|
Home > Archive > Architecture > November 2006 > Did you all enjoy Tuesday?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Did you all enjoy Tuesday?
|
|
|
| I'm surprised that it hasn't come up yet.
Don? Paul?
You gotta love the smirking chimp sometimes. "Thumpin'!"
Yep! You betcha.
If I wanted to make a conspiracy out of this, I'd guess that the results
were part of a secret plan to clear the pub ranks of pontential lousy
candidates like Allen & Santorum. The question is, who's going to be the
golden boy?
McCain? Nah, the pubs aren't that smart.
Jeb? Can they really be that stupid?
Giuliani? Ugh, what a load. If it weren't for 9/11 he'd be out with his
latest mistress somewhere. He'd get slaughtered. He's got more bones in his
closet than Yale.
There were some really fun results...
The aforementioned George Allen and Rick Santorum -- Good riddance to big
loads.
Perhaps my favorite: Katherine "Pancake" Harris getting shellacked! Can you
just please go away now? Face it, you broke laws and more for your party in
2000 but they abandoned you. Why? Because even they know you're a dumbshit.
The only problem is that they're too dumb to realize that you are now
weighing your options... come clean and risk prison to get the bastards? Or
perhaps just wait until next time, as they promised... ala Arlen Specter and
the Warren Report. He's still waiting, but then again, he's still alive.
There are plenty more, but over here in CA, that dick, Richard Pombo is
history!
Way too much fun!
One more thing.... Did anyone even notice that Daniel Ortega is back?
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-11-09, 5:25 pm |
|
JD wrote:
> I'm surprised that it hasn't come up yet.
>
> Don? Paul?
>
> You gotta love the smirking chimp sometimes. "Thumpin'!"
>
> Yep! You betcha.
>
> If I wanted to make a conspiracy out of this, I'd guess that the results
> were part of a secret plan to clear the pub ranks of pontential lousy
> candidates like Allen & Santorum. The question is, who's going to be the
> golden boy?
>
> McCain? Nah, the pubs aren't that smart.
>
> Jeb? Can they really be that stupid?
>
> Giuliani? Ugh, what a load. If it weren't for 9/11 he'd be out with his
> latest mistress somewhere. He'd get slaughtered. He's got more bones in his
> closet than Yale.
>
> There were some really fun results...
>
> The aforementioned George Allen and Rick Santorum -- Good riddance to big
> loads.
>
> Perhaps my favorite: Katherine "Pancake" Harris getting shellacked! Can you
> just please go away now? Face it, you broke laws and more for your party in
> 2000 but they abandoned you. Why? Because even they know you're a dumbshit.
> The only problem is that they're too dumb to realize that you are now
> weighing your options... come clean and risk prison to get the bastards? Or
> perhaps just wait until next time, as they promised... ala Arlen Specter and
> the Warren Report. He's still waiting, but then again, he's still alive.
>
> There are plenty more, but over here in CA, that dick, Richard Pombo is
> history!
>
> Way too much fun!
>
>
> One more thing.... Did anyone even notice that Daniel Ortega is back?
I thought Clinton took way to much flak
over gettin' his pp kissed, but that happened
when the Repub's had congress and senate,
and led to impeachment, Jeez-h-christ, who
cares.
Now that the Dem's have a Full House I
wonder if they'll pursue the Repub's little
lies and habit's with a Starr like inquiry,
very interesting, would it be tit 4 tat, or
justice, America must decide. Shall we
pursue the high road or the low road.
Is Haliburton an innocent civilian, tainted
by stressfull conditions?
American's can now decide,
the world watches,
democracy & justice.
Ken
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| "JD" <laughingarchitectNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:m6L4h.1633$6t.210@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
> I'm surprised that it hasn't come up yet.
>
> Don? Paul?
>
> You gotta love the smirking chimp sometimes. "Thumpin'!"
>
> Yep! You betcha.
>
> If I wanted to make a conspiracy out of this, I'd guess that the
> results were part of a secret plan to clear the pub ranks of
> pontential lousy candidates like Allen & Santorum. The question is,
> who's going to be the golden boy?
>
> McCain? Nah, the pubs aren't that smart.
>
> Jeb? Can they really be that stupid?
>
> Giuliani? Ugh, what a load. If it weren't for 9/11 he'd be out with
> his latest mistress somewhere. He'd get slaughtered. He's got more
> bones in his closet than Yale.
>
> There were some really fun results...
>
[snip]
I'd run, but I inhaled... ((Yeah, it was almost 30 years ago, but nobody
cares about elapsed time, I assume because increasing numbers of poeple
never grow up but simply grow older...))
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
news:1163101034.686547.325870@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
>
> JD wrote:
>
> I thought Clinton took way to much flak
> over gettin' his pp kissed, but that happened
> when the Repub's had congress and senate,
> and led to impeachment, Jeez-h-christ, who
> cares.
Yeah, before that, seemed to me that sexual escapades were *job
requirement* ;)
> Now that the Dem's have a Full House I
> wonder if they'll pursue the Repub's little
> lies and habit's with a Starr like inquiry,
> very interesting, would it be tit 4 tat, or
> justice, America must decide. Shall we
> pursue the high road or the low road.
> Is Haliburton an innocent civilian, tainted
> by stressfull conditions?
> American's can now decide,
> the world watches,
> democracy & justice.
> Ken
>
| |
| Junior Brown 2006-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| I guess the fact that both parties fuck up, sell out and plunder this
country, somewhat temper my enthusiasm.
What was it they say about bliss?......
"JD" <laughingarchitectNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:m6L4h.1633$6t.210@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> I'm surprised that it hasn't come up yet.
>
> Don? Paul?
>
> You gotta love the smirking chimp sometimes. "Thumpin'!"
>
> Yep! You betcha.
>
> If I wanted to make a conspiracy out of this, I'd guess that the results
> were part of a secret plan to clear the pub ranks of pontential lousy
> candidates like Allen & Santorum. The question is, who's going to be the
> golden boy?
>
> McCain? Nah, the pubs aren't that smart.
>
> Jeb? Can they really be that stupid?
>
> Giuliani? Ugh, what a load. If it weren't for 9/11 he'd be out with his
> latest mistress somewhere. He'd get slaughtered. He's got more bones in
> his closet than Yale.
>
> There were some really fun results...
>
> The aforementioned George Allen and Rick Santorum -- Good riddance to big
> loads.
>
> Perhaps my favorite: Katherine "Pancake" Harris getting shellacked! Can
> you just please go away now? Face it, you broke laws and more for your
> party in 2000 but they abandoned you. Why? Because even they know you're a
> dumbshit. The only problem is that they're too dumb to realize that you
> are now weighing your options... come clean and risk prison to get the
> bastards? Or perhaps just wait until next time, as they promised... ala
> Arlen Specter and the Warren Report. He's still waiting, but then again,
> he's still alive.
>
> There are plenty more, but over here in CA, that dick, Richard Pombo is
> history!
>
> Way too much fun!
>
>
> One more thing.... Did anyone even notice that Daniel Ortega is back?
>
>
| |
| Godzilla Pimp 2006-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| Romney will win. Even the commies in MA like him, and the ladies, of course,
most of whom view a prez as a surrogate hubby.
GP
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-11-09, 5:25 pm |
|
Kris Krieger wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
> news:1163101034.686547.325870@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> Yeah, before that, seemed to me that sexual escapades were *job
> requirement* ;)
Nice too see you posting again Kris,
"sexual escapadess" is an adult choice,
and the Repubs were super dumb to
hit Clinton on his affections, cuz affection
is a good thing between adults in private.
What if the Bush-Rice sex partnership
goes public? Maybe the Repubs and Dems
ought to truce, and make that hands-off.
Make it off limits, unless some specific
matter of natonal security is involved.
I loved the Munsinger affair in the cold war,
not to mention all those gays guys in
england, but try to find someone straight in
the UK, duh,...
Ken
[color=darkred]
| |
| Sasquatch 2006-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| I wish I could share 100% in your happiness. After all, although I'm
not a democrat (or republican), I'm extremely happy to punish the
republicans for supporting the Bush-Cheney Crime Syndicate and pushing
their bible-thumping faith-based initiative crap. Gaining control of
both the House and Senate is great!
