Ping Larkin
in [Design]
|
From: Tim Wescott on 13 Oct 2009 12:20 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:39:07 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:28:44 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim(a)seemywebsite.com> > wrote: > >>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:47:23 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote: >> >>> John Larkin, >>> >>> Didn't your daughter go to Columbia University? >>> >>> I have a granddaughter being plied with scholarship offers. >>> >>> Would you recommend Columbia? >>> >>Nah, liberals go there. You want her to go someplace safe -- like this >>one: http://www.oru.edu/. > > Not hardly. Why do liberals wusses label every conservative as a > religious nutcase. If you're a neo (read "fake") conservative in the US these days then you're either a religious nutcase or you're operating under the delusion that you can use religious nutcases to further your agenda without seeing your country turn into a religious nutcase police state. Since an atheist who willingly turns his liberty over to a bunch of religious nutcases is clearly a nutcase himself, the liberal so-called- wusses will be at least half right every time. Why do conservative nutcases label anyone who comments on their narrow agendas as a liberal wuss? Are they afraid of something? > Anyone who pays attention, apparently not Mr. > Wescott, will have taken note of my declaration of atheism _many_ years > ago. Sorry you can't take a _joke_ Jim. -- www.wescottdesign.com
From: Jim Thompson on 13 Oct 2009 12:29 On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:20:57 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: >On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:39:07 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote: > >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:28:44 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim(a)seemywebsite.com> >> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:47:23 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote: >>> >>>> John Larkin, >>>> >>>> Didn't your daughter go to Columbia University? >>>> >>>> I have a granddaughter being plied with scholarship offers. >>>> >>>> Would you recommend Columbia? >>>> >>>Nah, liberals go there. You want her to go someplace safe -- like this >>>one: http://www.oru.edu/. >> >> Not hardly. Why do liberals wusses label every conservative as a >> religious nutcase. > >If you're a neo (read "fake") conservative in the US these days then >you're either a religious nutcase or you're operating under the delusion >that you can use religious nutcases to further your agenda without seeing >your country turn into a religious nutcase police state. > >Since an atheist who willingly turns his liberty over to a bunch of >religious nutcases is clearly a nutcase himself, the liberal so-called- >wusses will be at least half right every time. > >Why do conservative nutcases label anyone who comments on their narrow >agendas as a liberal wuss? Are they afraid of something? > >> Anyone who pays attention, apparently not Mr. >> Wescott, will have taken note of my declaration of atheism _many_ years >> ago. > >Sorry you can't take a _joke_ Jim. I couldn't tell... looked like you were serious to me ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Coming soon to the elementary school in your neighborhood... I pledge allegiance to Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama and to the community organization for which he stands: one nation under ACORN, unchallengeable, with wealth redistribution and climate change for all.
From: dagmargoodboat on 13 Oct 2009 13:42 On Oct 12, 8:35 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107941/let-the-red-states-... > > Comments? > > VLV "Red staters always like to accuse blue states of high taxes. But if they are right, one of the principal reasons blue staters are paying higher taxes is to subsidize...red staters." That's dumb--obviously the "higher taxes" are _state_ taxes. And, calling California's recovery from a nasty early '90's pullback as proof of superior as growth skews that result. And they miss the obvious: the article complains, in essence, that blue state tax dollars aren't coming back to them, that government is less than 100% efficient. Duh. That's an argument against sending money to the federal government. But the article does make a good point: individual states are free to implement their own healthcare plans--if that's what their citizens want--easily, and, if all their rhetoric were true, they should. Think of all the industry it'd attract, the competitive advantages, etc. If the rhetoric were true, that is. And if they succeeded, other states would copy their experiments. That' s the way it should be. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: John Larkin on 13 Oct 2009 14:29 On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:42:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Oct 12, 8:35 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107941/let-the-red-states-... >> >> Comments? >> >> VLV > >"Red staters always like to accuse blue states of high taxes. > But if they are right, one of the principal reasons blue staters > are paying higher taxes is to subsidize...red staters." > >That's dumb--obviously the "higher taxes" are _state_ taxes. And, >calling California's recovery from a nasty early '90's pullback as >proof of superior as growth skews that result. And they miss the >obvious: the article complains, in essence, that blue state tax >dollars aren't coming back to them, that government is less than 100% >efficient. Duh. That's an argument against sending money to the >federal government. > >But the article does make a good point: individual states are free to >implement their own healthcare plans--if that's what their citizens >want--easily, and, if all their rhetoric were true, they should. >Think of all the industry it'd attract, the competitive advantages, >etc. If the rhetoric were true, that is. > >And if they succeeded, other states would copy their experiments. >That' s the way it should be. Complication: the states that offer free or cheap medical care will become magnets for the people with expensive medical problems. John
From: Charlie E. on 13 Oct 2009 14:46
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:29:53 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:42:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >wrote: > >>On Oct 12, 8:35 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>> http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107941/let-the-red-states-... >>> >>> Comments? >>> >>> VLV >> >>"Red staters always like to accuse blue states of high taxes. >> But if they are right, one of the principal reasons blue staters >> are paying higher taxes is to subsidize...red staters." >> >>That's dumb--obviously the "higher taxes" are _state_ taxes. And, >>calling California's recovery from a nasty early '90's pullback as >>proof of superior as growth skews that result. And they miss the >>obvious: the article complains, in essence, that blue state tax >>dollars aren't coming back to them, that government is less than 100% >>efficient. Duh. That's an argument against sending money to the >>federal government. >> >>But the article does make a good point: individual states are free to >>implement their own healthcare plans--if that's what their citizens >>want--easily, and, if all their rhetoric were true, they should. >>Think of all the industry it'd attract, the competitive advantages, >>etc. If the rhetoric were true, that is. >> >>And if they succeeded, other states would copy their experiments. >>That' s the way it should be. > >Complication: the states that offer free or cheap medical care will >become magnets for the people with expensive medical problems. > >John True. But such people usually come with their families, who usually are a resource to the state that they reside in. The truth is, experiments such as taxuchuses are apparently failing. Universal health care is a fallacy, as not everyone wants to participate! Charlie |