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

[Mark Leuck]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You might well end up dead if you rode on multi-lane streets in urban
> traffic without a mirror on a Baron. Being that reclined makes it almost
> impossible to check over the shoulder for traffic before changing lanes
> (e.g. when making a left turn from a multi-lane street).
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Earth

Very true, bought some B&M's for the Baron immediately after I purchased it

 

[Mark Leuck]

"G. Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I agree with everything Mark said, except the part about me being a
"moron".

Lol that is still up for debate, some of your rants support what I say tho

> In addition to the info Mark gave, Bass also won't hesitate to take his
Usenet
> quarrels "real life". He actually found out where I worked and called my
boss.
> He lied and told him I used our company's resources to run a credit check
on
> him. My boss knew he was full of ****, but still - it goes to show what a
> nefarious ******* Bass is.

Yup forgot about that although with some of the things you've said to him
you deserved it, as far as I know he's never called anyone else's employer
in the NG including mine that I know of, doesn't that tell you something?

> All is calm in ASA right now, but wait about two weeks for all hell to
break
> loose again.

Tom Fowler once told me if RLB ever left he'd drag him back in at all costs
because otherwise the NG would be boring, look at it now, no Mike, no Bass,
Frank's almost calm and you rarely post...boring

 

[Mark Leuck]

"skip" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > Lemme guess, first name is Vince?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Yeah. Seems to me the first name did start with a V.
> >>
> >> skip
> >
> > I always felt that was a very overblown story
> >
> >
>
> But surely not the part about him being dead.
>
> skip

True but most of the accusations were why he killed himself and if he really
did it where his body was found

 

[Freewheeling]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>>Where is the missing $8 billion in Iraqi oil revenue? Why doesn? Paul
>>>>>Bremer have an answer?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Kofi Annan probably has it, if it's actually missing. And these are the
>>>>guys you think don't have enough power.
>>>
>>>And just how would Kofi Annan end up with money that was handed out by
>>>Bremer and the CPA? Make some sense!
>>
>>
>> You're talking about vague and unsubstantiated allegations by the left.
>> I'm talking about current investigations by Congress and other
>> institutions into the most extensive and cynical fraud in history.
>>
>> Naturally I can understand why you wouldn't want to discuss it.
>
> Paul Volker failed to find the "smoking gun" all the right wingers were
> hoping for. Deal with it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "smoking gun." Are you talking about Cotecna?
That's one small aspect of a rich tapestry of corruption, and it's not clear
that Volker has been given the means to get to the bottom of that particular
cesspool. We'll see, though. The report hasn't come out yet, which makes
Annan's apologia a bit premature. But Claudia Rosett at the NYT has been
documenting this corruption, and the investigations are far from over.

>
> What is vague and unsubstantiated about the missing money that was under
> the control of the CPA/Bremer? Or are you now in the business of inventing
> "facts" like your heroes Cheney and Rove?

"Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told CNN that the provisional authority
was operating under "extraordinary conditions" and relied on Iraqi
ministries to manage development money that was transferred to them.
"We simply disagree with the audit's conclusion that the CPA provided
less-than-adequate controls over Iraqi funds that were provided to Iraqi
ministries through the national budget process for hundreds of projects,
essential services, Iraqi salaries and security forces," Whitman said."

So this appears to be only a matter of accounting by Iraqi ministries
operating under extraordinary circumstances. There's no evidence that
anything nefarious or ontoward was done with the money, unlike the UN's
handling of Oil-for-Food which we know was corrupt, and several orders of
magnitude greater. And you can add to that rising toll of corruption at the
UN the sexual exploitation of children by UN officials in Africa.

Meanwhile, in Holland members of parliament are being held in prison
conditions to protect them from Islamist terrorists. Some of their
co-parliamentarians feel they should resign. Yeah, that'd work. What's one
small step in a thousand mile retreat?

 

[Freewheeling]

"skip" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark Leuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom
>>
>>
>
> What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His contention
> that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice is the
> cornerstone of his beliefs.
>
> You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or wonder how
> he can think as he does. He just told you why. And he won't budge an
> inch from that belief. No one has had any success in moving him from
> that position.