Unfortunately, in Wisconsin, there were two very important referendum
questions...
1. Officially and explicitly banning gay marriage with an amendment to
the State Constitution.
2. Enacting the death penalty for first-degree intentional homicide
supported by DNA evidence.
....and both were passed. Time to move to Canada. I just can't
tolerate the politics of ignorance and hate any longer.
I'm not gay, but why do we have to have laws on the books harrassing
gays? Leave 'em alone! They're not hurting anyone! Are the
bible-thumpers and homophobes afraid all that "gayness" is going to
spread? Do they think "the gays" are recruiting their kids or
something? Leave 'em alone, hate mongers, and don't taint our State
Constitution with hate speech! After all, there should not even be
language in the State Constitution regarding marriage--it's an
institution based on romance and religion. State and Federal law
should only address civil unions, which are family and legal entities
that have nothing to do with romance or religion--a little thing called
"Separation of Church and State"--ever heard of it?
And the death penalty? Wisconsin has made it very clear that we do
*NOT* want a death penalty, over and over. So the hate machine had to
slip one by with the ol' DNA clause. Kill, kill, kill! I hope they're
happy. Another meaningless law on the books that's going to lead to
increased litigation, increased taxes, and a culture of hate and
violence, but will do nothing to reduce crime and protect the public.
And the bottom line is this: I don't want to kill anyone. And that's
what a death penalty does. It makes ordinary citizens accomplices to
murder. As long as there is *ONE* citizen who objects, there should
not be a death penalty. Yeah, some criminals are terrible people. But
killing them is not going to make me feel better or any safer. Just
lock them up for life in a humane way and save a lot of money. As long
as our own government murders people willingly and unnecessarily, we
will never be a civilized society.
....but I digress.
- John
JD wrote:
> I'm surprised that it hasn't come up yet.
>
> Don? Paul?
>
> You gotta love the smirking chimp sometimes. "Thumpin'!"
>
> Yep! You betcha.
>
> If I wanted to make a conspiracy out of this, I'd guess that the results
> were part of a secret plan to clear the pub ranks of pontential lousy
> candidates like Allen & Santorum. The question is, who's going to be the
> golden boy?
>
> McCain? Nah, the pubs aren't that smart.
>
> Jeb? Can they really be that stupid?
>
> Giuliani? Ugh, what a load. If it weren't for 9/11 he'd be out with his
> latest mistress somewhere. He'd get slaughtered. He's got more bones in his
> closet than Yale.
>
> There were some really fun results...
>
> The aforementioned George Allen and Rick Santorum -- Good riddance to big
> loads.
>
> Perhaps my favorite: Katherine "Pancake" Harris getting shellacked! Can you
> just please go away now? Face it, you broke laws and more for your party in
> 2000 but they abandoned you. Why? Because even they know you're a dumbshit.
> The only problem is that they're too dumb to realize that you are now
> weighing your options... come clean and risk prison to get the bastards? Or
> perhaps just wait until next time, as they promised... ala Arlen Specter and
> the Warren Report. He's still waiting, but then again, he's still alive.
>
> There are plenty more, but over here in CA, that dick, Richard Pombo is
> history!
>
> Way too much fun!
>
>
> One more thing.... Did anyone even notice that Daniel Ortega is back?
| |
|
|
"Godzilla Pimp" <me7@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:45538690$0$5790$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> Romney will win. Even the commies in MA like him, and the ladies, of
> course, most of whom view a prez as a surrogate hubby.
>
> GP
Nope.
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:WuL4h.4493$l25.169@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "JD" <laughingarchitectNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:m6L4h.1633$6t.210@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
>
> [snip]
>
> I'd run, but I inhaled... ((Yeah, it was almost 30 years ago, but nobody
> cares about elapsed time, I assume because increasing numbers of poeple
> never grow up but simply grow older...))
>
Didn't Obama admit that he inhaled. "That was the whole point" he said  .
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Junior Brown 2006-11-09, 8:25 pm |
| No doubt. Suck all the cock you want. That is nobody elses business...at
all, period. Government should stay out of our lives completely, let alone
in the bedroom. By the same token, I should not be required to, in any
way, subsidise the knob gobblin' lifestyle. I don't think that has ANYTHING
to do with hate. My own brother
is queer. I love him to death, I certainly don't "hate" him, but I
shouldn't have to (and I don't) pay for his boyfriends benefits, nor does he
want me to. If he (or anyone else) want's legal rights of survivorship etc.
there is no reason he should not have those legal rights. We should be able
to give those rights to anyone we wish. Has nothing to do with hate or
bigotry.
"Sasquatch" <linux4all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163114006.230600.103720@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>I wish I could share 100% in your happiness. After all, although I'm
> not a democrat (or republican), I'm extremely happy to punish the
> republicans for supporting the Bush-Cheney Crime Syndicate and pushing
> their bible-thumping faith-based initiative crap. Gaining control of
> both the House and Senate is great!
>
> Unfortunately, in Wisconsin, there were two very important referendum
> questions...
>
> 1. Officially and explicitly banning gay marriage with an amendment to
> the State Constitution.
>
> 2. Enacting the death penalty for first-degree intentional homicide
> supported by DNA evidence.
>
> ...and both were passed. Time to move to Canada. I just can't
> tolerate the politics of ignorance and hate any longer.
>
> I'm not gay, but why do we have to have laws on the books harrassing
> gays? Leave 'em alone! They're not hurting anyone! Are the
> bible-thumpers and homophobes afraid all that "gayness" is going to
> spread? Do they think "the gays" are recruiting their kids or
> something? Leave 'em alone, hate mongers, and don't taint our State
> Constitution with hate speech! After all, there should not even be
> language in the State Constitution regarding marriage--it's an
> institution based on romance and religion. State and Federal law
> should only address civil unions, which are family and legal entities
> that have nothing to do with romance or religion--a little thing called
> "Separation of Church and State"--ever heard of it?
>
> And the death penalty? Wisconsin has made it very clear that we do
> *NOT* want a death penalty, over and over. So the hate machine had to
> slip one by with the ol' DNA clause. Kill, kill, kill! I hope they're
> happy. Another meaningless law on the books that's going to lead to
> increased litigation, increased taxes, and a culture of hate and
> violence, but will do nothing to reduce crime and protect the public.
> And the bottom line is this: I don't want to kill anyone. And that's
> what a death penalty does. It makes ordinary citizens accomplices to
> murder. As long as there is *ONE* citizen who objects, there should
> not be a death penalty. Yeah, some criminals are terrible people. But
> killing them is not going to make me feel better or any safer. Just
> lock them up for life in a humane way and save a lot of money. As long
> as our own government murders people willingly and unnecessarily, we
> will never be a civilized society.
>
> ...but I digress.
>
> - John
>
| |
|
| "JD"> wrote
> I'm surprised that it hasn't come up yet.
>
> Don? Paul?
Tuesday, Tuesday, hmmmm....what was Tuesday?
Oh, thats right, now I remember.
I got rained out.
The rain started Monday afternoon and continued until late Tuesday.
So I started Tues out by making some phone calls, doing some calcs on my
metal roofing, fascia, etc., then about 10:30am my lovely spouse and I
attended a showing at this art gallery http://tinyurl.com/yjndqu which is
owned by my neighbor down the road.
Then we had a devine vegetarian luncheon at this place
http://tinyurl.com/y5tgr2 and then we casually browsed through just a few of
the unique shops and creative studios in this quaint little enclave we now
call home http://tinyurl.com/2vq4g without a thought in the world for
tyrants and herd members.
We then went back to our humble abode and my wife was inspired to dabble in
her water colors and I tried to see how much of the couch I could cover
simultaneously with my spindly XXX.
Hope the day was enjoyable for you and yours too JD!
| |
|
| "Sasquatch"> wrote
>I wish I could share 100% in your happiness. After all, although I'm
> not a democrat (or republican), I'm extremely happy to punish the
> republicans for supporting the Bush-Cheney Crime Syndicate and pushing
> their bible-thumping faith-based initiative crap. Gaining control of
> both the House and Senate is great!
