twitter: rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 9 topics

rec.crafts.metalworking
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A new "constitutional right"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/8e77e80070fe5b42?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 1:35 pm
From: awthrawthr

On Feb 3, 1:10 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
> HH&C wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 7:32 am, "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 1, 12:35 am, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
> >>> HH&C wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 29, 4:26 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
> >>>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Cliff
> >>>> Kindly list all of the republicans taht receive union backing. Take
> >>>> as much white space as necessary, or even a little more.
> >>> Why don't you tell us how much unions contribute to political campaigns.
> >>> In total. Then tell us how much America's businesses spend to get
> >>> politicians they want elected into office. Here's a clue. Business
> >>> spends tons more on elections than unions do. You know that, right?
> >>> Hawke
> >> Why don't you tell me how many businesses print magazines telling
> >> their members/employees how to vote.
>
> > Little raptor, where did you go?
>
....
>Just face it, unions have little power compared to business. Workers
> have little power compared to management. What, you didn't know that?
>Haven't you every worked for a company before? Didn't you understand who
>was the boss and who called the shots?

Umm, the UAW UNION now owns part of GM because the Resident Obama told
the CORPORATE lenders to step away from the money that was owed them -
throwing overboard FEDERAL law. Why? Because unions carry great sway
politically which is what this thread is about.

The recent rulling gives corporations and nonprofits equal footing
politically with the UNIONS who are in the driver's seat driving the
nation into communism. (What else would you call the unlawful seizing
of the stock of GM by the proletariat other than communism?)

>But you never put it together
>that business did the same thing with elections? Not very aware of
>things, are you?

Actually it's the opposite of what you describe. Unions were at the
head of the line. Corporations and nonprofits were't allowed to be in
line in the last 60 days of an election.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:12 pm
From: "dcaster@krl.org"

On Feb 3, 7:20 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
All you have to do is look at how often the candidate
> who spends the most wins an election.
> Hawke

In the last presidential election Obama out spent McCain. And won the
election.
But did Obama win because he spent more, or did he have more to spend
because he was more popular and therefore got more money as well as
more votes.

Correlation does not mean cause and effect.

Dan

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:17 pm
From: Strabo

RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> Hawke <davesmithers@digitalpath.net> wrote in
> news:hkciaq$t5k$1@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> Harold Burton wrote:
>>> In article <MPG.25ce879040b1f0e1ef3@news.bytemine.net>,
>>> tankfixer <paul.carrier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <Xns9D106EB31ED98hopewell@216.196.97.130>, "RD (The
>>>> Sandman)" says...
>>>>> rangerssuck <rangerssuck@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:58be7593-d33b-4fdf-817f-551cb726567e@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.co
>>>>> m:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 29, 11:49 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <f47f6fa6-0b75-4ab6-ba39-0856bfb9e442
>>>>>>> @d14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, rangerss...@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 4:13 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>>>>>>>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote
>>>>>>>>> innews:d8a5m5h
>>>>>> 871mrcn45nrdl24qcgb78fjj8su@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>>>>>>>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>>>>>>> Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was
>>>>>>>>> about corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>>>>>>>> Do you really think that unions have money to spend that's
>>>>>>>> anywhere near what the likes of Exxon has?
>>>>>>> http://news.opb.org/article/6560-ballot-measure-spending-could-top
>>>>>>> -ten - million/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The groups on both sides of Measures 66 and 67 have raised a
>>>>>>> combined $8.5 million so far with no signs of slowing down.
>>>>>>> The Vote No group is getting support from businesses. The Vote
>>>>>>> Yes group, in favor of the taxes, is receiving most of its money
>>>>>>> from public employee unions.
>>>>>>> So far the Yes side is outspending the No side.
>>>>>>> Janice Thompson of Common Cause Oregon says that's not surprising
>>>>>>> since they'll have to work harder to convince undecided voters.
>>>>>>> Janice Thompson: "They're more likely to sit out or when in
>>>>>>> doubt, vote no. And so the yes side has to kind of get those
>>>>>>> default no kind of voters and get people out."
>>>>>>> Even at $10 million this wouldn't break the Oregon record for
>>>>>>> initiative campaigns set in 2008.
>>>>>>> That year unions raised more than $15 million to defeat a slate
>>>>>>> of measures sponsored by initiative activist Bill Sizemore.
>>>>>> And $15 million is about 0.03% of Exxon's PROFIT last year. A mere
>>>>>> drop in the bucket. The guys with the big money can now run their
>>>>>> own campaigns, dwarfing anything a candidate could reasonably do
>>>>>> on his/ her own. Left, right, I don't really care (well, I do, but
>>>>>> not in this case). This ruling stinks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I think the kind of spending that goes on in political
>>>>>> campaigns is obscene. To have a candidate talking about fixing the
>>>>>> economy or helping the poor or lowering the deficit while spending
>>>>>> tens or hundreds of millions on campaign signs and commercials is
>>>>>> just wrong. And that goes for BOTH sides. There's GOT to be a
>>>>>> better way, and letting big-money corporations run away with it is
>>>>>> simply a giant step in the wrong direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> What it really did was reverse parts of McCain-Feingold.
>>>> That is what upsets the left so much.
>>>> They thought they had a law there to muzzle their opponents.
>>>>
>>>> In fact a group that produced a movie very critical of Hillary
>>>> Clinton chose not to air it for fear of being prosecuted under
>>>> McCain-Feingold.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>
>> Exactly wrong. It had nothing to do with that. The ruling was about
>> corporate rights. This ruling expanded upon the theory that a
>> corporation, nothing more than a legal fiction, is the equal of a
>> "person" under the law.
>
> That isn't new. Corporations have been recognized as "persons" under
> statute for some time. For example, under the definition of "person" in
> the 1933 edition of Black's Law is the following:
>
> "A man considered according to the tank he holds in society, with all the
> right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it
> imposes.
>
> The term is, however, more extensive than man. It may include artificial
> beings, as corporations, ..."
>
> In the 6th Ed of Black's Law - 1991:
>
> "In general usage, a human being (ie, natural person) though *by statute
> term* may include labor organizations, partnershps, associations,
> corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or
> receivers."
>
> This ruling gives corporations what they were
>> denied in the past, which is the right to act as a person in the
>> political arena.
>
> Particularly in the last 30/60 days (thanks to Paladin) of elections
> (McCain-Feingold).
>
> That means the owners or directors of corporations
>> are now allowed to use their corporation's financial assets to
>> influence elections as if they were a real person. But they are not
>> people and they are in control of enormous financial power. They will
>> apply this power to get the people into public office they want. The
>> unequal power a corporation has compared to a person will allow them
>> to sway elections the way they want. All you have to do is look at how
>> often the candidate who spends the most wins an election. Now you can
>> be assured that whoever the corporations want to win will have the
>> most money. You have to be really stupid to think that is going to be
>> good for anyone but the corporations.
>
> Well, the decision also included unions and advocacy groups such as the
> NRA, Planned Parenthood.
>
> We could also look at the top 10 monies donated from organizations over
> the last 12 years to see how that shakes out:
>
> 1. AT&T - 44.2M
> 2. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (a
> union) 41.9M
> 3. National Association of Realtors (a union) - 35.6M
> 4. Goldman Sachs - 31.4M
> 5. American Association of Justice - 31.4M
> 6. International Brotherhood of Eletrical Workers (IBEW - a union) 31.4M
> 7. National Education Association (a union) - 30.1M
> 8. Laborers Union - 29M
> 9. Service Employees International Union - 27.9M
> 10. Carpenters & Joiners Union - 27.8M
>
> I grant you that most of the monies contributed to political parties,
> including soft money (banned by McCain-Feingold) by corporations, labor
> unions and interest groups favored Republicans in 2000 (about $300M to
> 260M), 2002 (about 330M to 275M), 2004 (about 195M to 155M) and 2006
> (about 225M to 180M), but favored Democrats in 2008 (about 260M to 195M).
> Hard to judge exact amounts off the graph.
>
> Source: Time Magazine - latest edition.
>
> Do I agree with that amount of power being available to corporations,
> unions and advocacy groups? Not really although I would grant advocacy
> groups more slack than the other two. At least an advocacy group has to
> get its money from those interested in that particular advocacy. Even
> then, I would like to see its monies come from memberships and direct
> contributions from actual living people rather than corporations or
> unions.
>

