OT: Words from a great man

  • Thread starter Kurgan Gringioni
  • Start date



Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> If you're thinking about pretty much any rule-by-force country which
>> at the moment has 'socialist' in the name, then that is simply the
>> local dictator trying to look good internationally and has no
>> relation to his policies, same way that countries with 'democratic'
>> in the name virtually always aren't.

>
> You know, just as I was about to start a list you printed that.
> That's the trouble with socialists. If you point out the blood
> thirsty bastards you simply claim that they weren't "real" socialists.


There's a lot of democratically elected socialist parties around now -
I think someone posted such a list recently. You could start running
through those looking for examples of how socialism is bad.

I could post a list of dictatorships with 'republic' in the name and
claim that somehow the US Republican party has something to do with
them; that'd make about as much sense as you listing the dictatorships
with 'socialist' in the name, i.e. none.

> And of course there's no sense in mentioning the National Socialists
> Party. You say they weren't socialists despite the fact that they were
> voted in as Socialists.


The Nazis were voted in on a lot of promises. Yes, they started out
appealing to the poor end of German society (which was lots of people
at the time) with vaguely socialist policies. They appealed to mass
emotion by producing scapegoats for all of the things that weren't
working. They appealed to big business by promising to break up the
trades unions (and they did that, and I'm sure you won't claim that
was a Socialist act!). Then once they were voted in they only did the
things that would help rebuild Germany's military. I suppose you could
claim that employing everyone by putting the economy on an emergency
war setting through the 1930s counts as socialist, but that's about
it.

Any government which produces basically socialist legislation I will
call socialist. If it doesn't produce socialist legislation, I don't
care what the name is, it's not socialist. Same way I won't call it
chocolate unless it contains a decent amount of cocoa bean, whatever
the name on the packet is.

Pete
 
On Nov 15, 12:29 am, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > I sincerely hope I NEVER hear you complain about Red States, because
> > if Mass, and this location in particular isn't blue, then there are NO
> > red states, either.
> > I stand amazed, or you're intentionally being obtuse to try and make
> > the point that political discussion is futile.

>
> Dumbass,
>
> - I never said Massachusetts or where you live isn't blue. What I
> said is that it isn't as far left as you constantly portray it.
> That's what the numbers say. Argue with the numbers.
>
> - You are making the point about the futility of political
> discussion much more effectively than I ever could. Please pass
> along my compliments to your author.
>
> Bob Schwartz


You have conjecture based on the Governors races, and I have at least
one detailed survey and tons of other evidence:
MEDIUM CITIES
(25,000-99,999)
Northampton, MA

But hey, they made it up too I suppose. I am becoming seriiously
sympathetic to Tom in one area. I was trying to remember when anyone
other than me here, admitted being wrong, or less informed, on
anything, or when the "Left" did anything wrong, wasn't perfect,
except to not be militant enough.
I honestly can't remember one of any type. That's not discussion.
There've been a million spins, rationalizations, etc...but not one
"Damn that was a mistake", or "Thats was stupid", or "Cool I learned
something new."
Bill C
 
On Nov 16, 8:00 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 12:29 am, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill C wrote:
> > > I sincerely hope I NEVER hear you complain about Red States, because
> > > if Mass, and this location in particular isn't blue, then there are NO
> > > red states, either.
> > > I stand amazed, or you're intentionally being obtuse to try and make
> > > the point that political discussion is futile.

>
> > Dumbass,

>
> > - I never said Massachusetts or where you live isn't blue. What I
> > said is that it isn't as far left as you constantly portray it.
> > That's what the numbers say. Argue with the numbers.

>
> > - You are making the point about the futility of political
> > discussion much more effectively than I ever could. Please pass
> > along my compliments to your author.