My brother in law has season tickets to the Colts games and last weekend he
claimed the Colts *punished* whatever team they were playing.
Considering that the players of that punished team earn more than $200mil
per year I sure could use a little of that *punishment*.
There's a moral in this little story.
To add some depth to all of this, just think, all the new *tools* a reigning
dictatorship invents will eventually be used against him by his enemies.
In other words, be careful who you step on in your ascencion up the ladder
for those same folks will be waiting for you on your way back down.
| |
|
| "Junior Brown"> wrote
> No doubt. Suck all the cock you want. That is nobody elses
> business...at all, period. Government should stay out of our lives
> completely, let alone
> in the bedroom. By the same token, I should not be required to, in any
> way, subsidise the knob gobblin' lifestyle. I don't think that has
> ANYTHING to do with hate. My own brother
> is queer. I love him to death, I certainly don't "hate" him, but I
> shouldn't have to (and I don't) pay for his boyfriends benefits, nor does
> he want me to. If he (or anyone else) want's legal rights of survivorship
> etc. there is no reason he should not have those legal rights. We should
> be able to give those rights to anyone we wish. Has nothing to do with
> hate or bigotry.
I think you might mean *legal priviledges*.
Rights are not given, they are inherent.
Priviledges are given, and they are taken away.
Its all about thuggery.
The term *knob gobblin'*...........LOL
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-11-10, 1:25 pm |
|
Sasquatch wrote:
> I wish I could share 100% in your happiness. After all, although I'm
> not a democrat (or republican), I'm extremely happy to punish the
> republicans for supporting the Bush-Cheney Crime Syndicate and pushing
> their bible-thumping faith-based initiative crap. Gaining control of
> both the House and Senate is great!
>
> Unfortunately, in Wisconsin, there were two very important referendum
> questions...
>
> 1. Officially and explicitly banning gay marriage with an amendment to
> the State Constitution.
I don't think in terms of "gay" marriage, but instead
the right to choose a spouse without needing to
sexually discriminate, IOW's people can live together
by choice and get married, it's nobodies business if
it's a sexless marriage or not.
> 2. Enacting the death penalty for first-degree intentional homicide
> supported by DNA evidence.
Yeah there are too many wrongful convictions.
I support ethanasia, if the convicted requests
it, has plead guilty and has been found guilty.
> ...and both were passed. Time to move to Canada. I just can't
> tolerate the politics of ignorance and hate any longer.
Wow, always figured Wisconsin as compassionate.
(though a bit cheesy ;-)
Ken
....
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-11-10, 1:25 pm |
|
Don wrote:
> "JD"> wrote
>
> Tuesday, Tuesday, hmmmm....what was Tuesday?
>
> Oh, thats right, now I remember.
>
> I got rained out.
> The rain started Monday afternoon and continued until late Tuesday.
>
> So I started Tues out by making some phone calls, doing some calcs on my
> metal roofing, fascia, etc., then about 10:30am my lovely spouse and I
> attended a showing at this art gallery http://tinyurl.com/yjndqu which is
> owned by my neighbor down the road.
>
> Then we had a devine vegetarian luncheon at this place
> http://tinyurl.com/y5tgr2
is the roof hot tub clothing optional?
and can you rent it by the hour??
>and then we casually browsed through just a few of
> the unique shops and creative studios in this quaint little enclave we now
> call home http://tinyurl.com/2vq4g without a thought in the world for
> tyrants and herd members.
Looks like Peyton Place, and you Don is
fresh florida fodder, [insert scary music here].
> We then went back to our humble abode and my wife was inspired to dabble in
> her water colors and I tried to see how much of the couch I could cover
> simultaneously with my spindly XXX.
That's the 1st sign [insert more scary music].
Clinton's visiting our area, Kelowna today, wow,
we like him. To bad the friggin weather sucks,
foggy and snowy, it would have been nice if his
plane landed so he could see the valley, but I
suppose he's seen his share of *valleys*.
Ken
| |
| Sasquatch 2006-11-10, 1:25 pm |
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Wow, always figured Wisconsin as compassionate.
> (though a bit cheesy ;-)
> Ken
So did I, but the politics of hate, violence, and ignorance, are
threatening.
- John
| |
| RicodJour 2006-11-10, 1:25 pm |
| Don wrote:
>
> I think you might mean *legal priviledges*.
> Rights are not given, they are inherent.
> Priviledges are given, and they are taken away.
I'm surprised that you buy into that "inherent rights" bullshit, Don.
There are no rights, period. There are conventions, some established,
some wished to be, that a particular society in a particular time more
or less agree to in particular.
There are no guarantees in life and pretending that there are is
misleading.
R
| |
| Bob Morrison 2006-11-10, 1:25 pm |
| In a previous post Ken S. Tucker wrote...
> Clinton's visiting our area, Kelowna today, wow,
> we like him. To bad the friggin weather sucks,
> foggy and snowy, it would have been nice if his
> plane landed so he could see the valley, but I
> suppose he's seen his share of *valleys*.
>
Ken:
Are you in Kelowna BC? Beautiful place. I spent a week there as an
exchange student when I was in high school many years ago.
About 20 years ago my wife, daughter and I made a trip up through Osoyoos,
Penticton, Kelowna, Salmon Arm, Revelstoke and then on to Nakusp and the
Slocan Valley to visit friends. After that we went to Kootenay Lake and
spent a night at Ainsworth Hot Springs. Of course, there was just a funky
motel there then, not the fancy resort that is there now.
--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-11-10, 1:25 pm |
|
Bob Morrison wrote:
> In a previous post Ken S. Tucker wrote...
>
> Ken:
>
> Are you in Kelowna BC?
Kelowna is a tad busy for us, we're about 20
miles north, near Fintry Prov. Park, have a
good view of the valley.
> Beautiful place. I spent a week there as an
> exchange student when I was in high school many years ago.
Well Bob, things have changed since the late 90's ;-),
but we've got 400' lookin over the valley so plenty of
room to park your which-ma-call-it thingy. If you want
water front, Fintry is like 4 minutes away.
> About 20 years ago my wife, daughter and I made a trip up through Osoyoos,
> Penticton, Kelowna, Salmon Arm, Revelstoke and then on to Nakusp and the
> Slocan Valley to visit friends. After that we went to Kootenay Lake and
> spent a night at Ainsworth Hot Springs. Of course, there was just a funky
> motel there then, not the fancy resort that is there now.
Yeah we gotta do more in BC, esp. Nakusp,
but those east-west highways running across
Washington state are to die for, we visit Van
then return via Washington, it's breath-taking.
That Hwy 20 tho seasonal is about the best
in North America, and that Winthrop is neato,
with it's western theme.
When the weathers bad we cut down to Hwy 2
and then enjoy the Bavarian charm of Leavenworth.
Nice thoughts
Ken
> --
> Bob Morrison, PE, SE
> R L Morrison Engineering Co
> Structural & Civil Engineering
> Poulsbo WA
> bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-11-10, 5:25 pm |
|
Sasquatch wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> So did I, but the politics of hate, violence, and ignorance, are
> threatening.
> - John
Well John ontario is much worse. I'll cite
Guy Paul Moran for example that was
wrongfully accused, it was a sick conspiracy.
The POOPs, (Province Of Ontario Police) withheld
exonerating evidence, the Judges ignored that,
the Lawyers made a fortune, all playing ping-pong
with Paul's life, and the tax payer's paid for all
that fraud. The POOPs were forgiven, and Paul
came out out with a cash reward in the $millions.
In ontario, the system is for the POOP's, lawyers,
judges and all to make a whore buck it's SOP,
and there is no accountability, no elected sherrifs
or judges, just garbage minds.
Ken
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-10, 5:25 pm |
| "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4553b3c4$0$12177$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:WuL4h.4493$l25.169@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Didn't Obama admit that he inhaled. "That was the whole point" he
> said .
>
Hmm, maybe times are changing ;)
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-10, 5:25 pm |
| "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
news:1163105457.340883.314280@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
>
> Kris Krieger wrote:
[snip][color=darkred]
>
> Nice too see you posting again Kris,
Thanks, just anhiatus while trying to set up a home wireless network so I
could access the internet on my own computer =:-o I'm as cranky as
ever, tho' ;)
> "sexual escapadess" is an adult choice,
> and the Repubs were super dumb to
> hit Clinton on his affections, cuz affection
> is a good thing between adults in private.
