twitter: rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 11 topics

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

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/57c9c3facffdfb67?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 4:12 pm
From: pyotr filipivich

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> on or
about Tue, 30 Mar 2010 04:48:41 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>
>>A .380 is a one-shot drop if shot placement is right. A .380 with 7 rounds
>>fired rapidly enough to hit at point blank range has far higher probability
>>of stop than one hit from a .45ACP. The objective is to stop, no bonus for
>>doing it in one shot. Get it done with as many shots as it takes,
>>accurately delivered to drop the assailant.
>
>The problem with that is..he may not let you shoot him a bunch of times
>before he crushes your skull with a rock.

Properly places, a .22 shortly will kill someone. But you can't
always get that kind of cooperation from people who deserve being
shot. And never plan on your enemy doing everything you need him to
do, in order for you to be victorious. That's not a plan, nor even
taking a risk, that's a gamble from the git go.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 4:26 pm
From: Gunner Asch

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:12:29 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Let the Record show that Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> on or
>about Tue, 30 Mar 2010 04:48:41 -0700 did write/type or cause to
>appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>>
>>>A .380 is a one-shot drop if shot placement is right. A .380 with 7 rounds
>>>fired rapidly enough to hit at point blank range has far higher probability
>>>of stop than one hit from a .45ACP. The objective is to stop, no bonus for
>>>doing it in one shot. Get it done with as many shots as it takes,
>>>accurately delivered to drop the assailant.
>>
>>The problem with that is..he may not let you shoot him a bunch of times
>>before he crushes your skull with a rock.
>
> Properly places, a .22 shortly will kill someone. But you can't
>always get that kind of cooperation from people who deserve being
>shot. And never plan on your enemy doing everything you need him to
>do, in order for you to be victorious. That's not a plan, nor even
>taking a risk, that's a gamble from the git go.
>-

Very very well said Sir...well said indeed!

>pyotr filipivich
>We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
>It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

==============================================================================
TOPIC: test
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/cfbe6de98f94962d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 5:15 pm
From: Wes

Wes <clutch@lycos.com> wrote:

>"Robert Swinney" <judybob@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Test message. Sorry,
>>
>>Bob Swinney
>>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
>What kind of problem are you having tonight Robert?
>
>Wes

I just replied to your thread from 2008, if it is an issue on your side, check your
computers time. If not, easynews has a problem.

Wes

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

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 4:17 pm
From: Lookout

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:42:16 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
<huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:

>
>"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns9D4C6BE7BB900hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in
>> news:4bb2842b$0$5007$607ed4bc@cv.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9D4B95A147E0Dhopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in
>>>> news:4bb26584$0$4980$607ed4bc@cv.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>> message news:Xns9D4B844EB67C2hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:horgl4 $b4i$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest that the 2nd ammendment to the constitution is a
>>>>>>> limit, of the power of government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole Constitution is supposed to be a limitation on
>>>>>> government.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hand raised in objection, RD. The Bill of Rights is an affirmation
>>>>> of rights that the federal government will not violate.
>>>>
>>>> True, but in reality it does and we both know that.
>>>
>>> Unless you want to probe a deep understanding of Supreme Court
>>> decisions, for which I have neither the time nor the inclination at
>>> the moment, I'm not going to get into a debate about that.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But the core of
>>>>> the Constitution is the outline for a strong federal government that
>>>>> has explicit central powers, constructed specifically to overcome
>>>>> the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.
>>>>
>>>> Yep.......and if you look at the Tenth Amendment:
>>>>
>>>> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
>>>> nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
>>>> respectively, or to the people.
>>>>
>>>> IOW, if it ain't there in the Constitution as delegated to the United
>>>> States (Read Federal government) the feds don't have that power, it
>>>> is reserved either to the states or the people. Ergo, a limitation
>>>> on government.
>>>
>>> The 10th itself has no operative meaning. See the expert annotations
>>> on the 10th. If you want an excellent one, you can start with this and
>>> then page through the rest of it. You'll see they call it a "truism"
>>> that neither adds nor subtracts anything from the rest of the
>>> Constitution. Others have called it a tautology:
>>>
>>> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/Constitution/amendment10/01.html#1
>>>
>>> A lot of people who invoke the 10th would be upset to realize that if
>>> the 14th hadn't superceded much of it, there would be no McDonald v.
>>> Chicago in the Court right now. Any state would be able to ban all the
>>> guns it wanted to.
>>
>> Unless prevented by its own constitution. My state being one of those.
>>
>>>>> See the first 10 or 15 of the Federalist Papers. Madison and
>>>>> Hamilton are describing the failings of weak government, the need
>>>>> for strength in the federal government, and even the need for its
>>>>> powers to supercede those of the states.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that the Constitutional Convention was to fix the inherent
>>>> weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. No problem. However, I
>>>> can also read the Tenth Amendment which is a part of the Bill of
>>>> Rights that were pushed for by the anti-federalists to limit an
>>>> overreach by that central government.
>>>
>>> Again, it was a largely redundant truism. Virtually all legal and
>>> Constitutional experts agree on that.
>>
>> So, we look at it as a reminder. Perhaps, our Senators and
>> Representatives should also.
>>
>>> Back to the point, the Constitution, up to the Bill of Rights, doesn't
>>> say what the government cannot do. It says what it *can* do, and must
>>> do in some cases.
>>
>> Exactly. It describes the powers that the government has and what were
>> given to it by the people. Then it goes on (in the 10th amendment) to
>> buttress the fact that it is also a limiting document on that power.
>>
>>> It was limiting only in the sense that the powers enumerated were an
>>> explicit and, barring Amendments, a complete description of the
>>> federal powers.
>>
>> Yep. A complete description of federal power, as you noted, barring
>> amendments. If the power isn't in the Constitution, presumably the
>> federal government doesn't have it. It is reserved as a state power or
>> it resides in the people.
>>
>> The idea that it's intended as a limiting document is
>>> another twisted conclusion perpetuated by anti-government types who
>>> most often have never read it, nor the history and documents
>>> surrounding it. It was a very strong statement of new, agreed-upon
>>> federal powers.
>>
>> No argument there. However, it still limits the power the government has
>> since if that power isn't granted to the government by the Constitution,
>> the federal government doesn't have it. Hell, that even one of the
>> arguments in US v Miller. It was essentially ignored, but it was listed
>> on the demurrer.
>
>It appears we agree on the facts, RD. My problem with these discussions, as
>with the "democracy" versus "republic" discussion, is that many people who
>haven't really studied the history of it start off by looking at the
>originating ideas from the ass-end.
>
>Anyone who thinks the Founders wanted small, local governments, and who took
>the time to read Madison's thoughts on small governments versus large ones,
>would do a back-flip. d8-)

The history of our Founding Fathers is lacking on both sides but I
find it worse on the conservatives. That may be from living in one of
the most conservative states. Here in Alabama you still can't by a
dildo\vibrator without selling it as an educational\medical purchase.

Maybe because these rednecks don't know how to use a dick?

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 1 2010 12:42 am
From: "Sid9"

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9D4C9A11A420hopewell@216.196.97.130...
> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in
> news:4bb3b3a0$0$22549$607ed4bc@cv.net:
>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9D4C6BE7BB900hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in
>>> news:4bb2842b$0$5007$607ed4bc@cv.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> message news:Xns9D4B95A147E0Dhopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:4bb26584$0$4980$607ed4bc@cv.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:Xns9D4B844EB67C2hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>> "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:horgl4 $b4i$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suggest that the 2nd ammendment to the constitution is a
>>>>>>>> limit, of the power of government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole Constitution is supposed to be a limitation on
>>>>>>> government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hand raised in objection, RD. The Bill of Rights is an affirmation
>>>>>> of rights that the federal government will not violate.
>>>>>
>>>>> True, but in reality it does and we both know that.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you want to probe a deep understanding of Supreme Court
>>>> decisions, for which I have neither the time nor the inclination at
>>>> the moment, I'm not going to get into a debate about that.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But the core of
>>>>>> the Constitution is the outline for a strong federal government
>>>>>> that has explicit central powers, constructed specifically to
>>>>>> overcome the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.......and if you look at the Tenth Amendment:
>>>>>
>>>>> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
>>>>> nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
>>>>> respectively, or to the people.
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW, if it ain't there in the Constitution as delegated to the
>>>>> United States (Read Federal government) the feds don't have that
>>>>> power, it is reserved either to the states or the people. Ergo, a
>>>>> limitation on government.
>>>>
>>>> The 10th itself has no operative meaning. See the expert annotations
>>>> on the 10th. If you want an excellent one, you can start with this
>>>> and then page through the rest of it. You'll see they call it a
>>>> "truism" that neither adds nor subtracts anything from the rest of
>>>> the Constitution. Others have called it a tautology:
>>>>
>>>> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/Constitution/amendment10/01.html#1
>>>>
>>>> A lot of people who invoke the 10th would be upset to realize that
>>>> if the 14th hadn't superceded much of it, there would be no McDonald
>>>> v. Chicago in the Court right now. Any state would be able to ban
>>>> all the guns it wanted to.
>>>
>>> Unless prevented by its own constitution. My state being one of
>>> those.
>>>
>>>>>> See the first 10 or 15 of the Federalist Papers. Madison and
>>>>>> Hamilton are describing the failings of weak government, the need
>>>>>> for strength in the federal government, and even the need for its
>>>>>> powers to supercede those of the states.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that the Constitutional Convention was to fix the inherent
>>>>> weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. No problem. However,
>>>>> I can also read the Tenth Amendment which is a part of the Bill of
>>>>> Rights that were pushed for by the anti-federalists to limit an
>>>>> overreach by that central government.
>>>>
>>>> Again, it was a largely redundant truism. Virtually all legal and
>>>> Constitutional experts agree on that.
>>>
>>> So, we look at it as a reminder. Perhaps, our Senators and
>>> Representatives should also.
>>>
>>>> Back to the point, the Constitution, up to the Bill of Rights,
>>>> doesn't say what the government cannot do. It says what it *can* do,
>>>> and must do in some cases.
>>>
>>> Exactly. It describes the powers that the government has and what
>>> were given to it by the people. Then it goes on (in the 10th
>>> amendment) to buttress the fact that it is also a limiting document
>>> on that power.
>>>
>>>> It was limiting only in the sense that the powers enumerated were an
>>>> explicit and, barring Amendments, a complete description of the
>>>> federal powers.
>>>
>>> Yep. A complete description of federal power, as you noted, barring
>>> amendments. If the power isn't in the Constitution, presumably the
>>> federal government doesn't have it. It is reserved as a state power
>>> or it resides in the people.
>>>
>>> The idea that it's intended as a limiting document is
>>>> another twisted conclusion perpetuated by anti-government types who
>>>> most often have never read it, nor the history and documents
>>>> surrounding it. It was a very strong statement of new, agreed-upon
>>>> federal powers.
>>>
>>> No argument there. However, it still limits the power the government
>>> has since if that power isn't granted to the government by the
>>> Constitution, the federal government doesn't have it. Hell, that
>>> even one of the arguments in US v Miller. It was essentially
>>> ignored, but it was listed on the demurrer.
>>
>> It appears we agree on the facts, RD. My problem with these
>> discussions, as with the "democracy" versus "republic" discussion, is
>> that many people who haven't really studied the history of it start
>> off by looking at the originating ideas from the ass-end.
>
> Damn, we are still in agreement......
>
>> Anyone who thinks the Founders wanted small, local governments, and
>> who took the time to read Madison's thoughts on small governments
>> versus large ones, would do a back-flip. d8-)
>
> Yep......I have no problem with a large government.....as long as we can
> afford it and it doesn't become too obtrusive.....intrusive....oh, well,
> in a way both words fit.
>
>
>
> --
> Sleep well, tonight........
>
> RD (The Sandman)
>
>
> The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you
> run out of other people's money.
>
> Margaret Thatcher - February 5, 1976
.
.
.
U.S. Population 1790 about 4 million
U.S. Population est 2010 about 309 million
.
.
The government is neither intrusive nor obtrusive...except to
criminals...it's under funded.

The population of the USA is over 77 times larger than it was when the
constitution was ratified.

Government must grow to keep up with the people's needs.