This controversy can be put to rest by eliminating the corporation and
all other fictions from law.

A corporation is not needed to form a union. A corporation is not
needed to form a company to mine, manufacture or otherwise participate
in commerce.

A corporation mainly serves the interests of the state by acting
as its agent particularly in regards to implementing social engineering
policies and collecting taxes.

Accommodating the corporation has created levels of legal complexity,
confusion, as well as a loss of privacy.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:22 pm
From: Strabo

awthrawthr wrote:
> On Feb 3, 1:10 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>> HH&C wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 7:32 am, "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 1, 12:35 am, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>>>> HH&C wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 29, 4:26 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>>>>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Cliff
>>>>>> Kindly list all of the republicans taht receive union backing. Take
>>>>>> as much white space as necessary, or even a little more.
>>>>> Why don't you tell us how much unions contribute to political campaigns.
>>>>> In total. Then tell us how much America's businesses spend to get
>>>>> politicians they want elected into office. Here's a clue. Business
>>>>> spends tons more on elections than unions do. You know that, right?
>>>>> Hawke
>>>> Why don't you tell me how many businesses print magazines telling
>>>> their members/employees how to vote.
>>> Little raptor, where did you go?
> ....
>> Just face it, unions have little power compared to business. Workers
>> have little power compared to management. What, you didn't know that?
>> Haven't you every worked for a company before? Didn't you understand who
>> was the boss and who called the shots?
>
> Umm, the UAW UNION now owns part of GM because the Resident Obama told
> the CORPORATE lenders to step away from the money that was owed them -
> throwing overboard FEDERAL law. Why? Because unions carry great sway
> politically which is what this thread is about.
>
> The recent rulling gives corporations and nonprofits equal footing
> politically with the UNIONS who are in the driver's seat driving the
> nation into communism. (What else would you call the unlawful seizing
> of the stock of GM by the proletariat other than communism?)
>
>> But you never put it together
>> that business did the same thing with elections? Not very aware of
>> things, are you?
>
> Actually it's the opposite of what you describe. Unions were at the
> head of the line. Corporations and nonprofits were't allowed to be in
> line in the last 60 days of an election.
>
>

The winds of truth clear the air of Hawke's propaganda.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:23 pm
From: "RD (The Sandman)"

Strabo <strabo@flashlight.net> wrote in
news:yyman.5250$4N4.2913@newsfe24.iad:

> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>> Hawke <davesmithers@digitalpath.net> wrote in
>> news:hkciaq$t5k$1@speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> Harold Burton wrote:
>>>> In article <MPG.25ce879040b1f0e1ef3@news.bytemine.net>,
>>>> tankfixer <paul.carrier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <Xns9D106EB31ED98hopewell@216.196.97.130>, "RD (The
>>>>> Sandman)" says...
>>>>>> rangerssuck <rangerssuck@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:58be7593-d33b-4fdf-817f-551cb726567e@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.
>>>>>> co m:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 11:49 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <f47f6fa6-0b75-4ab6-ba39-0856bfb9e442
>>>>>>>> @d14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, rangerss...@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 4:13 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>>>>>>>>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> innews:d8a5m5h
>>>>>>> 871mrcn45nrdl24qcgb78fjj8su@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>>>>>>>>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>>>>>>>> Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was
>>>>>>>>>> about corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>>>>>>>>> Do you really think that unions have money to spend that's
>>>>>>>>> anywhere near what the likes of Exxon has?
>>>>>>>> http://news.opb.org/article/6560-ballot-measure-spending-could-t
>>>>>>>> op -ten - million/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The groups on both sides of Measures 66 and 67 have raised a
>>>>>>>> combined $8.5 million so far with no signs of slowing down.
>>>>>>>> The Vote No group is getting support from businesses. The Vote
>>>>>>>> Yes group, in favor of the taxes, is receiving most of its
>>>>>>>> money from public employee unions.
>>>>>>>> So far the Yes side is outspending the No side.
>>>>>>>> Janice Thompson of Common Cause Oregon says that's not
>>>>>>>> surprising since they'll have to work harder to convince
>>>>>>>> undecided voters. Janice Thompson: "They're more likely to sit
>>>>>>>> out or when in doubt, vote no. And so the yes side has to kind
>>>>>>>> of get those default no kind of voters and get people out."
>>>>>>>> Even at $10 million this wouldn't break the Oregon record for
>>>>>>>> initiative campaigns set in 2008.
>>>>>>>> That year unions raised more than $15 million to defeat a slate
>>>>>>>> of measures sponsored by initiative activist Bill Sizemore.
>>>>>>> And $15 million is about 0.03% of Exxon's PROFIT last year. A
>>>>>>> mere drop in the bucket. The guys with the big money can now
>>>>>>> run their own campaigns, dwarfing anything a candidate could
>>>>>>> reasonably do on his/ her own. Left, right, I don't really care
>>>>>>> (well, I do, but not in this case). This ruling stinks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally, I think the kind of spending that goes on in
>>>>>>> political campaigns is obscene. To have a candidate talking
>>>>>>> about fixing the economy or helping the poor or lowering the
>>>>>>> deficit while spending tens or hundreds of millions on campaign
>>>>>>> signs and commercials is just wrong. And that goes for BOTH
>>>>>>> sides. There's GOT to be a better way, and letting big-money
>>>>>>> corporations run away with it is simply a giant step in the
>>>>>>> wrong direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What it really did was reverse parts of McCain-Feingold.
>>>>> That is what upsets the left so much.
>>>>> They thought they had a law there to muzzle their opponents.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact a group that produced a movie very critical of Hillary
>>>>> Clinton chose not to air it for fear of being prosecuted under
>>>>> McCain-Feingold.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> Exactly wrong. It had nothing to do with that. The ruling was about
>>> corporate rights. This ruling expanded upon the theory that a
>>> corporation, nothing more than a legal fiction, is the equal of a
>>> "person" under the law.
>>
>> That isn't new. Corporations have been recognized as "persons" under
>> statute for some time. For example, under the definition of "person"
>> in the 1933 edition of Black's Law is the following:
>>
>> "A man considered according to the tank he holds in society, with all
>> the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties
>> which it imposes.
>>
>> The term is, however, more extensive than man. It may include
>> artificial beings, as corporations, ..."
>>
>> In the 6th Ed of Black's Law - 1991:
>>
>> "In general usage, a human being (ie, natural person) though *by
>> statute term* may include labor organizations, partnershps,
>> associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees
>> in bankruptcy, or receivers."
>>
>> This ruling gives corporations what they were
>>> denied in the past, which is the right to act as a person in the
>>> political arena.
>>
>> Particularly in the last 30/60 days (thanks to Paladin) of elections
>> (McCain-Feingold).
>>
>> That means the owners or directors of corporations
>>> are now allowed to use their corporation's financial assets to
>>> influence elections as if they were a real person. But they are not
>>> people and they are in control of enormous financial power. They
>>> will apply this power to get the people into public office they
>>> want. The unequal power a corporation has compared to a person will
>>> allow them to sway elections the way they want. All you have to do
>>> is look at how often the candidate who spends the most wins an
>>> election. Now you can be assured that whoever the corporations want
>>> to win will have the most money. You have to be really stupid to
>>> think that is going to be good for anyone but the corporations.
>>
>> Well, the decision also included unions and advocacy groups such as
>> the NRA, Planned Parenthood.
>>
>> We could also look at the top 10 monies donated from organizations
>> over the last 12 years to see how that shakes out:
>>
>> 1. AT&T - 44.2M
>> 2. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (a
>> union) 41.9M
>> 3. National Association of Realtors (a union) - 35.6M
>> 4. Goldman Sachs - 31.4M
>> 5. American Association of Justice - 31.4M
>> 6. International Brotherhood of Eletrical Workers (IBEW - a union)
>> 31.4M 7. National Education Association (a union) - 30.1M
>> 8. Laborers Union - 29M
>> 9. Service Employees International Union - 27.9M
>> 10. Carpenters & Joiners Union - 27.8M
>>
>> I grant you that most of the monies contributed to political parties,
>> including soft money (banned by McCain-Feingold) by corporations,
>> labor unions and interest groups favored Republicans in 2000 (about
>> $300M to 260M), 2002 (about 330M to 275M), 2004 (about 195M to 155M)
>> and 2006 (about 225M to 180M), but favored Democrats in 2008 (about
>> 260M to 195M). Hard to judge exact amounts off the graph.
>>
>> Source: Time Magazine - latest edition.
>>
>> Do I agree with that amount of power being available to corporations,
>> unions and advocacy groups? Not really although I would grant
>> advocacy groups more slack than the other two. At least an advocacy
>> group has to get its money from those interested in that particular
>> advocacy. Even then, I would like to see its monies come from
>> memberships and direct contributions from actual living people rather
>> than corporations or unions.
>>
>
> This controversy can be put to rest by eliminating the corporation and
> all other fictions from law.