Ward Churchill's colleagues in Arts and Humanities at CU have published a
petition to have the investigation into Churchill dropped, on the grounds
that there was no "prior complaint," about his various personal,
professional and artistic frauds. Meanwhile he claims that there's no right
to celebrate Columbus Day because it conflicts with his "right to dignity"
as a native American. Which would be a good argument, when you get right
down to it, for doing away with elections entirely since no matter who is
elected it's bound to offend the dignity of some anarchist or feminist.

It's the great foggy legitimacy grab: "All of your base belong to us." It
will get more insistent, until it begins to justify terrorism. Oh wait...
it already does... Come to think of it, it always has.

 

[Freewheeling]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> skip wrote:
>
>> "Mark Leuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>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
>>>
>>>Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His contention
>> that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice is the
>> cornerstone of his beliefs.
>>
>> You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or wonder how
>> he can think as he does. He just told you why. And he won't budge an
>> inch from that belief. No one has had any success in moving him from
>> that position.
>
> Why should I move from a position when I am right?
>
> I wish I could be a delusional lemming happily marching towards the cliff,
> but it is my great misfortune to have gained true understanding of the
> dark side of human group behavior.
>
> I could happily ignore the situation and discuss recumbents, but then some
> right wing blowhard has to **** on the group, ending the illusion. At that
> point, I am willing to fling poo well after the bovines have returned to
> their agricultural structure abode.

Again, according to simple empiricism the trend is moving in the opposite
direction from what you claim, and has been for more than a century. People
are better educated, better fed, better entertained, more free, more secure,
and according to IQ tests actually smarter, than they ever have been before.
There is less poverty and misery with each passing year, not more, except in
those places where the left still has its totalitarian demonstration
projects.

None of this is in the least controversial, except the IQ thing (called the
"Flynn Effect") which some people feel may be an artifact of the test. It's
hard to believe the average person is two standard deviations smarter in
2000 than the average person in 1900. But with better nutrition and
prenatal and infant care they could be marginally smarter.

 

[Freewheeling]

"skip" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> 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? What is the Episcopal Church's
> role in approving bike paths in Vermont?
>
> Since you seem to know a lot about Mr. Conservative who hates the
> Republican party and every thing it stands for, I'm wondering what you
> know about the bike path situation. I'm wondering if he now hates the
> Episcopal Church and everything it stands for?
>
> I have to kinda like Dean for not being the usual Dem phony and for his
> lack of double speak. Plus his screams don't bother me all that much. It
> should be interesting to see how it plays out for him, Hillary, and the
> others.
>

Of course Jonah Goldberg is an evil neocon (Jew), but he has a fairly good
article on "The Rise of the Bike-Path Left." (Class warfare, it's not.)

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200502161204.asp

We all know, of course, that you're a wuss if you push for bike paths, a
concept that Jonah doesn't quite grasp.

 

[Freewheeling]

"G. Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Subject: Re: A.R.B.R. ain't dead yet??????
> Newsgroup: alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> => skip <= wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mark Leuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "skip" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Mark Leuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news[email protected]...
>>>> >
>>>> > "skip" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> > news:[email protected]...
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Nope, broadside by a Chevrolet Sedan near Midland Texas on Nov. 6,
>>>> >> > 1963.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > --
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No I was talking about the other situation. The park is Fort Marcy
>>>> >> or
>>>> >> something like that. The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the
>>> head.
>>>> >
>>>> > Lemme guess, first name is Vince?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> Yeah. Seems to me the first name did start with a V.
>>>>
>>>> skip
>>>
>>> I always felt that was a very overblown story
>>>
>>>
>>
>>But surely not the part about him being dead.
>
>
> Who?? Why are you two talking in code?
>

They're talking about Vince Foster, a Clinton aid who turned up dead in a DC
park from an apparent suicide. The "vast right-wing conspiracy" has been
suspicious for years that it wasn't a suicide, speculating that he knew
where the Whitewater and Travelgate bodies are buried.