IMO, the big problem was that it seemed to have happened in the Oval
Office. That's IMO not criminal, just really, really tacky. Meanwhile,
what the heck was up with her, keeping the dang dress...? That still is
a bit creepy to me. And makes me think it was a planned-out plot on her
part.
> What if the Bush-Rice sex partnership
> goes public? Maybe the Repubs and Dems
> ought to truce, and make that hands-off.
>
> Make it off limits, unless some specific
> matter of natonal security is involved.
I was just going to mention that ;)
For example, when I was working at the agency, my supervisor crooked her
finger at me and asked, all hush-hush like, "what would I think of it" if
I learned that Mr. X (a fellow I knew professionally) was cheating wiht
Mrs. Y (a woman I also knew professionally). Since i hve Zero talent for
picking up subtexts, I just siad right out that, if their affair is being
hidden, it makes them vulnerable to coercion via blackmail by an agent of
an adversary, which is a significant security threat and should result in
the revokation of their security clearances, but if their affair is
public, then it's between them, and their respective spouses, and not my
business or something I want to waste time gossiping about. ((I found
out a few years after I left, that "Mr. X" was representing the section
director and Mrs. Y was a stand-in for my supervisor, but that's another
story...))
So that's my opinion. What poeple do in private is not my concern, so
long as it occurs between *consenting adults*, and does not place a gov.t
official in a position of being vulnerable to blackmail that could be
used to coerce him or her into making decisions which go against the
national/public interest and/or COnstitution - i.e., into committing
treason.
> I loved the Munsinger affair in the cold war,
> not to mention all those gays guys in
> england, but try to find someone straight in
> the UK, duh,...
> Ken
Again, not my business, not of any interest to me whtsoever as long as no
human or animal is being harmed, and acts occur between willing,
consenting adults. Most so-called "immorality" is IMO mis-defined. What
I find immoral is not personal choices regarding relationships (either
sexual or non-sexual), but rather, among other things, includes the sorts
of unethical behavior that far too many people seem to merely accept, or
even approve of, as "part and parcel of politics and/or of doing
business", as well as various sorts of widely-accepted things people
deliberately do to children that they know cause significant mental and
physical damage/harm.
The main reason I so distrust the combination of infidelity, and
high/multiple security clearances, is that infidelity is IMO a breach of
contract, a breach of promise (IOW, a lie), and a breach of trust.
((IOW, it's not merely the exchange of a few skin cells - heck, if a
couple discusses, and agrees to, having an open relationship, that's
their business, and all that matters is whetehr it works for them - I
don't care, I don't car to know, I don't care to hear about it or gossip
about it. I've too many better things to do with my time, even if it's
just picking lint out of my navel.))
Repeated/habitual infidelity (such as an affair) also is, IMO, a matter
of cowardace. Rather than having the courage to try talking with a
spouse regarding various dissatisfactions, the cheater instead goes
behind the person's back, lies, hides, skulks, and just generally behaves
dishonorably and with all the maturity of a spoiled, emotionally-stunted,
tantrum-pitching two-year-old.
OTOH, it's also true that "sh!t happens" - various factors can contribute
to a person experiencing a moment of physical "weakness" so to speak, or
for that matter, maybe a couple of such moments. From a psychological
standpoint, I find it more problematic that someone would keep various,
ah, er, "physical momentoes" of a dalliance...
Based upon both my understanding of genetics/biology/psychology, and upon
my having lived in many places and having known and/or worked with very
many different types of people, the way I see it is this:
if some person doesn't like the consentual practices in which
he/she knows or imagines others engage, then that individual needs to (1)
get a life so as to have something to occupy his/her mind and energies,
(2) refrain from engaging in practices of which he/she disapproves, (3)
stop obsessively devoting so much thought, attention, and imagining to
those practices, and (4) concentrate on improving the state of his/her
own soul before getting in other people's faces about what he/she
imagines to be the state of their souls.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-10, 8:25 pm |
| "Sasquatch" <linux4all@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1163114006.230600.103720@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
> I wish I could share 100% in your happiness. After all, although I'm
> not a democrat (or republican), I'm extremely happy to punish the
> republicans for supporting the Bush-Cheney Crime Syndicate and pushing
> their bible-thumping faith-based initiative crap. Gaining control of
> both the House and Senate is great!
>
> Unfortunately, in Wisconsin, there were two very important referendum
> questions...
>
> 1. Officially and explicitly banning gay marriage with an amendment
> to the State Constitution.
>
> 2. Enacting the death penalty for first-degree intentional homicide
> supported by DNA evidence.
>
> ...and both were passed. Time to move to Canada. I just can't
> tolerate the politics of ignorance and hate any longer.
>
> I'm not gay, but why do we have to have laws on the books harrassing
> gays?
Of course. Life only has meaning when ome is trying to live other
poeple's lives, trying to force them to live how one wants them to live
(regardless of the state of one's own life).
> Leave 'em alone! They're not hurting anyone!
Not to mention that the numbers are absurdly small - even if it's true
that as much as 10% of the population is homosexual or bisexual, the fact
is that, as far as I've been able to learn, rather few of them want get
married. So, we're talking like, what, 2%-4%, of the entire adult
population?
That's the most perverse part of all the hoopla. If all the cheaters,
spouse-abusers, spouse-*killers*, marriages-for-money, the 50%+ divorce
rate, the people who collect ex-spouses the say some folks collect model
trains, "open" marriages, swinging married couples, and so on, and so
forth, haven't managed to "destroy the sanctity of marriage", um, how the
heck would a tiny number of other non-conventional marriages manage to
destroy it?
And, even worse than all of that:
(1) "sanctity" is NOT a legal term
(2) even religions can't agree upon what is and isn't, in general,
"sanctified"
(3) marraige is a *contract* that is validated by a state-approved
officiator - otherwise, a preacher, priest, ship's captain <!>, etc.
would not say "by the power invested in me by the state of (pennsylvania,
or whatever), I now pronounce you married..."
(4) like spoiled toddlers, people want to have their cake and eat it too
- they want all sorts of legal protections and rights when it comes to
practicing *their* religion, and trying to force it down other people's
throats, but they absolutely refuse to accept that, under teh
Constitution, all people are supposed to be equal under the law
(5) citing "pedophilia" is also a bogus excuse for generally-applied
hatred because the vast majority of assaults on children are committed by
heterosexuals - of course, in a patriarchy, the commission of the
penetrative rape of a little girl by a man is far less "newsworthy" than
is the masturbation of a little boy by a man - after all, girls are
"built for it" so it's "more natural" - not to mention that the Bible
makes no mention, and certainly no condemnation, of child abuse in
general or of child sexual abuse specifically.
And actually ((the point being that people should be *VERY* careful about
insisting that laws be "Biblically based")) another thing nobody even
acknowldeges is the fact that, if you go by the story of David, the bible
cites that being 16 means a boy is "not yet a man", and Leviticus
specifically condemns (and later snippets support) "a MAN who layeth with
another MAN" - it says nothing whatsoever about relations with, or
between, a male child who is "not yet a man" - as above, people should be
*VERY* careful about insisting that laws be "Biblically based". But they
are not careful. Why? ALl I can figure is that few ever really *read*
it - some might read the passages selected for them, but most seem to
simply ignore and deny anything that might disagree with their
*religion*. Because, after all, *religion* was/is created by men who
tried to codify, for whatever reason, the writings and sermons of those
whom they called Prophets - but, with a few tweaks here and there of
course. And the Bible itself was only finalized, in terms of what would
and would not be considered official/acceptable and therefor included in
its contents, in the year 300, at a completely-patriarchical Council of
Bishops. All the Christian writings they didn't like, they simply
declared apostacy or whatever, and rejected, condemned, declared
forbidden.
> Are the
> bible-thumpers and homophobes afraid all that "gayness" is going to
> spread?
Of course, and most prob. because they might have, at some time, met some
guy and thought, "Gee, he's a good looking fellow..." IOW, much and
perhaps most of the time, a phobia is actually SELF-phobia.