I assume you mean as persons.

> A corporation is not needed to form a union. A corporation is not
> needed to form a company to mine, manufacture or otherwise participate
> in commerce.
>
> A corporation mainly serves the interests of the state by acting
> as its agent particularly in regards to implementing social
> engineering policies and collecting taxes.

It also has a few things to do with legal obligations and liabilities.

> Accommodating the corporation has created levels of legal complexity,
> confusion, as well as a loss of privacy.

Depending on the type of corporation, yes.

--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

Some points to ponder:
Why is it good if a vacuum cleaner really sucks?
Why is the third hand on a clock called the "second hand"?
Why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
Why do we sing "Take me out to the ballgame" when we are already
there?

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:45 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"

"Strabo" <strabo@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:fDman.52102$s%.41285@newsfe18.iad...
> awthrawthr wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 1:10 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>> HH&C wrote:
>>>> On Feb 1, 7:32 am, "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 1, 12:35 am, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>>>>> HH&C wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 4:26 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>>>>>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Cliff
>>>>>>> Kindly list all of the republicans taht receive union backing. Take
>>>>>>> as much white space as necessary, or even a little more.
>>>>>> Why don't you tell us how much unions contribute to political
>>>>>> campaigns.
>>>>>> In total. Then tell us how much America's businesses spend to get
>>>>>> politicians they want elected into office. Here's a clue. Business
>>>>>> spends tons more on elections than unions do. You know that, right?
>>>>>> Hawke
>>>>> Why don't you tell me how many businesses print magazines telling
>>>>> their members/employees how to vote.
>>>> Little raptor, where did you go?
>> ....
>>> Just face it, unions have little power compared to business. Workers
>>> have little power compared to management. What, you didn't know that?
>>> Haven't you every worked for a company before? Didn't you understand who
>>> was the boss and who called the shots?
>>
>> Umm, the UAW UNION now owns part of GM because the Resident Obama told
>> the CORPORATE lenders to step away from the money that was owed them -
>> throwing overboard FEDERAL law. Why? Because unions carry great sway
>> politically which is what this thread is about.
>>
>> The recent rulling gives corporations and nonprofits equal footing
>> politically with the UNIONS who are in the driver's seat driving the
>> nation into communism. (What else would you call the unlawful seizing
>> of the stock of GM by the proletariat other than communism?)
>>
>>> But you never put it together
>>> that business did the same thing with elections? Not very aware of
>>> things, are you?
>>
>> Actually it's the opposite of what you describe. Unions were at the
>> head of the line. Corporations and nonprofits were't allowed to be in
>> line in the last 60 days of an election.

Nonsense. See Title II, Subtitle A, Section 203 of McCain-Feingold. Unions
and corporations had the same restrictions.

>>
>>
>
> The winds of truth clear the air of Hawke's propaganda.

Strabo, you ought to get in the habit of checking into what you're talking
about before mouthing off. You're making it up in your head.

--
Ed Huntress

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT - Turkeys Voting for Christmas -- was The Lancet's Vaccine
Retraction -- A medical journal's role in the autism scare
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/f7da32a69e030efa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 1:46 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"

"John R. Carroll" <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:WL2dnYWfbalBWPTWnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>> "John R. Carroll" <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>> news:dJKdnYSMoO6gKvTWnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> F. George McDuffee wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
>>>> <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> If the government is not exercising many of its
>>>>>> functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
>>>>>> person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it's been extremely succesful in - - - - Canada.
>>>>>
>>>>> You must have noticed that their own banking and financial services
>>>>> industry avoided ( by direction ) the noose the rest of the world
>>>>> ran it's neck into.
>>>> <snip>
>>>> =========
>>>> A good argument for outsourcing. How much do you think Canada
>>>> would charge to run the US? Nothing else seems to have
>>>> worked....
>>>
>>> I doubt that you could wrap a big enough ball of cash around that
>>> order to get them interested.
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> I wish I'd saved the link to a piece Christia Freeland wrote for the
>>> Financial Times recently.
>>> You might have seen it anyway.
>>
>> It's here:
>>
>> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/db2b340a-0a1b-11df-8b23-00144feabdc0.html
>>
>> Worth reading, IMO.
>
> Off the subject completely but LaHood made a statement today that Toyota
> drivers ought to stop driving their cars until they can be fixed.
> How's that for poking your biggest competitor right in the eye!
> I wonder if these turkey's EVER think before they speak. I'd be mad as
> hell
> if I were a Toyota shareholder right about now.
> My tax payments would have just enabled one of my competitors to mess with
> sales figures and the valuation of my equity.