Speaking of which, it looks like they may have finally found out what
happened to Jimmy Hoffa. They found his blood in the floor of a house where
a mafiosi in a deathbed confession said he'd killed the guy.

 

[Freewheeling]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>...
>>>>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."....
>>>
>>>How can a war be fought against an abstract noun? Someone, please explain
>>>that. I see no credibility in those who can not even see the logical
>>>impossibility of this.
>>
>>
>> That's not the issue. The issue is that terrorism is a mere tactic.
>> It's a marker for totalitarian movements, however, so the misnomer really
>> isn't as bad as all that. But basically we're in a century-long war
>> against totalitarianism, and we no sooner defeat one form than it morphs
>> into another. The most recent is Salafism/Qutbism. It's the social
>> cancer and scourge that took over as the primary threat once we finally
>> ended chattel slavery (against similar objections of a Democrat "peace
>> movement," by the way).
>
> And gee, I though it was just a way to win election campaigns and
> implement creeping fascism domestically.
>
>>>>... If you want a phenomenal success story, just look at Chile....
>>>
>>>Throwing people out of helicopters into the ocean? Packing them into
>>>stadiums so they can be more efficiently tortured? Henry Kissinger must
>>>be proud.
>>
>>
>> Again with the Cold War stuff. I'm talking about Chile today, and
>> naturally you want to talk about something else. Why wouldn't you?
>
> I like to remind people of atrocities committed with the consent and
> support of the right wing politicians and parties they support. Duh!
>
> If it annoys you, then it serves its purpose.

Actually it's a useful way to illustrate how the left can't make a logical
argument. To listen to them you'd think they believe that having done a bad
thing in the past is reason enough not to do a good thing now. But the
bottom line is that the world is a better place for what Reagan did. In
fact, Chile is a better place for it's acceptance of the financial reforms
proposed by the Chicago Boyz. In fact, except for a few neo-Marxist
flirtations with disaster most of the southern cone is going that direction.
More prosperous, more free, more secure. And if that annoys you, who gives
a damn.

 

[Freewheeling]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"skip" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>skip wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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/hanson200502250748.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.

I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying that we should all become more
spiritual? More religiously nonmaterialistic? Or are you saying that we've
gotten out of touch with out "true self?" Are you a religious person?

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>...
>>>>>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."....
>>>>
>>>>How can a war be fought against an abstract noun? Someone, please explain
>>>>that. I see no credibility in those who can not even see the logical
>>>>impossibility of this.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's not the issue. The issue is that terrorism is a mere tactic.
>>>It's a marker for totalitarian movements, however, so the misnomer really
>>>isn't as bad as all that. But basically we're in a century-long war
>>>against totalitarianism, and we no sooner defeat one form than it morphs
>>>into another. The most recent is Salafism/Qutbism. It's the social
>>>cancer and scourge that took over as the primary threat once we finally
>>>ended chattel slavery (against similar objections of a Democrat "peace
>>>movement," by the way).
>>
>>And gee, I though it was just a way to win election campaigns and
>>implement creeping fascism domestically.
>>
>>
>>>>>... If you want a phenomenal success story, just look at Chile....
>>>>
>>>>Throwing people out of helicopters into the ocean? Packing them into
>>>>stadiums so they can be more efficiently tortured? Henry Kissinger must
>>>>be proud.
>>>
>>>
>>>Again with the Cold War stuff. I'm talking about Chile today, and
>>>naturally you want to talk about something else. Why wouldn't you?
>>
>>I like to remind people of atrocities committed with the consent and
>>support of the right wing politicians and parties they support. Duh!
>>
>>If it annoys you, then it serves its purpose.
>
>
> Actually it's a useful way to illustrate how the left can't make a logical
> argument. To listen to them you'd think they believe that having done a bad
> thing in the past is reason enough not to do a good thing now. But the
> bottom line is that the world is a better place for what Reagan did. In
> fact, Chile is a better place for it's acceptance of the financial reforms
> proposed by the Chicago Boyz. In fact, except for a few neo-Marxist
> flirtations with disaster most of the southern cone is going that direction.
> More prosperous, more free, more secure. And if that annoys you, who gives
> a damn.