>
> > Bob Schwartz

>
> You have conjecture based on the Governors races, and I have at least
> one detailed survey and tons of other evidence:
> MEDIUM CITIES
> (25,000-99,999)
> Northampton, MA
>
> But hey, they made it up too I suppose. I am becoming seriiously
> sympathetic to Tom in one area. I was trying to remember when anyone
> other than me here, admitted being wrong, or less informed, on
> anything, or when the "Left" did anything wrong, wasn't perfect,
> except to not be militant enough.
> I honestly can't remember one of any type. That's not discussion.
> There've been a million spins, rationalizations, etc...but not one
> "Damn that was a mistake", or "Thats was stupid", or "Cool I learned
> something new."
> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1045046
Thanks.
Bill C
 
"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:142c5b02-db93-43f8-a4a9-bf5668d05676@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...

>
> I could post a list of dictatorships with 'republic' in the name and
> claim that somehow the US Republican party has something to do with
> them; that'd make about as much sense as you listing the dictatorships
> with 'socialist' in the name, i.e. none.


If you don't know what Republic means at least you could look it up.

>> And of course there's no sense in mentioning the National Socialists
>> Party. You say they weren't socialists despite the fact that they were
>> voted in as Socialists.

>
> The Nazis were voted in on a lot of promises.


Say, weren't the Fascists as well? And the Demcrats?

> Yes, they started out
> appealing to the poor end of German society (which was lots of people
> at the time) with vaguely socialist policies.


You really ought to study this stuff more Pete.
 
Bill C wrote:
> On Nov 15, 12:29 am, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Bill C wrote:
>>> I sincerely hope I NEVER hear you complain about Red States, because
>>> if Mass, and this location in particular isn't blue, then there are NO
>>> red states, either.
>>> I stand amazed, or you're intentionally being obtuse to try and make
>>> the point that political discussion is futile.

>> Dumbass,
>>
>> - I never said Massachusetts or where you live isn't blue. What I
>> said is that it isn't as far left as you constantly portray it.
>> That's what the numbers say. Argue with the numbers.
>>
>> - You are making the point about the futility of political
>> discussion much more effectively than I ever could. Please pass
>> along my compliments to your author.
>>
>> Bob Schwartz

>
> You have conjecture based on the Governors races, and I have at least
> one detailed survey and tons of other evidence:
> MEDIUM CITIES
> (25,000-99,999)
> Northampton, MA
>
> But hey, they made it up too I suppose. I am becoming seriiously
> sympathetic to Tom in one area. I was trying to remember when anyone
> other than me here, admitted being wrong, or less informed, on
> anything, or when the "Left" did anything wrong, wasn't perfect,
> except to not be militant enough.
> I honestly can't remember one of any type. That's not discussion.
> There've been a million spins, rationalizations, etc...but not one
> "Damn that was a mistake", or "Thats was stupid", or "Cool I learned
> something new."
> Bill C


Bill, take a deep breath.

OK, now review some of the stuff that Chung has written on
potential sources of bias in statistics.

I clicked on the epodunk link. While they don't give detail
on the exact methodology they use for their ranking, it
appears that they use presidential voting results in their
ranking.

Was there a home state guy in there somewhere? If there was,
would that introduce a bias that would cause Massachusetts
localities to come out ranked higher than they actually are?

One more thing. I seem to have lost track of the post where
I said that Massachusetts in general, and Hampshire County
in particular were not left leaning locations. Could you dig
that up for me? Thanks.

Bob Schwartz
 
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> OK, now review some of the stuff that Chung has written on
> potential sources of bias in statistics.
>
> I clicked on the epodunk link. While they don't give detail
> on the exact methodology they use for their ranking, it
> appears that they use presidential voting results in their
> ranking.
>
> Was there a home state guy in there somewhere? If there was,
> would that introduce a bias that would cause Massachusetts
> localities to come out ranked higher than they actually are?


Bill, a further comment on potential sources of
bias...

Epodunk also uses political contributions in their
ranking. If a state with higher than average income
had a local boy in a presidential race, could that
be considered a source of bias?