He was a little over the top, but, as you mention in another post, he pulled
back from that one.

It's an interesting question: Should the government keep its mouth shut
about a safety problem in order to preserve the profitability of
stockholders at some particular company? It's too bad that LaHood overstated
the case, because I'd like to see that question played out in the Murdoch
Press versus the mainstream.

--
Ed Huntress

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 1:46 pm
From: "John R. Carroll"

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> On Feb 3, 12:50 pm, "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>> news:dJKdnYSMoO6gKvTWnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> F. George McDuffee wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
>>>>> <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>
>> Off the subject completely but LaHood made a statement today that
>> Toyota drivers ought to stop driving their cars until they can be
>> fixed.
>> How's that for poking your biggest competitor right in the eye!
>> I wonder if these turkey's EVER think before they speak. I'd be mad
>> as hell if I were a Toyota shareholder right about now.
>> My tax payments would have just enabled one of my competitors to
>> mess with sales figures and the valuation of my equity.
>>
>> --
>> John R. Carroll- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Well John...it is the truth.

There are a lot of "truths" that the government doesn't speak in order not
to distort the market.
The difference here is that GM and Chrysler are Uncle Sam Inc.
They provide fewer jobs combined in America that Toyota.

This is really the definition of self dealing and a great example, from the
other side of the looking glass, of moral hazard.
LaHood should be replaced ASAP. He's obviously either to stupid or
insufficiently self aware to serve in any capacity.

--
John R. Carroll

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 1:51 pm
From: "John R. Carroll"

Ed Huntress wrote:
> "John R. Carroll" <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:WL2dnYWfbalBWPTWnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> "John R. Carroll" <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>> news:dJKdnYSMoO6gKvTWnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> F. George McDuffee wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
>>>>> <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> If the government is not exercising many of its
>>>>>>> functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
>>>>>>> person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it's been extremely succesful in - - - - Canada.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You must have noticed that their own banking and financial
>>>>>> services industry avoided ( by direction ) the noose the rest
>>>>>> of the world ran it's neck into.
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> =========
>>>>> A good argument for outsourcing. How much do you think Canada
>>>>> would charge to run the US? Nothing else seems to have
>>>>> worked....
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that you could wrap a big enough ball of cash around that
>>>> order to get them interested.
>>>> LOL
>>>>
>>>> I wish I'd saved the link to a piece Christia Freeland wrote for
>>>> the Financial Times recently.
>>>> You might have seen it anyway.
>>>
>>> It's here:
>>>
>>> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/db2b340a-0a1b-11df-8b23-00144feabdc0.html
>>>
>>> Worth reading, IMO.
>>
>> Off the subject completely but LaHood made a statement today that
>> Toyota drivers ought to stop driving their cars until they can be
>> fixed.
>> How's that for poking your biggest competitor right in the eye!
>> I wonder if these turkey's EVER think before they speak. I'd be mad
>> as hell
>> if I were a Toyota shareholder right about now.
>> My tax payments would have just enabled one of my competitors to
>> mess with sales figures and the valuation of my equity.
>
> He was a little over the top, but, as you mention in another post, he
> pulled back from that one.
>
> It's an interesting question: Should the government keep its mouth
> shut about a safety problem in order to preserve the profitability of
> stockholders at some particular company?

The government ordinarily exercises great restraint in these matters Ed.
Something else disturbing in the weekend news was Obama/Holder's statement
that we were going to try, convict, and then execute criminal defendants.
He's contaminated the entire US jury pool. WTF?

Such statements aren't without precedent but they are extremely ill advised,
prejudicial, and cause for a mistrial.
They make a mockery of the purpose of bringing the Gitmo detainees to US
soil for their day in court and I thought that was the entire reason the
administration wanted to proceed that way in the beginning.
Idiots......

--
John R. Carroll

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 1:57 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"

"John R. Carroll" <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:y7WdnaJvBoLLbfTWnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>> "John R. Carroll" <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>> news:WL2dnYWfbalBWPTWnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> "John R. Carroll" <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>>> news:dJKdnYSMoO6gKvTWnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> F. George McDuffee wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
>>>>>> <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> If the government is not exercising many of its
>>>>>>>> functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
>>>>>>>> person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because it's been extremely succesful in - - - - Canada.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You must have noticed that their own banking and financial
>>>>>>> services industry avoided ( by direction ) the noose the rest
>>>>>>> of the world ran it's neck into.
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> =========
>>>>>> A good argument for outsourcing. How much do you think Canada
>>>>>> would charge to run the US? Nothing else seems to have
>>>>>> worked....
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt that you could wrap a big enough ball of cash around that
>>>>> order to get them interested.
>>>>> LOL
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish I'd saved the link to a piece Christia Freeland wrote for
>>>>> the Financial Times recently.
>>>>> You might have seen it anyway.
>>>>
>>>> It's here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/db2b340a-0a1b-11df-8b23-00144feabdc0.html
>>>>
>>>> Worth reading, IMO.
>>>
>>> Off the subject completely but LaHood made a statement today that
>>> Toyota drivers ought to stop driving their cars until they can be
>>> fixed.
>>> How's that for poking your biggest competitor right in the eye!
>>> I wonder if these turkey's EVER think before they speak. I'd be mad
>>> as hell
>>> if I were a Toyota shareholder right about now.
>>> My tax payments would have just enabled one of my competitors to
>>> mess with sales figures and the valuation of my equity.
>>
>> He was a little over the top, but, as you mention in another post, he
>> pulled back from that one.
>>
>> It's an interesting question: Should the government keep its mouth
>> shut about a safety problem in order to preserve the profitability of
>> stockholders at some particular company?
>
> The government ordinarily exercises great restraint in these matters Ed.
> Something else disturbing in the weekend news was Obama/Holder's statement
> that we were going to try, convict, and then execute criminal defendants.
> He's contaminated the entire US jury pool. WTF?