Gee, so that is why the people in South America keep on electing
governments who at least promise to oppose neo-liberalism and Bretton
Woods imposed austerity measures. Income growth for most people on the
continent almost stopped with the introduction of neo-liberal economic
policy. But hey, it was good for exploitation by multi-national
corporations, so who is complaining.

Those is the US who do not have substantial inherited wealth are almost
universally worse off for what Reagan did - but I suppose that makes you
happy.

--
Tom Sherman - Pissing Contest Hell

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:

> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>skip wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Mark Leuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>
>>>>Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His contention
>>>that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice is the
>>>cornerstone of his beliefs.
>>>
>>>You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or wonder how
>>>he can think as he does. He just told you why. And he won't budge an
>>>inch from that belief. No one has had any success in moving him from
>>>that position.
>>
>>Why should I move from a position when I am right?
>>
>>I wish I could be a delusional lemming happily marching towards the cliff,
>>but it is my great misfortune to have gained true understanding of the
>>dark side of human group behavior.
>>
>>I could happily ignore the situation and discuss recumbents, but then some
>>right wing blowhard has to **** on the group, ending the illusion. At that
>>point, I am willing to fling poo well after the bovines have returned to
>>their agricultural structure abode.
>
>
> Again, according to simple empiricism the trend is moving in the opposite
> direction from what you claim, and has been for more than a century. People
> are better educated, better fed, better entertained, more free, more secure,
> and according to IQ tests actually smarter, than they ever have been before.
> There is less poverty and misery with each passing year, not more, except in
> those places where the left still has its totalitarian demonstration
> projects.

We will all be better off with the ecological damage from resource
overuse and global warming (not a myth, but something that is already
happening, unless you are in denial).

Enjoy seeing billions suffer.

--
Tom Sherman - Pissing Contest Hell

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:

> "skip" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>"Mark Leuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>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
>>>
>>>Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom
>>>
>>>
>>
>>What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His contention
>>that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice is the
>>cornerstone of his beliefs.
>>
>>You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or wonder how
>>he can think as he does. He just told you why. And he won't budge an
>>inch from that belief. No one has had any success in moving him from
>>that position.
>
>
> Ward Churchill's colleagues in Arts and Humanities at CU have published a
> petition to have the investigation into Churchill dropped, on the grounds
> that there was no "prior complaint," about his various personal,
> professional and artistic frauds. Meanwhile he claims that there's no right
> to celebrate Columbus Day because it conflicts with his "right to dignity"
> as a native American. Which would be a good argument, when you get right
> down to it, for doing away with elections entirely since no matter who is
> elected it's bound to offend the dignity of some anarchist or feminist.
>
> It's the great foggy legitimacy grab: "All of your base belong to us." It
> will get more insistent, until it begins to justify terrorism. Oh wait...
> it already does... Come to think of it, it always has.

Oh, what the hell, all the people on the right justify terrorism by
governments and government supported militia, so why shouldn't NGO
terrorists have equal opportunity. What's fair is fair.

After all, killing and violence are good. Enjoy the mayhem and
suffering. Take joy in the deaths of civilians worldwide. You know it
makes you feel better.

--
Tom Sherman - Pissing Contest Hell

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:

> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"skip" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>skip wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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/hanson200502250748.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.
>
>
> I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying that we should all become more
> spiritual? More religiously nonmaterialistic? Or are you saying that we've
> gotten out of touch with out "true self?" Are you a religious person?

Of course you are confused, for you have missed the forest of reality by
looking exclusively at the trees. It is why you fail to recognize the
evil intents of many in power, because you are spending too much time
discussing particular academic theories to see the greater picture of
the potential of humanity, and how miserable of failures of current
societies are due to avarice for power. It is why you apologize and
excuse the murder of millions but those who claim to promote freedom and
democracy, but are truly intent on accumulating wealth and power for
their narrow social group at the expense of everyone else.