When you were ranting about 'bluest of the blue',
one of the things that came to mind for me was voting
patterns associated with racial demographics, and
some of the stark geographical and racial segregation
that still exists in this country. So if you went
strictly on voting patterns, what you would wind up
with is a huge bias towards racially segregated
communities. I am absolutely certain I could come up
with Northhampton-sized neighborhoods in Milwaukee
with voting patterns that leaned further left than
where you live. Really, I think it would be trivial.

Throwing political contributions into the calculation
would moderate that. But there would still be sources
of bias based on income, don't you think?

Bob Schwartz
 
On Nov 16, 7:41 am, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
wrote:

> OK, now review some of the stuff that Chung has written on
> potential sources of bias in statistics.


Recognizing bias is indeed important because it is inevitable. There
can be no such thing as "no bias" in the social sciences -- it is
impossible to avoid. (This does not mean in any way that attempting
to tease out the "less subjective" aspects and or patterns should be
avoided.) All that can or should be hoped for is "reasonableness" and
that the underlying qualifications are understood.

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2007/11/post_2.html


"The great differences between the characteristic methods of the
physical sciences and those of the social sciences explain why the
natural scientist who turns to the work of the professional students
of social phenomena so often feels that he has got among a company of
people who habitually commit all the mortal sins which he is most
careful to avoid, and that a science of society conforming to his
standards does not yet exist." -- Hayek, _The Counter-Revolution of
Science, Studies on the Abuse of Reason_
 
On Nov 14, 5:44 pm, Fred Fredburger
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "Gunner Asch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...

>
> >>> Why not? Stalin had already killed 10-20 million.

>
> >> Few believed it..and the Left in the US, once again..excused it.

>
> > Just in this thread we have several people denying the mass murders.
> > Socialists will ALWAYS forgive "mistakes" by Socialists under any
> > circumstances. But they will never forgive even arguably correct things
> > that can be made to look bad by Capitalists.


Please use a lower case "c." Capitalism just happens -- it is not a
designed "system" like socialism. "Capitalism" did not occur due to a
(concious) choice by some "society."

> I once knew a wacko who did that denial thing on Stalin's behalf. I
> never understood why. If Khrushchev and Gorbachev said Stalin did it,
> why would anyone else bother to deny it?
>
> In truth, it's a bit difficult to distinguish who it was that killed
> some of those people. If a mass grave is found what was once German
> occupied Soviet land, who gets credit, ****** or Stalin? But that's just
> a minor difficulty in keeping score. For someone like Stalin, a couple
> million more or less is no big difference.


Well that is right. And it also points to the fact that arguments
about "exactly how many" is the correct number miss the essential
point. A mass murderer is the "biggest sort of criminal." Arguing
whether it was "10,234,452" or "9,344,984" dead because of Asshole X
sort of misses the main mark. Ordinal rankings of badness are always
subjective; we don't need exact facts to come to our conclusions.

murders in the 10's of millions => biggest sort of ***** ever known
murders in the millions => less ***** than above
murders in the 100ks => less ***** than above
murders in the 10ks => less ***** than above
murders in the 1ks => less ***** than above
murders in the 100s => less ***** than above
murders in the 10s => less ***** than above
murders in the 1s => less ***** than above

Even the magnitude divisions are subjective. The point is that these
are anti-social killer freaks. That the "numbers may be facts, or
even 'rough' facts" don't tell us how to feel about it, or how to deal
with it. (I have some ideas of how to deal with them, and it would
not be outsourcing.)

"Most people are still unwilling to face the most alarming lesson of
modern history: that the greatest crimes of our time have been
committed by governments that had the enthusiastic support of millions
of people who were guided by moral impulses. It is simply not true
that ****** or Mussolini, Lenin or Stalin, appealed only to the worst
instincts of their people: they also appealed to some of the feelings
which also dominate contemporary democracies." -- Hayek

"Hard to see, the dark side is." -- Yoda
 
On 16 Nov, 14:48, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> And of course there's no sense in mentioning the National Socialists
> >> Party. You say they weren't socialists despite the fact that they were
> >> voted in as Socialists.

>
> > The Nazis were voted in on a lot of promises.

>
> Say, weren't the Fascists as well? And the Demcrats?


And the Republicans, and every other political party ever, yes. The
point (that you snipped, because you couldn't argue with it) was that
their promises weren't consistently or substantially socialist: and
the policies they followed through on, even less socialist.

> > Yes, they started out
> > appealing to the poor end of German society (which was lots of people
> > at the time) with vaguely socialist policies.

>
> You really ought to study this stuff more Pete.


Because..? You disagree with something I said? You think I am so
brilliant I should write a book?

News, Tom. 'You're wrong' is not an argument. 'You're wrong
because...' is the beginnings of an argument. Try the latter, writing
a coherent argument might help you learn.

Anyway, you were going to produce a list of the demonstrated evils of
socialism. Here's Steven's list again of elected socialist governments
to help you:

Austria - Social Democratic Party of Austria
Belgium - Socialist Party
Estonia - Social Democratic Party
Hungary - Hungarian Socialist Party
Italy - Democrats of the Left & Italian Democratic Socialists
(coalition under Olive Tree)
Lithuania - Lithuanian Social Democratic Party
Netherlands - Labour Party
New Zealand - New Zealand Labour Party
Norway - Norwegian Labour Party
Portugal - Socialist Party
San Marino - Party of Socialists and Democrats
Slovakia - Direction - Social Democracy
Spain - Spanish Socialist Workers' Party
South Africa - African National Congress
Switzerland - Social Democratic Party of Switzerland
UK - Labour Party

You shouldn't really have too much trouble finding bad things to say
about the ANC, at least - any time you're ready...

Pete
 
Pete wrote:
>
> On 16 Nov, 01:55, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >
> > > The common name for the early radar was bedspring radar. The antennas
> > > looked like bedsprings mounted vertically. The radar itself could only
> > > give a range signal but not an asimuth angle but with a whole chain of
> > > radar stations along the coast the ranges from each antenna system was
> > > plotted and an accurate position was calculated by where the range
> > > returns of two stations crossed. The freq/wavelenth that they operated
> > > on I believe was 10 cm. but it could have been a lower freq. Radar was
> > > developed from seeing tv signals change and flutter as an aircraft went
> > > overhead. From that beginning it was theroized that you could get the
> > > distance to a remote aircraft by bouncing a signal off the aircraft and
> > > measuring the time delay of the return signal.

> >
> > 10 Meter would be more like it. That's 30 MHz and would have been just
> > inside the capability of the Magnetron that Watson-Watt had to use. I think
> > later the frequency of the radar about doubled which gave great range and
> > accuracy.

>
> Chain Home (which was like you say meter band) weren't magnetron
> radars; not surprising when you consider a magnetron has to be
> comparable in size to the wavelength (it's a resonance chamber of
> sorts). Magnetrons were later in the war; they went through several
> types of radar of steadily increasing frequency. The airborne ones
> IIRC ended up around 10cm.
>
> Pete


The english developed the magnetron but shared the design with the US to
manufacture. The first Magnetrons operated at about 10 cm. Late in the
war they developed a 3 cm. radar. The higher freq. gave the radar a
better resolution as well as higher gain in the antenna system.

John
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:84f25f8c-de22-4450-888d-184f313d591b@i37g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> That's what I love. It just seems that
> when anyone comes up with credible evidence and facts, to back an
> argument, the ground shifts under it to something else, continually.
> People want to cling to their illusions, and bigotry, and damn
> anything that challenges that. It can all be spun and rationalized
> away.


Bill, in the first place I'm really tired of bigotry being treated as
somehow out of place or bad. Bigotry is what has defined almost all great
civilizations. While there are definitely negative things about it (after
all is anything all positive?) it is also a practice that pulls people
together as much as drives some apart.

When my grandparents came to this country they came to a place absolutely
bigoted against Slavs. A good example can be found in Jack London's
biography where he managed to get a job in Oakland and discovered that his
boss had fired, (from memory) an Italian and a Slav. The Slav, unable to
support his family committed suicide.

My father and his two brothers weren't allowed to attend public schools
because they were Slav. Luckily that disappeared by the time his youngest
sister got into high school.

But they ALL wanted to be Americans and not Slavs. My father wouldn't even
speak Slav to his parents but would only answer them in English. In the
neighborhood I grew up in there was every sort of nationality and probably
the most American of those there were the Blacks. Everyone strove to be
Americans and not something else. And that is a UNITING philosophy and not
the philosophy that somehow thousands of different beliefs and actions can
get along together and somehow be stronger. That's pure BS as is shown all
over the world today.

While there are negative examples of bigotry, America is pretty much the
defines the positive and combining side of bigotry. Some day, if the
Liberals don't turn this country into a cesspool, we'll all be of one mind -
Americans.
 
On Nov 16, 9:25 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message

<all snipped>
Tom I agree in with the idea that "multiculturalism" is turning the
US into a Balkan nation. My family had the same experiences. They
valued their heritage, but being American was the first and foremost
goal they had once they had here, today being "American" is to be a
scumbag, and a totally unworthy thing accoring to the PC, liberal
crowd. Everyone else's culture is superior to ours. There's no need
for anyone coming here legally, or otherwise to learn english, our
history, culture, values, or anything else, at least according to the
Democratic politicians , most of whom seem to back a totally
unrestricted US border, while ignoring Mexico's vicious immigration
policies. They keep apologizing to a State that makes our laws seem
like paradise.
I'm massively in favor of controlled, legal immigration, the free
pass, fake social security cards, drivers licenses, etc...for illegals
so the Democrats can get their illegal votes pisses me off.
Another issue is their caliam illegals are good for the US economy. I
can't believe that when the second biggest source of revenue, behing
oil, in Mexico is US dollars sent back from here. Every single one of
those is a dollar taken out of our schools, social programs, local
businesses, etc...but somehow this is supposed to be a good thing for
us.
I'm sure there'll be more spin in reply but I don't give a ****
anymore, because discussion is hopeless. Turning the US into a third
world, communist police state, under the PC fascist party would be a
great thing, and I submit. I just want to be one of the security folks
and get mine.
Castro and Chavez can lead us into the bold new equality.
Bill C
 
Bill C wrote:
> None of this was enough to convince Bob that the study had any
> validity.


I never said that. I said that Kerry being in the 2004 presidential
election caused a bias that made Massachusetts appear more liberal
than it actually was.

Do you play this game with your kids? Don't answer that, I don't
want to know.

Bob Schwartz
 
Bill C wrote:

> I'm sure there'll be more spin in reply but I don't give a ****
> anymore, because discussion is hopeless. Turning the US into a third
> world, communist police state, under the PC fascist party would be a
> great thing, and I submit. I just want to be one of the security folks
> and get mine.
>
>


You are officially a crackpot.
 
On Nov 16, 8:24 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm massively in favor of controlled, legal immigration, the free
> pass, fake social security cards, drivers licenses, etc...for illegals
> so the Democrats can get their illegal votes pisses me off.
> Another issue is their caliam illegals are good for the US economy. I
> can't believe that when the second biggest source of revenue, behing
> oil, in Mexico is US dollars sent back from here. Every single one of
> those is a dollar taken out of our schools, social programs, local
> businesses, etc...but somehow this is supposed to be a good thing for
> us.
> I'm sure there'll be more spin in reply but I don't give a ****
> anymore, because discussion is hopeless. Turning the US into a third
> world, communist police state, under the PC fascist party would be a
> great thing, and I submit. I just want to be one of the security folks
> and get mine.
> Castro and Chavez can lead us into the bold new equality.


Don't forget global warming. They're coming to the
US and driving cars, heating the planet. So maybe
we'll be saved from the communist police state, because
we'll drown first.

Ben

P.S. Hardly any illegal immigrant would ever try to
vote - they're scared to talk to cops when crimes happen
to them, they're hardly going to voluntarily walk up to
some official who asks for name and address and writes
you down in a book. OTOH, if they could get driver's
licenses, more of their dollars would stay in the US in
the form of license, registration fees, and insurance
payments. See, the Dems aren't in bed with the
immigrants - they're in bed with the insurance companies.

Meanwhile, underpaid immigrants in fields, poultry
plants, meatpacking and kitchens are subsidizing the
cheap food and cheap restaurants all true Americans
enjoy. Lou Dobbs should campaign to kick all the
immigrants out on the grounds that food would then
become expensive enough that Americans could no
longer afford to be such Fatties. It would be good
for us - build character.
 
On Nov 16, 11:24 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > None of this was enough to convince Bob that the study had any
> > validity.

>
> I never said that. I said that Kerry being in the 2004 presidential
> election caused a bias that made Massachusetts appear more liberal
> than it actually was.
>
> Do you play this game with your kids? Don't answer that, I don't
> want to know.
>
> Bob Schwartz


Can you say, McGovern, Kennedy, Dukakis, before you say Kerry?
Bill C
 
On Nov 17, 6:05 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Nov 16, 8:24 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'm massively in favor of controlled, legal immigration, the free
> > pass, fake social security cards, drivers licenses, etc...for illegals
> > so the Democrats can get their illegal votes pisses me off.
> > Another issue is their caliam illegals are good for the US economy. I
> > can't believe that when the second biggest source of revenue, behing
> > oil, in Mexico is US dollars sent back from here. Every single one of
> > those is a dollar taken out of our schools, social programs, local
> > businesses, etc...but somehow this is supposed to be a good thing for
> > us.
> > I'm sure there'll be more spin in reply but I don't give a ****
> > anymore, because discussion is hopeless. Turning the US into a third
> > world, communist police state, under the PC fascist party would be a
> > great thing, and I submit. I just want to be one of the security folks
> > and get mine.
> > Castro and Chavez can lead us into the bold new equality.

>
> Don't forget global warming. They're coming to the
> US and driving cars, heating the planet. So maybe
> we'll be saved from the communist police state, because
> we'll drown first.

I'm not sure what Global warming has to do with this, unless it's
illegal aliens in Australia:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2007/2091216.htm

> An international study has found that Australia's energy sector is the world's highest polluter on a per capita basis. The study found that the average power use of every Australian generates more than 10 tons of carbon dioxide per year; that's one ton more than Americans and eight tons more than each and every Chinese citizen.



> Ben
>
> P.S. Hardly any illegal immigrant would ever try to
> vote - they're scared to talk to cops when crimes happen
> to them, they're hardly going to voluntarily walk up to
> some official who asks for name and address and writes
> you down in a book. OTOH, if they could get driver's
> licenses, more of their dollars would stay in the US in
> the form of license, registration fees, and insurance
> payments. See, the Dems aren't in bed with the
> immigrants - they're in bed with the insurance companies.
>

Well Ben
My cousin ran State Social Servide offices here, and in Arizona. They
routinely gave false documentation to illegals so they could get State
services. This was an open secret, and the order was to NOT cooperate
with federal folks, and know nothing, and that was in both places.
It's not just the Dems, either. Both parties are desperate for the
Hispanic vote, so there's a ton of pandering on both sides, but the
Dems on the far left make it clear they want an open border, no
checks, period.
If they did have a working system, and States weren't busy setting
frderal policy by ignoring federal law then maybe we could get chech
on these people. Get them into the system, protect them on the jobs,
and keep some more money here. I agree with that.
I don't like being told that the money isn't pouring out of local
economies when the second biggest source of revenue in Mexico is
illegal US dollars. As usual they think we are all stupid. I object to
that.