Free speech. <g> I don't think that jury pools are contaminated by a
statement by a prosecutor, no matter how high up he is. Prosecuters argue
for execution right in their faces, while they're sitting in the jury box.

>
> Such statements aren't without precedent but they are extremely ill
> advised,
> prejudicial, and cause for a mistrial.

If it was a judge saying that, I'd agree with you.

> They make a mockery of the purpose of bringing the Gitmo detainees to US
> soil for their day in court and I thought that was the entire reason the
> administration wanted to proceed that way in the beginning.
> Idiots......
>
> --
> John R. Carroll
>
>

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:19 pm
From: "John R. Carroll"

Ed Huntress wrote:
> "John R. Carroll" <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:y7WdnaJvBoLLbfTWnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> "John R. Carroll" <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>> news:WL2dnYWfbalBWPTWnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> "John R. Carroll" <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>>>> news:dJKdnYSMoO6gKvTWnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>> F. George McDuffee wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
>>>>>>> <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>
>> The government ordinarily exercises great restraint in these matters
>> Ed. Something else disturbing in the weekend news was Obama/Holder's
>> statement that we were going to try, convict, and then execute
>> criminal defendants. He's contaminated the entire US jury pool. WTF?
>
> Free speech. <g> I don't think that jury pools are contaminated by a
> statement by a prosecutor, no matter how high up he is. Prosecuters
> argue for execution right in their faces, while they're sitting in
> the jury box.

Presidents of the Unted States don't actually have that right as a practical
matter Ed.
Judges grant changes of venue every day because of exactly this sort of
thing.
You know all of this so I'll assume you are jerking my chain.
Maybe Tom Gardner will jump in with an inane burst of polemic for us all.

>
>>
>> Such statements aren't without precedent but they are extremely ill
>> advised,
>> prejudicial, and cause for a mistrial.
>
> If it was a judge saying that, I'd agree with you.

Death penalty cases have gone to life sentence maximums more than once.
I can't cite a case for you.

--
John R. Carroll

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:49 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"

"John R. Carroll" <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:4_WdnZshpcF2a_TWnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>> "John R. Carroll" <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>> news:y7WdnaJvBoLLbfTWnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> "John R. Carroll" <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>>> news:WL2dnYWfbalBWPTWnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>> "John R. Carroll" <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:dJKdnYSMoO6gKvTWnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>> F. George McDuffee wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
>>>>>>>> <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> The government ordinarily exercises great restraint in these matters
>>> Ed. Something else disturbing in the weekend news was Obama/Holder's
>>> statement that we were going to try, convict, and then execute
>>> criminal defendants. He's contaminated the entire US jury pool. WTF?
>>
>> Free speech. <g> I don't think that jury pools are contaminated by a
>> statement by a prosecutor, no matter how high up he is. Prosecuters
>> argue for execution right in their faces, while they're sitting in
>> the jury box.
>
> Presidents of the Unted States don't actually have that right as a
> practical
> matter Ed.

What did Obama say? I thought it was Holder. I must have missed something.

> Judges grant changes of venue every day because of exactly this sort of
> thing.
> You know all of this so I'll assume you are jerking my chain.

Well, if Obama said something prejudicial, that's different. But Holder is
just the government's chief prosecutor.

> Maybe Tom Gardner will jump in with an inane burst of polemic for us all.

Why not? He probably doesn't know anything about it, so it's his kind of
topic. <g>

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Such statements aren't without precedent but they are extremely ill
>>> advised,
>>> prejudicial, and cause for a mistrial.
>>
>> If it was a judge saying that, I'd agree with you.
>
> Death penalty cases have gone to life sentence maximums more than once.
> I can't cite a case for you.
>
>
> --
> John R. Carroll
>
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: If you need some good reading
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/917e0671d2729497?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:07 pm
From: axolotl

On 2/3/2010 1:01 PM, Ignoramus26563 wrote:
> Really great website.
>
> http://sites.google.com/site/dannympwillems/home
>

Beautiful rebuild. That gentleman has much more patience (and skill) than I.

Kevin Gallimore - slinking off downstairs to his SB with some original
paint.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:14 pm
From: Ignoramus26563

On 2010-02-03, axolotl <mungedkevin@shorecomp.com> wrote:
> On 2/3/2010 1:01 PM, Ignoramus26563 wrote:
>> Really great website.
>>
>> http://sites.google.com/site/dannympwillems/home
>
> Beautiful rebuild. That gentleman has much more patience (and skill) than I.
>
> Kevin Gallimore - slinking off downstairs to his SB with some original
> paint.

Ditto. I admire the author tremendously.