They then scour the Bible (and I have to add, a deliberate mis-
translation of a previous translation of the original i.e. Hebrew Old
Testament) to fund individual snippets that they take out of context and
then use to justify their hatred.
> Do they think "the gays" are recruiting their kids or
> something?
Of course, because this also justifies their hatred. Just as their
hatred is also, they imagine, justified by denying things like biology
and genetic influences/DNA - except, of course, when it suits and
furthers their own purposes and preferences to accept something like DNA
evidence. Like, as you cite below, when they can get some miscreant put
to death based upon DNA.
Of course, if something can't be "real" if it wasn't mentioned in the
Bible, such as dinosaurs, I have yet to figure out how/why DNA evidence
(or, for that matter, antibiotics, cars, cell phones, anti-cancer
treatments, television, and so on...) can be considered "real" by "true"
Christians...
But it's sort of like the way that, even tho' Leviticus says it's "an
abomination" to wear cloth made of two fibers, tghey say, OH, well,
*that* - well, that just isn't applicable to modern times and modern
life... Same goes if you mention that Leviticus (and the apsotle
Paul...) also cite that adultery is punishable by/deserving of death...
The fact is that thier so-called "literalism", is not literalism - t is
*selective* literalism. IOW, their literalism stops real short'n'quick
when it comes to rejecting ALL things that were not mentioned in the
Bible.
I respect the Amish because they don't play that sort of hyporitical
word-game. But anyone who wears cotton-poly blends and takes modern
medication and drives a car and uses products made of plastic and has a
computer and otherwise uses *any* product of modern technology (i.e. not
mentioned in the Bible) is just a game-playing hypocrit.
But those are the very same people who are trying to spread hatred and
tell everyone else how to live, and basically overturn the Constitution
and replace it, and the Law, with *their own* theocratic personal
"visions".
> Leave 'em alone, hate mongers, and don't taint our State
> Constitution with hate speech!
But how else can they get rid of that pesky COnstitution, and replace it
with Rule by Religion?
((Never ask about what happens when their religious dictatorship bumps up
against other/different religions - if there is one thing religions
share, it is absolute faith in their own infallibilty - and, of course,
being superior to the "mere facts" of science...))
> After all, there should not even be
> language in the State Constitution regarding marriage--it's an
> institution based on romance and religion. State and Federal law
> should only address civil unions, which are family and legal entities
> that have nothing to do with romance or religion--a little thing
> called "Separation of Church and State"--ever heard of it?
It seems to me the whole "church" thing is largely a red herring. The
fact is that not all religions are so quick to order the Creator to
relegate others to this or that form of "Hell".
People talk about Jesus, but forget a few simple things. One is that the
people who, according to, as I recall, 1Corinthians, Paul suppsedly cited
as being "worthy of death" included "backbiters", and "whisperers", and
"adulterers", and so on. Now, given that Jesus had, by forgiving the
adultress whom the townsfolk had wanted to stone to death, basically
negated the death penalty, how is it that anyone can think not only that
Paul *literally* meant "deserving of death", but go further to
"creatively interperet" that as meaning "deserve to be murdered"?
Further, among the hundred and hundreds of lines in Leviticus, they
deliberately focus on the most extreme penalty (stoning to death) for
what the Kind Jame's travesty-of-a-translation calls "abomination" - the
original Hebrew word meaning something more along the lines of "unclean",
which made a lot fo sense in a palce and at a time where soap hadn't yet
been invented and water was far from plentiful. ((For example, eating
shellfish was also cited as being "unclean" - which makes sense, given
that shellfish are bottom-feeders and so highly subject to becoming
infected with all sorts of pathogens that can be passed on to humans,
plus the fact that allergy to shellfish is not all that rare.))
> And the death penalty? Wisconsin has made it very clear that we do
> *NOT* want a death penalty, over and over. So the hate machine had to
> slip one by with the ol' DNA clause. Kill, kill, kill!
Of course. Do you seriously expect anything more noble than hypocrisy
and irrationality and knee-jerk emotionalism?
> I hope
> they're happy.
By definition, not possible. People are never satisfied. WHile the
desire for more and for imporvement drives invention and has improved
many things, it also definitely has a down side...
- K.
> Another meaningless law on the books that's going to
> lead to increased litigation, increased taxes, and a culture of hate
> and violence, but will do nothing to reduce crime and protect the
> public. And the bottom line is this: I don't want to kill anyone. And
> that's what a death penalty does. It makes ordinary citizens
> accomplices to murder. As long as there is *ONE* citizen who objects,
> there should not be a death penalty. Yeah, some criminals are
> terrible people. But killing them is not going to make me feel better
> or any safer. Just lock them up for life in a humane way and save a
> lot of money. As long as our own government murders people willingly
> and unnecessarily, we will never be a civilized society.
>
> ...but I digress.
>
> - John
>
> JD wrote:
>
>
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-10, 8:25 pm |
| "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in
news:1163181999.066033.171030@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
> Don wrote:
>
> I'm surprised that you buy into that "inherent rights" bullshit, Don.
>
> There are no rights, period. There are conventions, some established,
> some wished to be, that a particular society in a particular time more
> or less agree to in particular.
>
> There are no guarantees in life and pretending that there are is
> misleading.
>
> R
>
>
If one accepts that life has value, I think it's possible to make a case
for certain inherent rights. I just have too much of a headache right now
to do much "expounding"...
| |
| Godzilla Pimp 2006-11-10, 8:25 pm |
|
"JD" <laughingarchitectNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:B_O4h.1$TF3.0@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Godzilla Pimp" <me7@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:45538690$0$5790$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...
>
> Nope.
Yep
>
>
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-10, 8:25 pm |
| "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
news:1163178951.197869.305720@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
> Sasquatch wrote:
>
> I don't think in terms of "gay" marriage, but instead
> the right to choose a spouse without needing to
> sexually discriminate, IOW's people can live together
> by choice and get married, it's nobodies business if
> it's a sexless marriage or not.
The thinbg is that people always talk about the *rights* granted by
marriage, but never the *responsibilities* that come with marriage.
Let's also remember that the same people looking to legalize marriage
restrictions are also looking to tighten divorce laws. Writing
prejudice into the Constitution (be it state or federal) is, to them, a
stepping-stone towards both restricting hetero civil marriages, and
restricting accessibility to divorce.
Here is another point I find fascinating:
If marriage is specifically for the production and rearing of children,
then why is it that: (1) a man with a vasectomy, and a woman with a
tubal ligation or even full hysterectomy, who have made it clear thyat
they've no intent whatsoever to adopt children, are permitted to marry;
(2) a man and a woman who are well past the age where they could have,
or even raise a child (as in, centenarians) are permitted to marry; AND
(3) marriages are not automatically dissolved once all the children have
reached adulthood, are self-supporting, and have left home?
Again, hypocrisy, plus absurdity merely accepted unquestioningly as
"logic". If marriage is, indeed, specifically to "produce and/or rear
children", then change the law so that *NOBODY* can remain married
unless they are producing and/or rearing children.
At the same time, if marriage is for producing/rearing children, that in
and of itself does not contradict same-sex marriage, because, even if
states dfo start discriminating against potential adoptive parents, what
about gays/lesbians who had gotten married while in denial, and had
children during that time? WHat if the "straight" parent dies" Does
the child not go to the parent?
The complications are many. As is oh-so-tediously-typical, simplistic
sound-bites made by and for the simple-minded are creating the potential
for a lot of problems, while solving nothing.
>
>
> Yeah there are too many wrongful convictions.
> I support ethanasia, if the convicted requests
> it, has plead guilty and has been found guilty.
>
>
> Wow, always figured Wisconsin as compassionate.
> (though a bit cheesy ;-)
> Ken
> ...
>
>
| |
|
| "Bob Morrison"> wrote
> In a previous post Ken S. Tucker wrote...
>
> Ken:
>
> Are you in Kelowna BC? Beautiful place. I spent a week there as an
> exchange student when I was in high school many years ago.