Unless.....you are an anarchist (libertarian)

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 5:22 pm
From: "RD (The Sandman)"

"Sid9" <sid9@belsouth.net> wrote in news:hp0mli$soh$1@news.eternal-
september.org:

>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D4C9A11A420hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in
>> news:4bb3b3a0$0$22549$607ed4bc@cv.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9D4C6BE7BB900hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in
>>>> news:4bb2842b$0$5007$607ed4bc@cv.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>> message news:Xns9D4B95A147E0Dhopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in
>>>>>> news:4bb26584$0$4980$607ed4bc@cv.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:Xns9D4B844EB67C2hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>>> "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:horgl4 $b4i$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suggest that the 2nd ammendment to the constitution is a
>>>>>>>>> limit, of the power of government.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The whole Constitution is supposed to be a limitation on
>>>>>>>> government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hand raised in objection, RD. The Bill of Rights is an
affirmation
>>>>>>> of rights that the federal government will not violate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, but in reality it does and we both know that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless you want to probe a deep understanding of Supreme Court
>>>>> decisions, for which I have neither the time nor the inclination at
>>>>> the moment, I'm not going to get into a debate about that.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the core of
>>>>>>> the Constitution is the outline for a strong federal government
>>>>>>> that has explicit central powers, constructed specifically to
>>>>>>> overcome the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep.......and if you look at the Tenth Amendment:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
>>>>>> nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
>>>>>> respectively, or to the people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOW, if it ain't there in the Constitution as delegated to the
>>>>>> United States (Read Federal government) the feds don't have that
>>>>>> power, it is reserved either to the states or the people. Ergo, a
>>>>>> limitation on government.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 10th itself has no operative meaning. See the expert
annotations
>>>>> on the 10th. If you want an excellent one, you can start with this
>>>>> and then page through the rest of it. You'll see they call it a
>>>>> "truism" that neither adds nor subtracts anything from the rest of
>>>>> the Constitution. Others have called it a tautology:
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/Constitution/amendment10/01.html#1
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of people who invoke the 10th would be upset to realize that
>>>>> if the 14th hadn't superceded much of it, there would be no
McDonald
>>>>> v. Chicago in the Court right now. Any state would be able to ban
>>>>> all the guns it wanted to.
>>>>
>>>> Unless prevented by its own constitution. My state being one of
>>>> those.
>>>>
>>>>>>> See the first 10 or 15 of the Federalist Papers. Madison and
>>>>>>> Hamilton are describing the failings of weak government, the need
>>>>>>> for strength in the federal government, and even the need for its
>>>>>>> powers to supercede those of the states.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that the Constitutional Convention was to fix the inherent
>>>>>> weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. No problem.
However,
>>>>>> I can also read the Tenth Amendment which is a part of the Bill of
>>>>>> Rights that were pushed for by the anti-federalists to limit an
>>>>>> overreach by that central government.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, it was a largely redundant truism. Virtually all legal and
>>>>> Constitutional experts agree on that.
>>>>
>>>> So, we look at it as a reminder. Perhaps, our Senators and
>>>> Representatives should also.
>>>>
>>>>> Back to the point, the Constitution, up to the Bill of Rights,
>>>>> doesn't say what the government cannot do. It says what it *can*
do,
>>>>> and must do in some cases.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. It describes the powers that the government has and what
>>>> were given to it by the people. Then it goes on (in the 10th
>>>> amendment) to buttress the fact that it is also a limiting document
>>>> on that power.
>>>>
>>>>> It was limiting only in the sense that the powers enumerated were
an
>>>>> explicit and, barring Amendments, a complete description of the
>>>>> federal powers.
>>>>
>>>> Yep. A complete description of federal power, as you noted, barring
>>>> amendments. If the power isn't in the Constitution, presumably the
>>>> federal government doesn't have it. It is reserved as a state power
>>>> or it resides in the people.
>>>>
>>>> The idea that it's intended as a limiting document is
>>>>> another twisted conclusion perpetuated by anti-government types who
>>>>> most often have never read it, nor the history and documents
>>>>> surrounding it. It was a very strong statement of new, agreed-upon
>>>>> federal powers.
>>>>
>>>> No argument there. However, it still limits the power the
government
>>>> has since if that power isn't granted to the government by the
>>>> Constitution, the federal government doesn't have it. Hell, that
>>>> even one of the arguments in US v Miller. It was essentially
>>>> ignored, but it was listed on the demurrer.
>>>
>>> It appears we agree on the facts, RD. My problem with these
>>> discussions, as with the "democracy" versus "republic" discussion, is
>>> that many people who haven't really studied the history of it start
>>> off by looking at the originating ideas from the ass-end.
>>
>> Damn, we are still in agreement......
>>
>>> Anyone who thinks the Founders wanted small, local governments, and
>>> who took the time to read Madison's thoughts on small governments
>>> versus large ones, would do a back-flip. d8-)
>>
>> Yep......I have no problem with a large government.....as long as we
can
>> afford it and it doesn't become too obtrusive.....intrusive....oh,
well,
>> in a way both words fit.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sleep well, tonight........
>>
>> RD (The Sandman)
>>
>>
>> The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you
>> run out of other people's money.
>>
>> Margaret Thatcher - February 5, 1976
> .
> .
> .
> U.S. Population 1790 about 4 million
> U.S. Population est 2010 about 309 million
> .
> .
> The government is neither intrusive nor obtrusive...except to
> criminals...it's under funded.
>
> The population of the USA is over 77 times larger than it was when the
> constitution was ratified.

Which has little to do with founding principles.

> Government must grow to keep up with the people's needs.
>
> Unless.....you are an anarchist (libertarian)
>
>

I don't have a problem with certain types of growth. I don't need
changes to the main philosophies that this country was founded on. I
want a government to give me information....let me make my decisions. I
don't like mandates like you must buy healthcare or go to jail.

--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

You simply have to stay in shape. My grandmother started
walking 5 miles a day when she was 60. She is now 97 and
we have no idea where she is.

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 1 2010 1:30 am
From: "Sid9"

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9D4CB0BEEE3EBhopewell@216.196.97.130...
> "Sid9" <sid9@belsouth.net> wrote in news:hp0mli$soh$1@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9D4C9A11A420hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in
>>> news:4bb3b3a0$0$22549$607ed4bc@cv.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9D4C6BE7BB900hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:4bb2842b$0$5007$607ed4bc@cv.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:Xns9D4B95A147E0Dhopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:4bb26584$0$4980$607ed4bc@cv.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> message news:Xns9D4B844EB67C2hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>>>> "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:horgl4 $b4i$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I suggest that the 2nd ammendment to the constitution is a
>>>>>>>>>> limit, of the power of government.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The whole Constitution is supposed to be a limitation on
>>>>>>>>> government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hand raised in objection, RD. The Bill of Rights is an
> affirmation
>>>>>>>> of rights that the federal government will not violate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True, but in reality it does and we both know that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless you want to probe a deep understanding of Supreme Court
>>>>>> decisions, for which I have neither the time nor the inclination at
>>>>>> the moment, I'm not going to get into a debate about that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the core of
>>>>>>>> the Constitution is the outline for a strong federal government
>>>>>>>> that has explicit central powers, constructed specifically to
>>>>>>>> overcome the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep.......and if you look at the Tenth Amendment:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
>>>>>>> nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
>>>>>>> respectively, or to the people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IOW, if it ain't there in the Constitution as delegated to the
>>>>>>> United States (Read Federal government) the feds don't have that
>>>>>>> power, it is reserved either to the states or the people. Ergo, a
>>>>>>> limitation on government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 10th itself has no operative meaning. See the expert
> annotations
>>>>>> on the 10th. If you want an excellent one, you can start with this
>>>>>> and then page through the rest of it. You'll see they call it a
>>>>>> "truism" that neither adds nor subtracts anything from the rest of
>>>>>> the Constitution. Others have called it a tautology:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/Constitution/amendment10/01.html#1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of people who invoke the 10th would be upset to realize that
>>>>>> if the 14th hadn't superceded much of it, there would be no
> McDonald
>>>>>> v. Chicago in the Court right now. Any state would be able to ban
>>>>>> all the guns it wanted to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless prevented by its own constitution. My state being one of
>>>>> those.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See the first 10 or 15 of the Federalist Papers. Madison and
>>>>>>>> Hamilton are describing the failings of weak government, the need
>>>>>>>> for strength in the federal government, and even the need for its
>>>>>>>> powers to supercede those of the states.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree that the Constitutional Convention was to fix the inherent
>>>>>>> weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. No problem.
> However,
>>>>>>> I can also read the Tenth Amendment which is a part of the Bill of
>>>>>>> Rights that were pushed for by the anti-federalists to limit an
>>>>>>> overreach by that central government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, it was a largely redundant truism. Virtually all legal and
>>>>>> Constitutional experts agree on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, we look at it as a reminder. Perhaps, our Senators and
>>>>> Representatives should also.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Back to the point, the Constitution, up to the Bill of Rights,
>>>>>> doesn't say what the government cannot do. It says what it *can*
> do,
>>>>>> and must do in some cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. It describes the powers that the government has and what
>>>>> were given to it by the people. Then it goes on (in the 10th
>>>>> amendment) to buttress the fact that it is also a limiting document
>>>>> on that power.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It was limiting only in the sense that the powers enumerated were
> an
>>>>>> explicit and, barring Amendments, a complete description of the
>>>>>> federal powers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep. A complete description of federal power, as you noted, barring
>>>>> amendments. If the power isn't in the Constitution, presumably the
>>>>> federal government doesn't have it. It is reserved as a state power
>>>>> or it resides in the people.
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea that it's intended as a limiting document is
>>>>>> another twisted conclusion perpetuated by anti-government types who
>>>>>> most often have never read it, nor the history and documents
>>>>>> surrounding it. It was a very strong statement of new, agreed-upon
>>>>>> federal powers.
>>>>>
>>>>> No argument there. However, it still limits the power the
> government
>>>>> has since if that power isn't granted to the government by the
>>>>> Constitution, the federal government doesn't have it. Hell, that
>>>>> even one of the arguments in US v Miller. It was essentially
>>>>> ignored, but it was listed on the demurrer.
>>>>
>>>> It appears we agree on the facts, RD. My problem with these
>>>> discussions, as with the "democracy" versus "republic" discussion, is
>>>> that many people who haven't really studied the history of it start
>>>> off by looking at the originating ideas from the ass-end.
>>>
>>> Damn, we are still in agreement......
>>>
>>>> Anyone who thinks the Founders wanted small, local governments, and
>>>> who took the time to read Madison's thoughts on small governments
>>>> versus large ones, would do a back-flip. d8-)
>>>
>>> Yep......I have no problem with a large government.....as long as we
> can
>>> afford it and it doesn't become too obtrusive.....intrusive....oh,
> well,
>>> in a way both words fit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sleep well, tonight........
>>>
>>> RD (The Sandman)
>>>
>>>
>>> The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you
>>> run out of other people's money.
>>>
>>> Margaret Thatcher - February 5, 1976
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> U.S. Population 1790 about 4 million
>> U.S. Population est 2010 about 309 million
>> .
>> .
>> The government is neither intrusive nor obtrusive...except to
>> criminals...it's under funded.
>>
>> The population of the USA is over 77 times larger than it was when the
>> constitution was ratified.
>
> Which has little to do with founding principles.
>
>> Government must grow to keep up with the people's needs.
>>
>> Unless.....you are an anarchist (libertarian)
>>
>>
>
> I don't have a problem with certain types of growth. I don't need
> changes to the main philosophies that this country was founded on. I
> want a government to give me information....let me make my decisions. I
> don't like mandates like you must buy healthcare or go to jail.
>
.
.
"Philosophies" and the needs of American have changed dramatically since
1790.

Unfortunately, since Reagan, we have slipped behind many modern
industrialized nations.

RRRs want the "Good old days" to come back.

Those "good old days" weren't very good at all.

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 5:32 pm
From: Tim Miller

Sid9 wrote:
> .
> "Philosophies" and the needs of American have changed dramatically since
> 1790.
>
> Unfortunately, since Reagan, we have slipped behind many modern
> industrialized nations.

How so?

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 1 2010 1:57 am
From: "Sid9"

"Tim Miller" <replytonewsgroup@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hp0pil$5le$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> Sid9 wrote:
>> .
>> "Philosophies" and the needs of American have changed dramatically since
>> 1790.
>>
>> Unfortunately, since Reagan, we have slipped behind many modern
>> industrialized nations.
>
> How so?

One example.....

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html

�Most Livable� Countries, 2006
1. Norway 16. France
2. Iceland 17. Italy
3. Australia 18. United Kingdom
4. Ireland 19. Spain
5. Sweden 20. New Zealand
6. Canada 21. Germany
7. Japan 22. Israel
8. United States 23. Greece
9. Switzerland 24. Singapore
10. Netherlands 25. Korea, Rep. of
11. Finland 26. Slovenia
12. Luxembourg 27. Portugal
13. Belgium 28. Cyprus
14. Austria 29. Czech Republic
15. Denmark 30. Barbados

Our health care sucks.
We are still on the English system instead of Metric.
Internet speed.
Infrastructure
Education.
Energy

Just a few

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 6:11 pm
From: Tim Miller

Sid9 wrote:
>
> "Tim Miller" <replytonewsgroup@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hp0pil$5le$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Sid9 wrote:
>>> .
>>> "Philosophies" and the needs of American have changed dramatically
>>> since 1790.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, since Reagan, we have slipped behind many modern
>>> industrialized nations.
>>
>> How so?
>
> One example.....
>
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html
>
> �Most Livable� Countries, 2006
> 1. Norway 16. France
> 2. Iceland 17. Italy
> 3. Australia 18. United Kingdom
> 4. Ireland 19. Spain
> 5. Sweden 20. New Zealand
> 6. Canada 21. Germany
> 7. Japan 22. Israel
> 8. United States 23. Greece
> 9. Switzerland 24. Singapore
> 10. Netherlands 25. Korea, Rep. of
> 11. Finland 26. Slovenia
> 12. Luxembourg 27. Portugal
> 13. Belgium 28. Cyprus
> 14. Austria 29. Czech Republic
> 15. Denmark 30. Barbados
>
>
> Our health care sucks.
> We are still on the English system instead of Metric.
> Internet speed.
> Infrastructure
> Education.
> Energy
>
> Just a few

No indication of how it's "slipped".

It could have ALWAYS been there.

Got anything useful?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bubble of Ignorance
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/2990ea519b199327?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 4:19 pm
From: sittingduck

Monika Eggers wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ojPtbw-q-w God says he does not exist

http://www.heldersanches.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/house.jpg

--
Rationality belongs to the cool observer, but because of the stupidity of the
average man, he follows not reason but faith - Reinhold Niebuhr

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 6:14 pm
From: Cliff

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:19:15 -0700, sittingduck <duck@spamherelots.com> wrote:

>Monika Eggers wrote:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ojPtbw-q-w God says he does not exist
>
>http://www.heldersanches.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/house.jpg
>
>--
>Rationality belongs to the cool observer, but because of the stupidity of the
>average man, he follows not reason but faith - Reinhold Niebuhr

Monika is over in alt.aol.tricks ....
--
Cliff

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Its alive!!! 1943 Hobart gasoline welder...update
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/a21a530dc9931681?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 4:20 pm
From: Gunner Asch

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:32:56 -0700, Jim Chandler <n427c@gte.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:55:27 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>http://picasaweb.google.com/gunnerasch/HobartGasWelder#
>>
>>http://picasaweb.google.com/gunnerasch/HobartGasWelder#5454915299718135618
>>http://picasaweb.google.com/gunnerasch/HobartGasWelder#5454915280034888082
>>http://picasaweb.google.com/gunnerasch/HobartGasolineWelder#5454915264015202514
>>http://picasaweb.google.com/gunnerasch/HobartGasWelder#5454915330663814994
>>http://picasaweb.google.com/gunnerasch/HobartGasWelder#5454915326046218002
>>
>>
>>Now Ive got to get a good battery, clean up all the wiring
>>(carefully..its 70 yrs old), repaint etc etc...<G>
>>
>>I LIKE this welder. I burned probably a pound of rod today farting
>>around, overhead, vertical up, down, sideways etc etc....marvelous what
>>this machine can do. Its got a far cleaner and easier arc to work with
>>than any of my other stick welders, Ranger 9, ArcoDialarc 250 etc etc.
>>
>>Muahahahaha!!!
>>
>>Now if I ever get the Miller 55G back from the guy who is slowly
>>rebuilding it.....
>>
>>
>>Gunner
>>
>>
>>"First Law of Leftist Debate
>>The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
>>that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
>>more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
>>losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
>>homophobe approaches infinity.
>>
>>This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
>>race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
>>the subject." Grey Ghost
>
>
>Congrats! Is that the one with the stuck piston, or some such? The
>one you couldn't turn over?
>
>Jim

The one with the stuck piston? That is the Miller 55g

http://picasaweb.google.com/gunnerasch/Miller55G#

A buddy has it and offered to rebuild it for me because Ive done a
number of favors for him over the years. He runs an engine machining
service, Blanchard grinders, valve grinding etc etc. He is
slowly..getting around to doing it. His shop is pretty small and with
the rain we had this winter, he put it in storage, but now that the
rainy season is almost over, he will bring it back out and set it up in
his shops outside workspace.

This old girl (Hobart)was given to me by a buddy who sold out his
operation in California and moved to Idaho. It came off his ranch about
12 yrs ago, and has sat quietly moldering in the corner of his yard
since then.

Gunner

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 5:45 pm
From: Ignoramus30291

Congratulations Gunner, it is an awesomе fieeling.

On 2010-03-31, Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://picasaweb.google.com/gunnerasch/HobartGasWelder#
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/gunnerasch/HobartGasWelder#5454915299718135618
> http://picasaweb.google.com/gunnerasch/HobartGasWelder#5454915280034888082
> http://picasaweb.google.com/gunnerasch/HobartGasolineWelder#5454915264015202514
> http://picasaweb.google.com/gunnerasch/HobartGasWelder#5454915330663814994
> http://picasaweb.google.com/gunnerasch/HobartGasWelder#5454915326046218002
>
>
> Now Ive got to get a good battery, clean up all the wiring
> (carefully..its 70 yrs old), repaint etc etc...<G>
>
> I LIKE this welder. I burned probably a pound of rod today farting
> around, overhead, vertical up, down, sideways etc etc....marvelous what
> this machine can do. Its got a far cleaner and easier arc to work with
> than any of my other stick welders, Ranger 9, ArcoDialarc 250 etc etc.
>
> Muahahahaha!!!
>
> Now if I ever get the Miller 55G back from the guy who is slowly
> rebuilding it.....
>
>
> Gunner
>
>
> "First Law of Leftist Debate
> The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
> that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
> more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
> losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
> homophobe approaches infinity.
>
> This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
> race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
> the subject." Grey Ghost

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Insurance claim....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/6a2e038156446545?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 5:22 pm
From: Wes

"Existential Angst" <UNfitcat@UNoptonline.net> wrote:

>So the insurance adjuster finally came today, and just left, after **3
>hours**, doing a very detailed survey, inside and out -- much more detailed
>than the roofing companies that came out -- and left me with a pile of
>papers and a check, for about $10K, about half of that for branch damage to
>the slate roof, the rest for inside water damage, A/C damage, other stuff.