I will not disassemble my lathe. I know how it will end up.

However, by now I have fixed a few known problems with it, and
stripped it off most paint. I still need some parts to do precision
tests, once I am done with it I will start painting.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Home of the Free, the Brave and the Gay
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/e498f6bd3200ff6e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:10 pm
From: Larry Graham

Lookout wrote:

> Doctors say homosexuality is normal.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!

Look out!

Lookout's doctor has the cure!

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:17 pm
From: Larry Graham

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

> On Feb 3, 2:01 pm, Kasim Sulton <Uto...@bass.gov> wrote:
>
>>Lookout wrote:
>>
>>>Homosexuality really scares you. Why?
>>
>>Because you faggots spread disease when your penises go from man-ass to
>>man-mouth, and back again, when you attempt to lick yourselves clean.
>>
>>Why do you fear Heterosexuality?
>>You know.. the NORMAL thing! :)
>>
>>It's not like you and yer butt buddy "TMT" are gonna have a girl when
>>you plook him in the ass.
>>
>>Just because YOU came out the wrong hole when born, means nothing.
>
>
> LOL...was that the right question to ask!

Your butt buddy "Lookout" just said that being a homo is normal!
No wonder you are scared stiff to show up and take my guns away!

Now I have more legal reasons to end your silly lives, IF you try to
enter my home illegaly.

You faggots have cooties, AND you want to commit burglary!

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:28 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools

On Feb 3, 4:17 pm, Larry Graham <Slyandthefam...@bass.gov> wrote:
> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 2:01 pm, Kasim Sulton <Uto...@bass.gov> wrote:
>
> >>Lookout wrote:
>
> >>>Homosexuality really scares you. Why?
>
> >>Because you faggots spread disease when your penises go from man-ass to
> >>man-mouth, and back again, when you attempt to lick yourselves clean.
>
> >>Why do you fear Heterosexuality?
> >>You know.. the NORMAL thing! :)
>
> >>It's not like you and yer butt buddy "TMT" are gonna have a girl when
> >>you plook him in the ass.
>
> >>Just because YOU came out the wrong hole when born, means nothing.
>
> > LOL...was that the right question to ask!
>
> Your butt buddy "Lookout" just said that being a homo is normal!
> No wonder you are scared stiff to show up and take my guns away!
>
> Now I have more legal reasons to end your silly lives, IF you try to
> enter my home illegaly.
>
> You faggots have cooties, AND you want to commit burglary!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Both homo and hetrosexuality are normal...check the science.

So when the SWAT team enter your home to search and seize, do you
think you will get off a shot before you are riddled with holes?

TMT

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:41 pm
From: Beam Me Up Scotty

On 2/3/2010 5:28 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> On Feb 3, 4:17 pm, Larry Graham <Slyandthefam...@bass.gov> wrote:
>> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 2:01 pm, Kasim Sulton <Uto...@bass.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>
>>>>> Homosexuality really scares you. Why?
>>
>>>> Because you faggots spread disease when your penises go from man-ass to
>>>> man-mouth, and back again, when you attempt to lick yourselves clean.
>>
>>>> Why do you fear Heterosexuality?
>>>> You know.. the NORMAL thing! :)
>>
>>>> It's not like you and yer butt buddy "TMT" are gonna have a girl when
>>>> you plook him in the ass.
>>
>>>> Just because YOU came out the wrong hole when born, means nothing.
>>
>>> LOL...was that the right question to ask!
>>
>> Your butt buddy "Lookout" just said that being a homo is normal!
>> No wonder you are scared stiff to show up and take my guns away!
>>
>> Now I have more legal reasons to end your silly lives, IF you try to
>> enter my home illegaly.
>>
>> You faggots have cooties, AND you want to commit burglary!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Both homo and hetrosexuality are normal...check the science.
>
> So when the SWAT team enter your home to search and seize, do you
> think you will get off a shot before you are riddled with holes?
>
> TMT
Which sexuality isn't normal?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Oh Look...They Have Parents..Who Would Have Guessed?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/91f7e2c68f4a7e79?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:19 pm
From: Larry Graham

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

>
> Yes there are children dying in Idaho.
>
> There is a high rate of child abuse there.

Then stay away from Idaho, spud!

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:39 pm
From: Beam Me Up Scotty