But I do not expect you to open your eyes - it certainly must be more
comfortable to live in your false construction of moral righteousness.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

 

[Freewheeling]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>...
>>>>>>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."....
>>>>>
>>>>>How can a war be fought against an abstract noun? Someone, please
>>>>>explain that. I see no credibility in those who can not even see the
>>>>>logical impossibility of this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's not the issue. The issue is that terrorism is a mere tactic.
>>>>It's a marker for totalitarian movements, however, so the misnomer
>>>>really isn't as bad as all that. But basically we're in a century-long
>>>>war against totalitarianism, and we no sooner defeat one form than it
>>>>morphs into another. The most recent is Salafism/Qutbism. It's the
>>>>social cancer and scourge that took over as the primary threat once we
>>>>finally ended chattel slavery (against similar objections of a Democrat
>>>>"peace movement," by the way).
>>>
>>>And gee, I though it was just a way to win election campaigns and
>>>implement creeping fascism domestically.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>... If you want a phenomenal success story, just look at Chile....
>>>>>
>>>>>Throwing people out of helicopters into the ocean? Packing them into
>>>>>stadiums so they can be more efficiently tortured? Henry Kissinger must
>>>>>be proud.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Again with the Cold War stuff. I'm talking about Chile today, and
>>>>naturally you want to talk about something else. Why wouldn't you?
>>>
>>>I like to remind people of atrocities committed with the consent and
>>>support of the right wing politicians and parties they support. Duh!
>>>
>>>If it annoys you, then it serves its purpose.
>>
>>
>> Actually it's a useful way to illustrate how the left can't make a
>> logical argument. To listen to them you'd think they believe that having
>> done a bad thing in the past is reason enough not to do a good thing now.
>> But the bottom line is that the world is a better place for what Reagan
>> did. In fact, Chile is a better place for it's acceptance of the
>> financial reforms proposed by the Chicago Boyz. In fact, except for a
>> few neo-Marxist flirtations with disaster most of the southern cone is
>> going that direction. More prosperous, more free, more secure. And if
>> that annoys you, who gives a damn.
>
> Gee, so that is why the people in South America keep on electing
> governments who at least promise to oppose neo-liberalism and Bretton
> Woods imposed austerity measures. Income growth for most people on the
> continent almost stopped with the introduction of neo-liberal economic
> policy. But hey, it was good for exploitation by multi-national
> corporations, so who is complaining.
>
> Those is the US who do not have substantial inherited wealth are almost
> universally worse off for what Reagan did - but I suppose that makes you
> happy.

Be honest, you just made that stuff up didn't you? Or are you really that
unaware?

 

[Freewheeling]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>skip wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Mark Leuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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
>>>>>
>>>>>Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His contention
>>>>that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice is the
>>>>cornerstone of his beliefs.
>>>>
>>>>You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or wonder how
>>>>he can think as he does. He just told you why. And he won't budge an
>>>>inch from that belief. No one has had any success in moving him from
>>>>that position.
>>>
>>>Why should I move from a position when I am right?
>>>
>>>I wish I could be a delusional lemming happily marching towards the
>>>cliff, but it is my great misfortune to have gained true understanding of
>>>the dark side of human group behavior.
>>>
>>>I could happily ignore the situation and discuss recumbents, but then
>>>some right wing blowhard has to **** on the group, ending the illusion.
>>>At that point, I am willing to fling poo well after the bovines have
>>>returned to their agricultural structure abode.
>>
>>
>> Again, according to simple empiricism the trend is moving in the opposite
>> direction from what you claim, and has been for more than a century.
>> People are better educated, better fed, better entertained, more free,
>> more secure, and according to IQ tests actually smarter, than they ever
>> have been before. There is less poverty and misery with each passing
>> year, not more, except in those places where the left still has its
>> totalitarian demonstration projects.
>
> We will all be better off with the ecological damage from resource overuse
> and global warming (not a myth, but something that is already happening,
> unless you are in denial).
>
> Enjoy seeing billions suffer.

Again, making it up aren't you?

 

[Freewheeling]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"skip" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>skip wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>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/hanson200502250748.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.
>>
>>
>> I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying that we should all become more
>> spiritual? More religiously nonmaterialistic? Or are you saying that
>> we've gotten out of touch with out "true self?" Are you a religious
>> person?
>
> Of course you are confused, for you have missed the forest of reality by
> looking exclusively at the trees. It is why you fail to recognize the evil
> intents of many in power, because you are spending too much time
> discussing particular academic theories to see the greater picture of the
> potential of humanity, and how miserable of failures of current societies
> are due to avarice for power. It is why you apologize and excuse the
> murder of millions but those who claim to promote freedom and democracy,
> but are truly intent on accumulating wealth and power for their narrow
> social group at the expense of everyone else.
>
> But I do not expect you to open your eyes - it certainly must be more
> comfortable to live in your false construction of moral righteousness.

Gee, it was a simple question.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:

> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>
>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>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."....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How can a war be fought against an abstract noun? Someone, please
>>>>>>explain that. I see no credibility in those who can not even see the
>>>>>>logical impossibility of this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not the issue. The issue is that terrorism is a mere tactic.
>>>>>It's a marker for totalitarian movements, however, so the misnomer
>>>>>really isn't as bad as all that. But basically we're in a century-long
>>>>>war against totalitarianism, and we no sooner defeat one form than it
>>>>>morphs into another. The most recent is Salafism/Qutbism. It's the
>>>>>social cancer and scourge that took over as the primary threat once we
>>>>>finally ended chattel slavery (against similar objections of a Democrat
>>>>>"peace movement," by the way).
>>>>
>>>>And gee, I though it was just a way to win election campaigns and
>>>>implement creeping fascism domestically.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>... If you want a phenomenal success story, just look at Chile....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Throwing people out of helicopters into the ocean? Packing them into
>>>>>>stadiums so they can be more efficiently tortured? Henry Kissinger must
>>>>>>be proud.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Again with the Cold War stuff. I'm talking about Chile today, and
>>>>>naturally you want to talk about something else. Why wouldn't you?
>>>>
>>>>I like to remind people of atrocities committed with the consent and
>>>>support of the right wing politicians and parties they support. Duh!
>>>>
>>>>If it annoys you, then it serves its purpose.
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually it's a useful way to illustrate how the left can't make a
>>>logical argument. To listen to them you'd think they believe that having
>>>done a bad thing in the past is reason enough not to do a good thing now.
>>>But the bottom line is that the world is a better place for what Reagan
>>>did. In fact, Chile is a better place for it's acceptance of the
>>>financial reforms proposed by the Chicago Boyz. In fact, except for a
>>>few neo-Marxist flirtations with disaster most of the southern cone is
>>>going that direction. More prosperous, more free, more secure. And if
>>>that annoys you, who gives a damn.
>>
>>Gee, so that is why the people in South America keep on electing
>>governments who at least promise to oppose neo-liberalism and Bretton
>>Woods imposed austerity measures. Income growth for most people on the
>>continent almost stopped with the introduction of neo-liberal economic
>>policy. But hey, it was good for exploitation by multi-national
>>corporations, so who is complaining.
>>
>>Those is the US who do not have substantial inherited wealth are almost
>>universally worse off for what Reagan did - but I suppose that makes you
>>happy.
>
>
> Be honest, you just made that stuff up didn't you? Or are you really that
> unaware?

No, I have just inoculated myself from right wing propaganda. It is well
known that neo-liberal economic policies have been a disaster for all
but a small economic elite.

--
Tom Sherman - Pissing Contest Hell

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:

> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>skip wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mark Leuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His contention
>>>>>that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice is the
>>>>>cornerstone of his beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>>You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or wonder how
>>>>>he can think as he does. He just told you why. And he won't budge an
>>>>>inch from that belief. No one has had any success in moving him from
>>>>>that position.
>>>>
>>>>Why should I move from a position when I am right?
>>>>
>>>>I wish I could be a delusional lemming happily marching towards the
>>>>cliff, but it is my great misfortune to have gained true understanding of
>>>>the dark side of human group behavior.
>>>>
>>>>I could happily ignore the situation and discuss recumbents, but then
>>>>some right wing blowhard has to **** on the group, ending the illusion.
>>>>At that point, I am willing to fling poo well after the bovines have
>>>>returned to their agricultural structure abode.
>>>
>>>
>>>Again, according to simple empiricism the trend is moving in the opposite
>>>direction from what you claim, and has been for more than a century.
>>>People are better educated, better fed, better entertained, more free,
>>>more secure, and according to IQ tests actually smarter, than they ever
>>>have been before. There is less poverty and misery with each passing
>>>year, not more, except in those places where the left still has its
>>>totalitarian demonstration projects.
>>
>>We will all be better off with the ecological damage from resource overuse
>>and global warming (not a myth, but something that is already happening,
>>unless you are in denial).
>>
>>Enjoy seeing billions suffer.
>
>
> Again, making it up aren't you?

There is near universal agreement among climatologists about global
warming, with most of the dissenters being on the payroll of the
hydrocarbon extraction industry. Giving them credence is like giving the
Flat Earth Society credence in a discussion about astronomy. The same is
true about resource overuse.

Do you just uncritically buy everything those with a corporatist,
neo-feudal agenda say? Or do you have a vested interest in promoting
their policies?

Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow? I
really don't, but I am happy to ******** those who do.

--
Tom Sherman - Pissing Contest Hell

 

[Freewheeling]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>>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."....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How can a war be fought against an abstract noun? Someone, please
>>>>>>>explain that. I see no credibility in those who can not even see the
>>>>>>>logical impossibility of this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's not the issue. The issue is that terrorism is a mere tactic.
>>>>>>It's a marker for totalitarian movements, however, so the misnomer
>>>>>>really isn't as bad as all that. But basically we're in a
>>>>>>century-long war against totalitarianism, and we no sooner defeat one
>>>>>>form than it morphs into another. The most recent is
>>>>>>Salafism/Qutbism. It's the social cancer and scourge that took over
>>>>>>as the primary threat once we finally ended chattel slavery (against
>>>>>>similar objections of a Democrat "peace movement," by the way).
>>>>>
>>>>>And gee, I though it was just a way to win election campaigns and
>>>>>implement creeping fascism domestically.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>... If you want a phenomenal success story, just look at Chile....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Throwing people out of helicopters into the ocean? Packing them into
>>>>>>>stadiums so they can be more efficiently tortured? Henry Kissinger
>>>>>>>must be proud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Again with the Cold War stuff. I'm talking about Chile today, and
>>>>>>naturally you want to talk about something else. Why wouldn't you?
>>>>>
>>>>>I like to remind people of atrocities committed with the consent and
>>>>>support of the right wing politicians and parties they support. Duh!
>>>>>
>>>>>If it annoys you, then it serves its purpose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually it's a useful way to illustrate how the left can't make a
>>>>logical argument. To listen to them you'd think they believe that
>>>>having done a bad thing in the past is reason enough not to do a good
>>>>thing now. But the bottom line is that the world is a better place for
>>>>what Reagan did. In fact, Chile is a better place for it's acceptance
>>>>of the financial reforms proposed by the Chicago Boyz. In fact, except
>>>>for a few neo-Marxist flirtations with disaster most of the southern
>>>>cone is going that direction. More prosperous, more free, more secure.
>>>>And if that annoys you, who gives a damn.
>>>
>>>Gee, so that is why the people in South America keep on electing
>>>governments who at least promise to oppose neo-liberalism and Bretton
>>>Woods imposed austerity measures. Income growth for most people on the
>>>continent almost stopped with the introduction of neo-liberal economic
>>>policy. But hey, it was good for exploitation by multi-national
>>>corporations, so who is complaining.
>>>
>>>Those is the US who do not have substantial inherited wealth are almost
>>>universally worse off for what Reagan did - but I suppose that makes you
>>>happy.
>>
>>
>> Be honest, you just made that stuff up didn't you? Or are you really
>> that unaware?
>
> No, I have just inoculated myself from right wing propaganda. It is well
> known that neo-liberal economic policies have been a disaster for all but
> a small economic elite.

Not if you use any sort of unbiased welfare accounting. The literature on
deregulation, for instance, is almost a consensus.

>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Pissing Contest Hell
>