>
> About 20 years ago my wife, daughter and I made a trip up through Osoyoos,
> Penticton, Kelowna, Salmon Arm, Revelstoke and then on to Nakusp and the
> Slocan Valley to visit friends. After that we went to Kootenay Lake and
> spent a night at Ainsworth Hot Springs. Of course, there was just a funky
> motel there then, not the fancy resort that is there now.
I wish you guys would speak english.
| |
|
| "RicodJour"> wrote
> Don wrote:
>
> I'm surprised that you buy into that "inherent rights" bullshit, Don.
>
> There are no rights, period. There are conventions, some established,
> some wished to be, that a particular society in a particular time more
> or less agree to in particular.
>
> There are no guarantees in life and pretending that there are is
> misleading.
Well, you can allow others to set your parameters as they will Rico and will
set mine as I wish.
| |
|
|
"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:e585h.5363$ig4.1708@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in
> news:1163181999.066033.171030@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> If one accepts that life has value, I think it's possible to make a case
> for certain inherent rights. I just have too much of a headache right now
> to do much "expounding"...
Every now and then Rico sides into his socialist mode and I attribute that
to living in the big city, more precisely, not living out amongst REAL
people.
This is his fault of course and is entirely curable by himself if he so
choses.
The thing about Rico's *philosophy* is that it fails outright when it is
applied to him.
Just ax him, he'll tell ya! LOL
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-11-11, 9:25 am |
|
Don wrote:
> "Bob Morrison"> wrote
>
> I wish you guys would speak english.
Hope this map works,
http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8...hl=en&tab=wl&q=
This long skinny lake Okanagan is flanked by
rock cliffs up to 5000 ft many pine covered, this
whole area is like that, it has a reputation for being
scenic.
HTH
Ken
| |
| RicodJour 2006-11-11, 9:25 am |
| Kris Krieger wrote:
> "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in
>
> If one accepts that life has value, I think it's possible to make a case
> for certain inherent rights. I just have too much of a headache right now
> to do much "expounding"...
Uh oh. You got rid of your store-brand acetaminophen, didn't you?
Scary crap. No guarantees.
I will impound without further expoundation on your part in due course.
R
| |
| 3D Peruna 2006-11-12, 3:25 am |
| JD wrote:
> I'm surprised that it hasn't come up yet.
>
> Don? Paul?
I'm not sure I care... Well, let me put it this way. With the "R"'s
around, there was at least some lip service paid towards lower taxes.
With the "D"s, I'm a bit worried they're going to screw up the health
care system even worse and they'll find a way to steal more of my hard
earned money.
>
> You gotta love the smirking chimp sometimes. "Thumpin'!"
>
> Yep! You betcha.
>
> If I wanted to make a conspiracy out of this, I'd guess that the results
> were part of a secret plan to clear the pub ranks of pontential lousy
> candidates like Allen & Santorum. The question is, who's going to be the
> golden boy?
Maybe... Anybody that's been in office before is a lousy candidate in
my book.
> McCain? Nah, the pubs aren't that smart.
I hope never.
>
> Jeb? Can they really be that stupid?
Could be. 2 terms of Clinton. 2 Terms of Bush... But neither of those
point out the stupidity. How many terms of Kennedy? Hatch? Bird?
People are stupid if they don't kick out anybody who's trying to make a
life out of "public service."
>
> Giuliani? Ugh, what a load. If it weren't for 9/11 he'd be out with his
> latest mistress somewhere. He'd get slaughtered. He's got more bones in his
> closet than Yale.
Yep...
>
> There were some really fun results...
>
> The aforementioned George Allen and Rick Santorum -- Good riddance to big
> loads.
Yep...
> Way too much fun!
Oh yeah... Two years of too much fun starting all over.
> One more thing.... Did anyone even notice that Daniel Ortega is back?
Joy. Another buddy for Chavez.
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-11-12, 8:25 pm |
|
Kris Krieger wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
> news:1163105457.340883.314280@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> [snip]
>
> Thanks, just anhiatus while trying to set up a home wireless network so I
> could access the internet on my own computer =:-o I'm as cranky as
> ever, tho' ;)
>
>
> IMO, the big problem was that it seemed to have happened in the Oval
> Office. That's IMO not criminal, just really, really tacky. Meanwhile,
> what the heck was up with her, keeping the dang dress...? That still is
> a bit creepy to me. And makes me think it was a planned-out plot on her
> part.
>
>
> I was just going to mention that ;)
>
> For example, when I was working at the agency, my supervisor crooked her
> finger at me and asked, all hush-hush like, "what would I think of it" if
> I learned that Mr. X (a fellow I knew professionally) was cheating wiht
> Mrs. Y (a woman I also knew professionally). Since i hve Zero talent for
> picking up subtexts, I just siad right out that, if their affair is being
> hidden, it makes them vulnerable to coercion via blackmail by an agent of
> an adversary, which is a significant security threat and should result in
> the revokation of their security clearances, but if their affair is
> public, then it's between them, and their respective spouses, and not my
> business or something I want to waste time gossiping about. ((I found
> out a few years after I left, that "Mr. X" was representing the section
> director and Mrs. Y was a stand-in for my supervisor, but that's another
> story...))
>
> So that's my opinion. What poeple do in private is not my concern, so
> long as it occurs between *consenting adults*, and does not place a gov.t
> official in a position of being vulnerable to blackmail that could be
> used to coerce him or her into making decisions which go against the
> national/public interest and/or COnstitution - i.e., into committing
> treason.
>
>
> Again, not my business, not of any interest to me whtsoever as long as no
> human or animal is being harmed, and acts occur between willing,
> consenting adults. Most so-called "immorality" is IMO mis-defined. What
> I find immoral is not personal choices regarding relationships (either
> sexual or non-sexual), but rather, among other things, includes the sorts
> of unethical behavior that far too many people seem to merely accept, or
> even approve of, as "part and parcel of politics and/or of doing
> business", as well as various sorts of widely-accepted things people
> deliberately do to children that they know cause significant mental and
> physical damage/harm.
>
> The main reason I so distrust the combination of infidelity, and
> high/multiple security clearances, is that infidelity is IMO a breach of
> contract, a breach of promise (IOW, a lie), and a breach of trust.
>
> ((IOW, it's not merely the exchange of a few skin cells - heck, if a
> couple discusses, and agrees to, having an open relationship, that's
> their business, and all that matters is whetehr it works for them - I
> don't care, I don't car to know, I don't care to hear about it or gossip
> about it. I've too many better things to do with my time, even if it's
> just picking lint out of my navel.))
>
> Repeated/habitual infidelity (such as an affair) also is, IMO, a matter
> of cowardace. Rather than having the courage to try talking with a
> spouse regarding various dissatisfactions, the cheater instead goes
> behind the person's back, lies, hides, skulks, and just generally behaves
> dishonorably and with all the maturity of a spoiled, emotionally-stunted,
> tantrum-pitching two-year-old.
>
> OTOH, it's also true that "sh!t happens" - various factors can contribute
> to a person experiencing a moment of physical "weakness" so to speak, or
> for that matter, maybe a couple of such moments. From a psychological
> standpoint, I find it more problematic that someone would keep various,
> ah, er, "physical momentoes" of a dalliance...
>
> Based upon both my understanding of genetics/biology/psychology, and upon
> my having lived in many places and having known and/or worked with very
> many different types of people, the way I see it is this:
> if some person doesn't like the consentual practices in which
> he/she knows or imagines others engage, then that individual needs to (1)
> get a life so as to have something to occupy his/her mind and energies,
> (2) refrain from engaging in practices of which he/she disapproves, (3)
> stop obsessively devoting so much thought, attention, and imagining to
> those practices, and (4) concentrate on improving the state of his/her
> own soul before getting in other people's faces about what he/she
> imagines to be the state of their souls.
Studied your post Kris.
Sexual morality is a very personal subject,
When wife learns I swapped panties with
another she'd say "good, the dog gets a rest",
or "free's up the vacuum cleaner", really it's
not a *hot button* issue, maybe a warm button.
Ken
| |
| Bob Morrison 2006-11-13, 1:25 pm |
| In a previous post Don wrote...
>
> I wish you guys would speak english.
>
Must be all the rain getting to me. Official rainfall total for the month
of November is 10.95 inches. Washington Olympics and Cascades will have
3-4 feet of new snow since last Friday.
--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:fb65h.4773$0r.3952@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:4553b3c4$0$12177$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:
>
>
> Hmm, maybe times are changing ;)
>
>
>
I'd post the new york times article but it requires a log in.
http://liftwhileclimbing.wordpress..../obama-inhaled/
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-14, 1:25 pm |
| "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
news:1163187584.140917.277460@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> Sasquatch wrote:
>
> Well John ontario is much worse. I'll cite
> Guy Paul Moran for example that was
> wrongfully accused, it was a sick conspiracy.
Oh, I remember that one, I was living in Ont. at the time. Not to
mention that they totally erjected one dood as a suspect because he
"passed" the polygraph test - which, really, people can do if they're
pathological liars, sociopaths who don't have much in the way of
emotional reactions, or heck, even with a bit of training.
The "evidence" againsMoran seemed to be that he "did a lot fo things at
night", as tho' anyone who isn't in bed by 9PM and then up at 4:30AM is a
murderous freak. Yeesh...
> The POOPs, (Province Of Ontario Police) withheld
> exonerating evidence, the Judges ignored that,
> the Lawyers made a fortune, all playing ping-pong
> with Paul's life, and the tax payer's paid for all
> that fraud. The POOPs were forgiven, and Paul
> came out out with a cash reward in the $millions.
> In ontario, the system is for the POOP's, lawyers,
> judges and all to make a whore buck it's SOP,
> and there is no accountability, no elected sherrifs
> or judges, just garbage minds.
> Ken
>
And the real killer was never found. I wonder how many other kids he got
away with killing during all this time...
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-14, 1:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:ej3kca02pae@news1.newsguy.com:
>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:e585h.5363$ig4.1708@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Every now and then Rico sides into his socialist mode and I attribute
> that to living in the big city, more precisely, not living out amongst
> REAL people.
I'm not sure re: what he said that was 'socialist'...
I do disagree with that interpretation of rights, tho'. IMO, if you
value your own life, then it stands to reason that one must value, or at
least accomidate, the lives of others, because being hostile/aggressive
is the fastest way to get others to want to end your own life.
In a way, rights - both having them, and accepting that others also have
them - could be seen as a form of 'enlightened self interest' as the
phrase goes.
What some poeple call "phoniness" (or maybe just "too much effort"?), is
actually, as one guy (forgt who  ) called it, "social grease".
When poeple are all hostile and cranky, you see, things just get all
gummed up because they waste so much time being aggressive and
argumentative, and had they simply practiced even the most marginal form
of civility, no tie-up would have occurred.
I've seen that so often, where stupid aggression just causes a lot of
wasted time due to kvetching, fighting, and other such idiocy. Most of
the time, people create their own problems. And that is largely because
they have no capacatiy to comprehend the fact that civility makes things
run more smoothly.
Anyway, so rights are said to be "inherent", because (1) they're based
upon what pretty much everyone wants, and (2) because one's own desires
(rights) will be trampled upon the instant one tries to trample upon
others'.
I'm not sure that it's city living per se. I think it's "NorthEastUS"
living. I'm originally from north NJ but have lived away from it for so
long that I can't tolerate the urban NE any more - people are just too
crazy.
> This is his fault of course and is entirely curable by himself if he
> so choses.
> The thing about Rico's *philosophy* is that it fails outright when it
> is applied to him.
> Just ax him, he'll tell ya! LOL
>
heh heh... ;)
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-14, 5:25 pm |
| "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in
news:1163252606.914681.102430@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> Uh oh. You got rid of your store-brand acetaminophen, didn't you?
> Scary crap. No guarantees.
Nah, some days need xtra strength acetominophen plus ibuprofin (under Dr.s
orders, not something I thought up myself).
>
> I will impound without further expoundation on your part in due
> course.
>
> R
>
OK ;) Maybe later I'll expound.
((Heh, trying to ex-pound about 50 lbs...))
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-14, 5:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:ej3jt902o61@news1.newsguy.com:
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>
> Well, you can allow others to set your parameters as they will Rico
> and will set mine as I wish.
>
Also, rights aren't the same thing as guarantees.
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-11-14, 5:25 pm |
|
Kris Krieger wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
> news:1163187584.140917.277460@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> Oh, I remember that one, I was living in Ont. at the time. Not to
> mention that they totally erjected one dood as a suspect because he
> "passed" the polygraph test - which, really, people can do if they're
> pathological liars, sociopaths who don't have much in the way of
> emotional reactions, or heck, even with a bit of training.
>
> The "evidence" againsMoran seemed to be that he "did a lot fo things at
> night", as tho' anyone who isn't in bed by 9PM and then up at 4:30AM is a
> murderous freak. Yeesh...
Innuendo and impressions by the POOP (Province Of
Ontario Police), we're allowed by corrupt judges and
crooked lawyers, to be heard by brainwashed jurors,
everyone suckin the taxpayers teats.
Our firm, by contract, infiltrated the system several ways
and found the suggested Ont. corruption is far worse,
with the POOPs making money from dope running to the
US, kiddy porn, ontario is rotten to the core.
>
> And the real killer was never found. I wonder how many other kids he got
> away with killing during all this time...
RIGHT! My daughter was the same age as Jessop,
and when we heard the POOP's framed someone
to make a buck and let the real killer escape it
became pretty obvious the real killer was a POOP,
or a judge or someone with criminal connections,
to the conspiracy, which lead investigators making
Paul Moran a patsy to cover that up, that's a common
ploy i.e. distraction, that's POOP SOP.
Worse, the murder rate in ont. is higher than any US
state, but we learned, murders we're classified by the
POOP's as suicides, accidents, natural cause deaths,
drug over-does etc. to keep their image. The real stat's
are easily skewered as there is no accountability.
The POOPs make Capones 1930's Chicago look
like a play-pen penny ani operation.
Ken
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger"> wrote
> I do disagree with that interpretation of rights, tho'. IMO, if you
> value your own life, then it stands to reason that one must value, or at
> least accomidate, the lives of others, because being hostile/aggressive
> is the fastest way to get others to want to end your own life.
Maybe I'm under the impression *accomodate* has a different meaning from
reality?
Yes, I value the *rights* of other people but I reject the notion that I
must accomodate other people.
YOU, and *everybody* else, is more valuable to me alive than dead.
**There are exceptions to this and I'm sure you know who I'm talking about.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-15, 5:25 pm |
| "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
news:1163535462.216447.166810@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
>
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> Innuendo and impressions by the POOP (Province Of
> Ontario Police), we're allowed by corrupt judges and
> crooked lawyers, to be heard by brainwashed jurors,
> everyone suckin the taxpayers teats.
I've heard that, in both the USA and Canada, if you're called for jury
duty, and cite your profession as "scientist", you're instantly rejected
because the lawyers et al don't want you to muck up the works by, as I
often say, "confusing the issue with the facts".
SO, if you're a sci-tech professional, or really, any other professional,
you do *not* have a right to having a jury consisting of your peers. Not
a pleasant thought...
> Our firm, by contract, infiltrated the system several ways
> and found the suggested Ont. corruption is far worse,
> with the POOPs making money from dope running to the
> US, kiddy porn, ontario is rotten to the core.
>
>
> RIGHT! My daughter was the same age as Jessop,
> and when we heard the POOP's framed someone
> to make a buck and let the real killer escape it
> became pretty obvious the real killer was a POOP,
> or a judge or someone with criminal connections,
> to the conspiracy, which lead investigators making
> Paul Moran a patsy to cover that up, that's a common
> ploy i.e. distraction, that's POOP SOP.
<shudder...>
> Worse, the murder rate in ont. is higher than any US
> state, but we learned, murders we're classified by the
> POOP's as suicides, accidents, natural cause deaths,
> drug over-does etc. to keep their image.
WTF...?!?!?!
That's just sick.
> The real stat's
> are easily skewered as there is no accountability.
> The POOPs make Capones 1930's Chicago look
> like a play-pen penny ani operation.
> Ken
I personally didn't like the BC "governemnt" and so on much better...
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-15, 5:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:ejdtba017ah@news2.newsguy.com:
> "Kris Krieger"> wrote
>
> Maybe I'm under the impression *accomodate* has a different meaning
> from reality?
Well, best I not start on the idea of "reality"... ;)
I prob would have said "comprimise". "Accomidate" does have more of a
sense of surrender or acquiescence to it. Better than comprimise is
"reach an agreement".
IOW, I see it as being more along the lines of a contract. Two or more
parties meet and discuss their needs, their wants, and their wishes.
Needs are the non-negotiable things ("we need land to grow enough food
for our population", or "we need a way to get our products to market",
and that sort of thing). Wants and wishes are IMO pretty clear - want is
things you'd really like to have, and wishes, well, it's sort of like, "I
wish I'd win the lottery, because then I'd buy 20 acres of land", and
that sort of thing.
I do think that, if people approached situations rationally (which I
realize is, in the vast majority of cases, nothing more than a wish on my
part...), argeements/contracts/comprimises *can* be achieved.
But accomidate, well, you're right, that's certainly not the best term.
> Yes, I value the *rights* of other people but I reject the notion that
> I must accomodate other people.
I certainly have no quarrel with that; aside from the facts and
analytical reasons, it's also sadly (OK, pathetically =:-o ) true that I
was very accomidating for the first 36 years of my life, and so learned
the hard way that all it gets you is, at best, walked on and passed over.
So, OK, thinking about it, I can see why you interpreted the word as
indicating a socialistic philosophy.
> YOU, and *everybody* else, is more valuable to me alive than dead.
> **There are exceptions to this and I'm sure you know who I'm talking
> about.
Yeah, I know what you're talking about, unfortunately enough; kind of sad
but that is just how things are sometimes.
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger"> wrote
> I've heard that, in both the USA and Canada, if you're called for jury
> duty, and cite your profession as "scientist", you're instantly rejected
> because the lawyers et al don't want you to muck up the works by, as I
> often say, "confusing the issue with the facts".
When I get a notice in the mail I send it back saying I'm leaving the
country in 3 days and won't be back until early next year.
Works everytime.
I won't be a part of their schemes no matter what the perp is accused of.
>
> WTF...?!?!?!
>
> That's just sick.
Thats been going on for years in the US, nationwide.
The people in charge are trying (and they seem pretty successful at it) to
keep the herd mesmerized into believing the police provide a valid role
other than stealing from the populace at will.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2006-11-16, 9:25 am |
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ejghac019jg@news4.newsguy.com...
> When I get a notice in the mail I send it back saying I'm leaving the
> country in 3 days and won't be back until early next year.
> Works everytime.
> I won't be a part of their schemes no matter what the perp is accused of.
I never get those letters.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2006-11-16, 9:25 am |
|
"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:YvK6h.6688$l25.3195@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I've heard that, in both the USA and Canada, if you're called for jury
> duty, and cite your profession as "scientist", you're instantly rejected
> because the lawyers et al don't want you to muck up the works by, as I
> often say, "confusing the issue with the facts".
Urban legend has it that architects are in the same boat.
Anyone seen "12 Angry Men"? ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/ )
Great rental. Most flattering portrait of an architect on screen, IMHO.
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
|
| "Michael Bulatovich"> wrote
> Anyone seen "12 Angry Men"? ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/ )
> Great rental. Most flattering portrait of an architect on screen, IMHO.
One of my top 5 all time favorites.
Who was the architect, Fonda?
| |
|
|
"Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
news:ejhuqc0ejs@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:ejghac019jg@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> I never get those letters.
Thats cause you don't live in the USSA.
United
Socialist
States of
America
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-11-16, 1:25 pm |
|
Don wrote:
> "Michael Bulatovich"> wrote
>
> One of my top 5 all time favorites.
> Who was the architect, Fonda?
Think so, that's what the "trivia" says, (Juror #8).
I watched it in the 60's, (probably cuz Gilligans
Island wasn't on), and it really got me involved,
I'm talking about it appealing to a 12-14 yo brat
who usually needs 3 killers in the 1st 5 minutes
to watch the next 5. Amazing, filmed almost
entirely in one cramped room, it got and held my
attention, must see it again.
Ken
| |
|
| "Ken S. Tucker"> wrote
> Don wrote:
>
> Think so, that's what the "trivia" says, (Juror #8).
> I watched it in the 60's, (probably cuz Gilligans
> Island wasn't on), and it really got me involved,
> I'm talking about it appealing to a 12-14 yo brat
> who usually needs 3 killers in the 1st 5 minutes
> to watch the next 5. Amazing, filmed almost
> entirely in one cramped room, it got and held my
> attention, must see it again.
You know it man, back when movies wuz movies and wuz well worth $1.25 to go
see.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2006-11-16, 5:25 pm |
| Yup.
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:eji8hj0dka@news3.newsguy.com...
> "Michael Bulatovich"> wrote
>
> One of my top 5 all time favorites.
> Who was the architect, Fonda?
>
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2006-11-16, 5:25 pm |
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:eji8jj0dmr@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
> news:ejhuqc0ejs@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> Thats cause you don't live in the USSA.
No that's not it. Just lucky, I guess. The postal system's not perfect, so
maybe they get lost along the way. Know what I mean?
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2006-11-16, 5:25 pm |
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1163701806.016940.133640@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Don wrote:
>
> Think so, that's what the "trivia" says, (Juror #8).
> I watched it in the 60's, (probably cuz Gilligans
> Island wasn't on), and it really got me involved,
> I'm talking about it appealing to a 12-14 yo brat
> who usually needs 3 killers in the 1st 5 minutes
> to watch the next 5. Amazing, filmed almost
> entirely in one cramped room, it got and held my
> attention, must see it again.
The only scene outside the jury room is the final short one as he walks out
into the sun-filled street, chats with another juror for a second, then
walks out of sight behind the credits. Otherwise, all one set. Now that's a
movie. Gripping performance by Lee J. Cobb, too.
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
|
| "Michael Bulatovich"> wrote
> Gripping performance by Lee J. Cobb, too.
It was.
A man that is ALWAYS a gruff mans man, broken by his inner demons.
Ya know, one part that seemed a little iffy to me, and it was really where
the whole thing started turning around was, when the old man mentioned that
he saw those little marks on the womans nose where her glasses had been
rubbing.
Somehow that just bothered me.
The rest of the stuff was based on *scientific* principle, of sorts.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-20, 5:26 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:ejghac019jg@news4.newsguy.com:
> "Kris Krieger"> wrote
>
> When I get a notice in the mail I send it back saying I'm leaving the
> country in 3 days and won't be back until early next year.
> Works everytime.
> I won't be a part of their schemes no matter what the perp is accused
> of.
With my luck, I'd be the one person they investigate. Prob. because I
have an FBI file (they did an in-depth investigation when I applied to
work for the No-Such-Agency and I doubt it gets dicarded when one leaves.
But replying logically to questions would no doubt get me tossed off any
potential jury.
>
>
> Thats been going on for years in the US, nationwide.
Still sick :p
> The people in charge are trying (and they seem pretty successful at
> it) to keep the herd mesmerized into believing the police provide a
> valid role other than stealing from the populace at will.
>
>
>
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-20, 5:26 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:ejict20in5@news3.newsguy.com:
> "Ken S. Tucker"> wrote
>
> You know it man, back when movies wuz movies and wuz well worth $1.25
> to go see.
>
Heh, most of the stuff now, I won't even watch for free (when it finally
gets to teevee), never mind pay $8.50 to see.
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-11-20, 5:26 pm |
|
Kris Krieger wrote:
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
> news:ejghac019jg@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>
> With my luck, I'd be the one person they investigate. Prob. because I
> have an FBI file (they did an in-depth investigation when I applied to
> work for the No-Such-Agency and I doubt it gets dicarded when one leaves.
> But replying logically to questions would no doubt get me tossed off any
> potential jury.
Kris worked for the Cap-It-Al-ists, what's with
that EYE in the pyramid on a dollar bill, no
don't answer, someone might be watching.
>
> Still sick :p
Find a body in a lake, it's called a drowning,
case closed, back to the donut shop.
[color=darkred]
I estimate 66% of crime is caused by POOP
to retain employment.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|