> Meanwhile, underpaid immigrants in fields, poultry
> plants, meatpacking and kitchens are subsidizing the
> cheap food and cheap restaurants all true Americans
> enjoy. Lou Dobbs should campaign to kick all the
> immigrants out on the grounds that food would then
> become expensive enough that Americans could no
> longer afford to be such Fatties. It would be good
> for us - build character.


Like I said the Republicans, and industry types don't want them
legalized because it would force them to pay minimum wage at least,
and social security etc...When they cracked down on illegal employers
here in Mass, without noifying the State until JUST before the made
the raids, they actually caught a ton of people, instead of finding
half empty plants, and managed to bring a ton of fines against the
company and the State is still screaming bloody murder.
Personally I'd estimate the amount of money leaving the US, and
deduct it from the foreign aid we are paying, especially Mexico. In
20004 we gave them about 34 million, that wouldn't cover the tab, but
it would get the hypocritical Mexican Governments attention.

The immigration is good for us, open borders, and exploiting what are
basically bond servants, once the companies get their hands on these
people isn't. Neither is States, and people breaking the law,
violating our security, and then denying it, in spite of a mountain of
evidence.
Bill C
 
On Nov 17, 4:11 am, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > I'm sure there'll be more spin in reply but I don't give a ****
> > anymore, because discussion is hopeless. Turning the US into a third
> > world, communist police state, under the PC fascist party would be a
> > great thing, and I submit. I just want to be one of the security folks
> > and get mine.

>
> You are officially a crackpot.


Thanks.
Bill C
 
On Nov 16, 11:24 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > None of this was enough to convince Bob that the study had any
> > validity.

>
> I never said that. I said that Kerry being in the 2004 presidential
> election caused a bias that made Massachusetts appear more liberal
> than it actually was.
>
> Do you play this game with your kids? Don't answer that, I don't
> want to know.
>
> Bob Schwartz


What do these things have to do with Kerry?
They were also major factors in the study, and you choose to discount
them because they don't fit your argument.

Gay households
This index was compiled from the U.S. Census by Gary Gates, a
demographer at the Urban Institute and co-author of The Gay and
Lesbian Atlas. Figures were included for the 1,360 U.S. communities in
which 50 or more couples reported living in such relationships.

Local government resolutions opposing combat in Iraq

Local officials performing gay marriages

Congressional District voting history
(Note: Because this factor was part of the screen for rankings,
Washington, D.C., which does not have congressional representation,
was excluded from our study. Washington residents who do not live in
the White House showed strong liberal leanings in their votes for
president and political contributions. The city also has a large
number of gay households.)

Population
Community population, as reported in the 2000 census.


Your right it's hopeless to discuss things when people choose onlty
the facts, and evidence that support their pre-conceived notions.
I never said that you weren't admitting that this is a left leaning
area. That's pretty damned obvious, and to me it's pretty clear on
mounds of evidence that this is, if not the most Liberal pretty damned
close based on a mountain of evidence over 30 or 40 years time.
If you want to actually have a discussion please provided something
in the way of sources, facts, and evidence that I can read and
evaluate too. I could be wrong, I always challenge what I believe at
any given time with new material.
Bill C
 
On Nov 17, 7:58 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 11:24 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Bill C wrote:
> > > None of this was enough to convince Bob that the study had any
> > > validity.

>
> > I never said that. I said that Kerry being in the 2004 presidential
> > election caused a bias that made Massachusetts appear more liberal
> > than it actually was.

>
> > Do you play this game with your kids? Don't answer that, I don't
> > want to know.

>
> > Bob Schwartz

>
> Can you say, McGovern, Kennedy, Dukakis, before you say Kerry?
> Bill C


I should've said Kennedy, McGovern, Kennedy, Dukakis, before Kerry.
My Bad.
Bill C