How long can you hold off repairs? Right now, contractors are in a buyers market as to
their services.

I mention that since the current rates might not match your adjustors programmed rates.

If it does, holding off for a while, if you can, might put a few bucks in your pocket.

As far as the check, I'd not cash it until you have a repair bill to pay. It isn't your
money in a sense and it avoids any issues where cashing the check is acceptance of a
settlement.

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

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 4:29 pm
From: "benick"

"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hp0egu$csu$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> Where do you buy a 20 year old roof, to replace the one you
> lost?
>
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
> .
>
>
> "benick" <benick@fairpoint.net> wrote in message
> news:Ts-dnVbBnoDFJS7WnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@neonova.net...
>
> You MAY not get the full value of some things..Like a 10
> year old AC unit or
> a 20 year old roof..It will be pro rated..Unless like me you
> have
> REPLACEMENT insurance wihich is a bit more costly but no
> worries...HTH...
>
>

The top posting stormin moron...They take the cost of the new roof , AC unit
or whatever and divide it by the life expectancy of it...Try looking up pro
rating...Idiot...

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 5:19 pm
From: "Master Betty"

"benick" <benick@fairpoint.net> wrote in message
news:Ts-dnVbBnoDFJS7WnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@neonova.net...
> "Existential Angst" <UNfitcat@UNoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4bb37028$0$5010$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>> Awl --
>>
>> As some of you may know, the NY, NJ area got clobbered by a windstorm
>> last week (75+ mph), after quite a snow storm a couple of weeks before.
>> Damage was extensive, thousands of trees blown down, some people without
>> electricity for a week. Imagine if the trees were fully leaved in the
>> summer....
>>
>> So the insurance adjuster finally came today, and just left, after **3
>> hours**, doing a very detailed survey, inside and out -- much more
>> detailed than the roofing companies that came out -- and left me with a
>> pile of papers and a check, for about $10K, about half of that for
>> branch damage to the slate roof, the rest for inside water damage, A/C
>> damage, other stuff.
>>
>> The Q is:
>>
>> What if the contractor prices come in, and exceed the insurance company
>> estimates?
>> What happens if damage is later encountered that the adjuster didn't see?
>> Recourse? How to handle? War stories??
>>
>> As a DIY-er, I don't know much about "real" prices, but the wife is
>> already pissed, thinks it's way too low.
>> I guess it's reasonable to assume that the insurance company bias is to
>> lowball stuff.
>>
>> And, I won't be DIY'ing most of this, that's f'sure, so any lowballing
>> could really hurt.
>>
>> Appreciate all input.
>>
>> --
>> EA
>>
>>
>
>
> You MAY not get the full value of some things..Like a 10 year old AC unit
> or a 20 year old roof..It will be pro rated..Unless like me you have
> REPLACEMENT insurance wihich is a bit more costly but no worries...HTH...

I wonder if different states have different regulations? In Texas (I think)
the state pretty much tells the insurance company what they can and cannot
do. When I purchased my homeowners ins I wasn't aware of an option and I
deliberately purchased the cheapest I could find. They just replaced my roof
outright and applied a $1800 deductible. Ouch!

Jim

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 5:54 pm
From: Zz Yzx

>What if the contractor prices come in, and exceed the insurance company
>estimates?
>What happens if damage is later encountered that the adjuster didn't see?
>Recourse? How to handle? War stories??

I just went through a couple automobile insurence claims re: car
accidents by my hell-on-wheels daughter.

I learned that the "settlement" is just an "offer", and can be
refused or accepted or negotiated like any other "sale", at least in
re: to a totalled car. The offer was generous and I jumped on it.

The insurence company paid the claim for the other accident (~$5k
estimate, $7.5k out the door) without question (I used a preferred
shop).

I don't know how it works with homeowner's insurence..... yet.

-Zz

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Metric brass flats?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/76458a620bc87743?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 5:25 pm
From: Wes

Louis Ohland <ohland@charter.net> wrote:

>On 3/20/2010 19:59, Wes wrote:
>> Jim Wilkins<kb1dal@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yup. Another RFQ. I want perhaps a meter of 8mm square stock.
>>>
>>> Is 5/16" close enough?
>
>> And for that, 8951K23 at mcmaster is 22.68 for 6 feet.
>
>8mm is .3150, 5/16 is .3125
>
>Makes me feel like I'm conducting brain surgery on a paper cut. How will
>the chinese ever forgive me for .0025" of slop?

Probably no chance that it (stock) would be on the plus side of tolerance ;(

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: OT - Hyperinflation as a goal?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/5baf0df42579e249?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 6:14 pm
From: "John R. Carroll"

Wes wrote:
> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> John's answer made sense to me.
>>> When a good portion of the world was bombed out, growth was a bit
>>> easier. Now, that is a
>>> tough nut. I've always thought the unrestrained immigration was an
>>> attempt to increase
>>> growth. But if the basic economics of increased population growth
>>> doesn't work year over
>>> year, it becomes yet another cheat or scam.
>>
>> Unrestrained immigration was an "attempt" by poverty-stricken
>> campesinos and others to find a better life. I seriously doubt if
>> anyone else involved in the decisions had any volition in it at all.
>
> The feds haven't been trying very hard to stop them from coming in.

The federal interest in illegal immigration is focused almost exclusively on
security and criminal issues Wes.
States rights - remember?
Our borders are, and have always been, porous.

>>>> So the big goal is to get growth going. It's going to be hard to
>>>> get enough
>>>> of it; the stimulus program is the only realistic thing government
>>>> can do. Business sure as hell won't do much on its own. You can
>>>> cut taxes and lower
>>>> wages until you're blue, but they won't invest if they think there
>>>> are no buyers for their products. When a recession gets this deep,
>>>> you really have
>>>> to stimulate the demand side.
>>>
>>> But what are we stimulating? I'm under the impression we are
>>> stimulating state
>>> governments by propping them up. So far 6.35B has been sent to my
>>> state. Recovery.org
>>> shows it directed at various state agencies. To bad we don't have a
>>> department of
>>> manufacturing. Engler left too soon.

Every State employee or teacher that doesn't lose their job is one less
person on the dole and one more person buying things rather than disposing
of assets to survive. The reverse of that is a full on depression with
rampant deflation. Everyone, as an individual, ends up in fire sale mode and
prices collapse right along with income.

>>
>> Short-run jobs and consumption. Stimulating consumption with deficit
>> spending doesn't build an economy, but it can keep one that's in
>> recession from tanking completely. Then, once you have an upturn in
>> employment, you quickly try to get some investment going and work
>> for sustainable growth.
>>
>> It's difficult to stimulate real growth with deficit spending. At
>> best, it might turn a decline around, but the effect is a weak one.
>> Stimulus is not about creating long-term sustainable growth.

AAAAAHHHH - Not exactly.
At least there is another aspect to this. What you defecit spend ON can
create the foundation for future growth and this is an important
consideration.

>>>
>>> As far as I know, none of it has been used to say help my company
>>> or other companies buy a
>>> machine or invest in a process to grow the business and increase
>>> employment.

Were the economy to truly collapse, you wouldn't have a job Wes.
There would not be a market for anything your employer makes.
A lot of stimulus money went into insuring that there were customers for
your product.
The appropriate response would be gratitude both that this didn't happen and
that there were people around that, perfectly or not, took actions that
halted the slide. Pat yourself on the back <G> as a tax payer.

>>>
>>> Seems to me the money is keeping the state from making deep cuts in
>>> number of state
>>> employees and their fringe benefits. Something that has happened
>>> in the real world aka
>>> that part that is the private sector. Is this Obama's version of
>>> 'trickle down'?

Not just his Wes and not trickle down. Michigan doesn't need another big
group geting benefit check from the local unemployment office. You also have
to look at just what the employees you'd like to get rid of do for you. Wich
services would you like to dispense with?

>>>> With growth and sensible taxes, you pay the debt down. No growth,
>>>> no chance.
>>>> No taxes, no chance.
>>>
>>> I think growth would be easier to achieve if there was less
>>> government to support.

The size and cost of government is only something you can evaluate in terms
of revenue.
Government, large or small, has got to be affordable. This is a case where
size truly doesn't matter in and of itself.

>>
>> Of course. What would you like to cut first? It has to be something
>> substantial or you're whistling Dixie. How about Social Security or
>> Medicare? How about the Defense Department? Education? We can make
>> kids as dumb as we want.
>
> Defense and Education.
>
> I posted my thoughts on how we are getting rolled on defense by our
> allies in another part of this thread.
>
> Education, we don't need a federal department of education. Let the
> States deal with it on their terms. You seem to have a lot of faith
> in the feds. I have a lot of faith in the individual states. If one
> state is screwing up, it will soon look to how the other states that
> are getting it right are doing it.

Your faith in the States has no basis in either history or reality Wes.
What happens is that the poorest States spend nothing.
We end up with large numbers of uneducated red necks that can't participate
in our economy in a meaningful and beneficail way.
Why would anyone want to squander that resource?

>>> Taxes,
>>> well those are going to go up, whether I like it or not, the nation
>>> ran up a big bill in
>>> recent history.
>>

They don't have to.

>> If we had Reagan or Bush in office, they'd probably just keep
>> cutting until the country was bankrupt.
>
> There are two thoughts on taxes. Laffer curve and the cow that keeps
> producing milk. Part of tax cutting is an attempt to reduce the size
> of goverment. Unfortuantly, too many in Congress accept deficit
> spending.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> In extremis, you let your currency deflate. Milton Friedman
>>>> thought that it
>>>> was the natural and logical thing, and should not be resisted. Your
>>>> economy
>>>> will still suck but you won't go bankrupt. And things won't
>>>> collapse if you
>>>> do it carefully.
>>>
>>> And that is the cruelest tax of all. It punishes those that have
>>> worked and produced and
>>> put away some of their earings to provide for them in their later
>>> years.

Punishment?
We'd be a third world economy without many of the things taxes support.
Can you imagine an America without an Interstate Highway System Wes?
I can remember what that was like.

>>
>> That's the way it goes. If you think you know a way to break the
>> business cycle and to prevent recessions, and the consequent need
>> for deficit spending, there are a lot of people who would like to
>> hear from you.
>
> Avoiding some of this stupid crap like the Nasdaq bubble, insane
> mortgages via fanie m and fanie m would be start. Then there are the
> derivatives. I'm not a big government fan but there was a place a
> bit of regulation would have paid off.

You don't understand how the mortgage industry or GSE's work if you think
they were a big part of the current problem Wes.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, because we're not on a gold standard and because our debts
>>>> are almost
>>>> all denominated in our own currency, we're in relatively good
>>>> shape. All of
>>>> that makes it more necessary, however, to handle these things
>>>> responsibly. "Responsibly" doesn't mean what it means in home
>>>> economics, either.
>>>
>>> That raises another question, if our debtors force payment in a
>>> basket of currencies,
>>> where does that put us?
>>
>> Right where we are now. They can't "force" it. We have contracts. As
>> for new contracts, there is no other currency that's likely to stand
>> up better than the dollar, and they know it. Otherwise, oil
>> contracts would not be in dollars.
>
> We have contracts for a time. Contracts expire and have to be
> renegotiated.

They can but when you say "force" you are talking about the present.
The world won't tolerate very much monkey business with the Dollar Wes.
One country flexing it's muscle would have little effect beyond screwing
everyone that had dollar denominated contracts or currency reserves.
Everyone except us. We're the only game in town that makes dollars.

--
John R. Carroll

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 6:01 pm
From: Cross-Slide <3t3d@centurytel.net>

On Mar 31, 8:14 pm, "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:

> Everyone except us. We're the only game in town that makes dollars.
>
> --
> John R. Carroll

I was under the impression that worldwide, a Significant portion of
the (paper)dollars in circulation were counterfeit.
True or false?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A simple fix for health care.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/71a212adc13a7894?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 5:28 pm
From: "Roger Shoaf"

"." <.@,.org> wrote in message news:Xns9D47AD0039B41Eragon@74.209.131.10...
> "Roger Shoaf" <shoaf@nospamsyix.com> wrote in
> news:1269634391.99328@news01.syix.com:
> >> Affirmative Action will insure that only the dumbest will be accepted
> >> to those schools and, then, you will be required to use their
> >> services exclusively.
> >>
> >> Is that what you TRULY want?
> >
> > How do you construe the phrase "the best and the brightest" to mean
> > "only the dumbest"?
> >
>
> You must have been taught by Affirmative Action graduates.
>
> The Affirmative Action definition of the phrase "the best and the
> brightest" is otherwise referred [by the non-politically-correct] as the
> most illiterate, under-priviledged, racist, idiot that the AA people can
> find during a Law Enforcement Anti-Gang Sweep of a ghetto.
>
> You must still suffer from the delusion that Affirmative Action Activists
> have ever yielded even a scintilla of their power within the Federal
> Government and now, with an Affirmative Action President to broadcast
> their positions, their power increases significantly.

My suffering aside I point out to you that my use of the phrase best and the
brightest was not within the context of any debate on affirmative action.

So to be clear to you, what I am talking about is the kids that work hard
and earn good grades and score well on tests. If you want to believe that
this means somehow that what I really mean is something else than by all
means believe whatever you want.

P.S.

I think you may need to add a layer or two to your tin foil cap. It appears
that some of the rays are sneaking by.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Am I a fool to buy this mill/drill?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/a1b543030985642c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 5:47 pm
From: "Michael Koblic"

"Jim Wilkins" <kb1dal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c88130ee-c004-4682-9184-4e99b9948fd1@u32g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 31, 2:02 pm, F. George McDuffee <gmcduf...@mcduffee-
> associates.us> wrote:
>>...
>> Much will depend on the size and type of work that you are doing.
>> What are most of your projects?
>>
>> Unka George (George McDuffee)
>
> You can narrow down the answer to that excellent but open-ended
> question by deciding if the projects will be models or full-sized
> working equipment, which in my case means repair parts for tools,
> garden-type machinery and vehicles. You can choose the scale of a
> model but have to make repair parts the same size as the originals.
>
> I bought an RF-31 mill-drill once because it was large enough to drill
> any spot on a 5-1/4" relay rack panel.
>

That question needs to be asked *before* you get the X2. Once you bought it
it is pretty much answered...

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 5:55 pm
From: "Bill Noble"

speaking of mills, a friend is wishing to dispose of an Atlas horizontal
mill for $800, I think it has some tooling - on the left coast - if you are
interested, drop me a note and I'll forward the email - don't reply to this
message though - go to www.wbnoble.com to get a working email address

"F. George McDuffee" <gmcduffee@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:ph37r51n1ti8athht0tj73sco54p5kefdh@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:07:27 +0200, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
> <tih@hamartun.priv.no> wrote:
> <snip>
>>I'm wondering, seeing the size of the thing, whether I might want a
>>smaller, simpler vise to go with it? Something like a cute little Kurt
>>vise, or even a screwless vise
> <snip>
> ----------
> Much will depend on the size and type of work that you are doing.
>
> What are most of your projects?
>
>
> Unka George (George McDuffee)
> ..............................
> The past is a foreign country;
> they do things differently there.
> L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
> The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Would you buy a new Toyota?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/92b2cda20b50e86b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 6:02 pm
From: "Chief Egalitarian"

"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b48d3de0-3c60-4c2b-ab75-10ff16270525@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 25, 10:07 pm, "Chief Egalitarian" <Egal@legal_egal.law> wrote:
>> "Concerend Citizen" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:9c9c374b-b1a6-467b-8ac1-b67e5d3db58e@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 24, 1:27 am, Ted Frater <ted.fra...@virgin.net> wrote:
>> >> Concerend Citizen wrote:
>> >> > On Mar 21, 10:57 pm, "Chief Egalitarian" <Egal@legal_egal.law>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> Serious question. I could probably get a sweet deal. My local Honda
>> >> >> dealer
>> >> >> says people are trading them in faster than they can handle even
>> >> >> 2010's.
>>
>> >> > No. Too expensive.
>>
>> >> > I'd buy a used one.
>>
>> >> To answer the headline question,
>> >> no,
>> >> why,?
>> >> you cannot have the smallest chance of a glitch that makes the car go
>> >> when you want it to stop.
>> >> Its called primary structure.
>> >> Just because it can be done by computer doesnt mean it should be, when
>> >> simpler and 100% fail safe solutions are and have been available.
>> >> Id go so far to say I would not have one even if it was given to me
>> >> for
>> >> free.
>> >> In the aviation world fly by wire is at the minimum duplicated.
>> >> On the Peugeot 305 1984, which I did 250,000 miles, over 25 yrs before
>> >> retiring it due to body rot, the throttle pedal had its own return
>> >> spring, the bosch injection pump als has its own return spring, the 2
>> >> connected together with a simple stainless bowden cable inside a
>> >> teflon
>> >> sleeved cover.
>> >> Never ever wore out , and you could always see it .
>> >> No ,toyota has to pay the price of trying to be too clever and letting
>> >> the eye off the ball.
>> >> Ted.
>>
>> > Merely a ploy to steer buyers to Government Motors. Biden beat you to
>> > it, though.
>>
>> I ended up buying a Nissan. Thanks for all the great replies.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Why not American?
>
> TMT

Just protecting my American non-government job. I work for a company that is
a Nissan supplier. Nissan sends us lots of money, keeping us Republicans
employed. Besides saving some jobs at my place, I saved some jobs in Smyrna,
TN where this car was built. Wasn't Algore from TN? LOL, why didn't his own
statesmen vote for an American from Tennessee? Not many democraps working in
the Republican factories in Smyrna, unlike Detroit the handout city, home to
Government Motors.

Americans only buy American when Republicans are in charge. In the mean
time, good Americans keep good Americans employed in round-about ways. We go
on strike with our wallets, not with signs, dildos, and flailing wrists like
the democraps do. What did you do to stimulate the economy, besides put more
wax on your mommies' dildos? You do realize that wax came from Mexico?

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

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, March 31, 2010

rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts