 2012, so how about a minor , mercifully brief, respite??

It is getting cold.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../16/do1610.xml

Best wishes,

Martin