On 2/3/2010 4:22 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> On Feb 3, 12:47 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> On 2/3/2010 1:34 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 3, 11:44 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
>>> dog.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/2010 12:22 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 2, 10:57 pm, "Burled Frau" <acht...@jawol.jah> wrote:
>>>>>> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>> news:47e3e3a2-609b-400c-8edf-3b5251efaaf7@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com....
>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 2, 7:37 pm, "Burled Frau" <acht...@jawol.jah> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>>> news:9ff68fc2-b81a-44ee-b6d3-b3b9c7c3ce34@b10g2000vbh.googlegroups.com....
>>
>>>>>>>>> Looks like our Bible thumping Baptist child trafficers have a lot of
>>>>>>>>> explaining to do.
>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe the Baptists should have stayed home and let the devil worshipping
>>>>>>>> libs beg 0bama to kill them quickly, after not helping them.
>>
>>>>>>> More likely they made a deal with the Devil taking the lead from Pat
>>>>>>> Robertson.
>>
>>>>>> I'm sure that when the truth comes out, we will find that the parents of
>>>>>> those children probably begged the Baptists to take their kids away from
>>>>>> that hellhole.
>>
>>>>> The truth has come out..the Bible thumpers were stealing children and
>>>>> they got caught.
>>
>>>>> They have admitted it.
>>
>>>>> They have credible witnesses to confirm it.
>>
>>>>> TMT
>>
>>>> Obviously stealing and helping is being confused and all the Bible
>>>> thumpers and their money should leave Haiti and help somewhere that they
>>>> are appreciated.
>>
>>>> The *United Nations* the *U.S.* and the *Haitian governments* corruption
>>>> is concerned about competition to their own corruption.
>>
>>>> If the private and "religious" would leave.... things would be many
>>>> many times worse. People are already climbing on boats to leave the
>>>> devastation and corruption created the Governments involved.
>>
>>>> Now the Government is chasing down church people rather than the
>>>> corruption.... imagine that.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> There is NO confusion....the Bible thumpers KNEW they were breaking
>>> the law.
>>
>>> They were STEALING children.
>>
>>> If a bunch of Haitians went to Idaho and stole 33 children, you would
>>> not be making excuses for them.
>>
>>> TMT
>>
>> Are children dieing in Idaho? Is there a disaster in Idaho where
>> thousands of kids are dieing? Is there food and water in Idaho?
>> If a nuclear Bomb terrorist attack hits Idaho... I would thank the
>> Canadians for taking U.S. Children to safety in Canada.
>>
>> Are the kids in Idaho hopelessly perishing because the help can't
>> possibly get enough food and water and medicine to save them?
>>
>> If the choice is death or get them out of Idaho.... get them out.
>>
>> Use a bunch of Canadians... as your "analogy" and yes I would just thank
>> them for saving American babies. Whether the kids get back to their
>> local families is a problem but it's better that they stay alive and
>> healthy.
>>
>> If you go to a home and see children being starved, do you walk away and
>> fill out paper work? Being a liberal I'm sure you would do government
>> paperwork until it was useless and the kid was dead.
>>
>> What do police do when some child is being starved beaten or tortured?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes there are children dying in Idaho.
>
> There is a high rate of child abuse there.
>
> Should the Haitians mount a "rescue operation" to save those children
> from their Pat Robertson cult worshiping parents that live in Idaho?
>
> TMT

Sure, I'd like to see that one on cops....

==============================================================================
TOPIC: insulate a pipe
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/ac01bac05c1a861d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:45 pm
From: "Karl Townsend"

I'm putting a thermostat on my landlord's solar hot water heater. It has
about one foot of exposed copper pipe at the top of the unit. I'd like to
put the sensor there. It sits out in the south Florida sun and salt air.

What insulating material would hold up to this environment?

Karl

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:54 pm
From: Ecnerwal

In article <4b69fc72$0$65850$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>,
"Karl Townsend" <karltownsend.NOT@embarqmail.com> wrote:

> I'm putting a thermostat on my landlord's solar hot water heater. It has
> about one foot of exposed copper pipe at the top of the unit. I'd like to
> put the sensor there. It sits out in the south Florida sun and salt air.
>
> What insulating material would hold up to this environment?
>
> Karl

Foamed glass, but it's a bit archaic. The air conditioning guys down
that way should have an idea of plastics that hold up, if any do.
Fiberglass works if you can keep it dry, but that's a big if there.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sometimes I wonder about Enco's marketing strategy.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/700e9ecae69b0afa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 3:00 pm
From: Wes

Wes <clutch@lycos.com> wrote:

>
>Need to add something I need. Ah, thread wires. That bumped the order up to 28.94. I
>took my thread wires home from work when I got my lathe going. Sometimes I need to thread
>something at work to fix a machine, that will be nice to have.

When I ordered them, the page indicated 2" long wires. I was pleasantly suprised to
recieve 3" long wires. Chinese in a plastic flip case, doesn't have the cachet of my
cased in leather Detroit Threadwire Co wires. Wonder when they went out of business.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Qualcom tanks
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/70d935ab4d43cd77?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 2:56 pm
From: Cliff

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 08:35:37 -0800, "John R. Carroll" <nunya@bidness.dev.nul>
wrote:

>Existential Angst wrote:
>> "Cliff" <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>> news:9db5m5lget59p66mb7jc8b4o1fr26q08s0@4ax.com...
>>> http://www.google.com/finance?client=news&q=qcom
>>> Nosedives 14.24%
>>
>> Mebbe the perncious effects of the insidious Jon Banquer, Resident
>> Thief at Qualcomm, made it outside the repair shop where jb (still?)
>> works, and into Corporate???
>>
>> Mebbe management caught B. coli, (Banquerichiae coli), the bacterium
>> that causes Incompetence??
>
>Kramer panned them yesterday.
>Says to dump the stock until they have shown at least two quarters of
>positive results.

Down about 10 bucks from US$ 49.80 ..... so far.

Glad I'm not stuck with any stock options ....
--
Cliff

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Weird screws, no idea how to remove
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/f0875be6a428e7b8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 3:05 pm
From: Wes

Ignoramus14738 <ignoramus14738@NOSPAM.14738.invalid> wrote:

>Yep Jim and Dan, they just needed to be pried out, I thought that they
>were "screws" and tried to screw them out, to no avail. The speed and
>feed table was reinstalled, I am very happy. The effect is awesome,
>like makeup on a 40 year old girl.
>
>i
How much did that chart cost you?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.crafts.metalworking"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.crafts.metalworking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

twitter

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts