In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:58:00 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Michel Boucher > wrote:
> >
> >> George > wrote in -
> >> september.org:
> >>
> >>> So it sounds like you are saying that if someone is capable of being
> >>> productive but decides not to they should be provided with not only
> >>> essentials but everything someone might want such as a large house,
> >>> multiple vehicles, large screen TVs in every room, large clothing and
> >>> entertainment allowance, vacation vouchers for the family and whatever
> >>> else they might want?
> >>
> >> Yes. But that's not likely to happen, is it.
> >
> > You wish.<g>
> >
> > Happens all the time here. I've SEEN it.
>
> this is bullshit. seen it *where*? it's fantasy.
>
> blake

People with multiple kids in Kalifornia. I used to live there.
The more kids you have, the bigger the welfare check...
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.


Subscribe:

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:15:36 -0500, Gregory Morrow wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:13:28 -0400, George wrote:
>>
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:43:12 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So are you saying lazy-useless-parasites should decide the fate
>>>>>>> of those who not only have dreams, but follow through on them?
>>>>>> No, I'm saying those who have dreams should follow them but not
>>>>>> insist others do the same.
>>>>> But you insist that they support the lazy and unambitious?
>>>>> Especially when they tend to breed like flies?
>>>>
>>>> you'd rather they die like flies instead?
>>>>
>>>> blake
>>>
>>> Nice try to totally twist the meaning of her reply and add lots of
>>> drama but I am 100% sure that you know exactly what her post meant.
>>
>> 'breeding like flies' seems to imply that the underclass is somehow
>> subhuman. i have a problem with that.
>
> Take the Magick Metro down to SE, blake, and you'll see that there is some
> merit to the concept...

black people are not subhuman, asshole.

blake

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:53:48 -0400, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

> wrote:
>>'breeding like flies' seems to imply that the underclass is somehow
>>subhuman. i have a problem with that.
>
> Animals breed instinctively without concern for how their offspring will
> survive, which is why they so often don't. Humans are supposed to be able to
> balance instinctive urges against rational forethought. So, we're supposed to
> be able to weigh desires for sexual intercourse against our ability to raise
> children. If people simply have sex before they are in any way capable of
> providing their offspring with even a basic quality of life, they are alas
> breeding like animals do.
>
> Orlando

then maybe we worthy people should slaughter them for food.

blake

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:32:51 -0400, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

> wrote:
>>And how do you propose to stop them? Chemicals in the food? Enforced
>>abortions? Sitting them down and having an "honest chat" with them in
>>hopes they'll see the error of their ways?
>
> Your last suggestion seems the most compassionate; I'll try that one first.
>
> Orlando

and if they don't agree, coerce them. as you stated earlier.

blake

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:51:14 -0700, Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:30:13 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:43:12 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>So are you saying lazy-useless-parasites should decide the fate of
>>>>>>>those who not only have dreams, but follow through on them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, I'm saying those who have dreams should follow them but not insist
>>>>>>others do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>But you insist that they support the lazy and unambitious?
>>>>>Especially when they tend to breed like flies?
>>>>
>>>>you'd rather they die like flies instead?
>>>>
>>>>blake
>>>
>>>What do you get when you feed starving people?
>>>
>>>More starving people.
>>>
>>>People should not breed what they cannot afford to support.
>>>It's not fair to the rest of us that breed responsibly...
>>>
>>>Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm seriously in to personal
>>>responsibility!
>>
>> just about no one got where they are purely as a result of their own
>> personal efforts. when growing up, you went to school that someone else
>> paid for. your got to school on roads that someone else paid for. you are
>> protected by a police force that somebody else paid for. etc., etc.
>>
>> the idea that everyone is solely responsible for their own success or
>> failure is a false one, and some need more help than others.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>>
>
> DE COMEDIA UNIVERSA, QUAE DICTUR PAN
>
> So, therefore, count thyself happy when thou understandest all these
> Things, being one of those Beings (or By-comings) whom we call
> Philosophers. All is a never ending Play of Love wherein our Lady Nuit
> and Her Lord Hadit rejoice; and every Part of the Play is Play. All pain
> is but sharp Sauce to the Dish of Pleasure; for it is the Nature of the
> Universe that hath devised this everlasting Banquet of Joy. And he that
> knoweth not this is necessary as an Ingredient even as thou art; wouldst
> thou change all and spoil the Dish? Art thou the Master-Cook? Yea, for
> thy Palate is become fine with thy great Dalliance with the Food of
> Experience; therefore thou art one of them that rejoice. Also it is thy
> Nature as it is mine, to will that all Men share our Mirth and Jollity;
> wherefore have I proclaimed my Law to Man, and thou continuest in that
> Work of Joyaunce.

where are you cribbing this neo-pagan bullshit from? the faux-archaic
diction is a dead giveaway.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:52:11 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:30:13 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:43:12 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So are you saying lazy-useless-parasites should decide the fate of
>>>>>>> those who not only have dreams, but follow through on them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I'm saying those who have dreams should follow them but not insist
>>>>>> others do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you insist that they support the lazy and unambitious?
>>>>> Especially when they tend to breed like flies?
>>>>
>>>> you'd rather they die like flies instead?
>>>>
>>>> blake
>>>
>>> What do you get when you feed starving people?
>>>
>>> More starving people.
>>>
>>> People should not breed what they cannot afford to support.
>>> It's not fair to the rest of us that breed responsibly...
>>>
>>> Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm seriously in to personal
>>> responsibility!
>>
>> just about no one got where they are purely as a result of their own
>> personal efforts. when growing up, you went to school that someone else
>> paid for. your got to school on roads that someone else paid for. you are
>> protected by a police force that somebody else paid for. etc., etc.
>>
>> the idea that everyone is solely responsible for their own success or
>> failure is a false one, and some need more help than others.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> I have no problem with them getting help, so long as they eventually
> "get there" so they can start helping back. Not living their entire life
> on the dole...

what do you think the percentage of parasites is compared to the percentage
of people who really need help? how do you distinguish between the two?
and given the pittance that any of these people actually get, is it really
worth the amount of ****ing and moaning that some non-poor people do about
the tremendous 'burden' placed on them? don't forget, we're talking about
eleven percent of the federal budget.

don't you think it might be better to bitch about the thirty-some percent
spent on the military? do we really need to spend almost as much as the
rest of the world combined?

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:56:27 -0400, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

> wrote:
>>just about no one got where they are purely as a result of their own
>>personal efforts. when growing up, you went to school that someone else
>>paid for. your got to school on roads that someone else paid for. you are
>>protected by a police force that somebody else paid for. etc., etc.
>>the idea that everyone is solely responsible for their own success or
>>failure is a false one, and some need more help than others.
>
> Some people do the exact opposite of what they know will help them and don't
> even know why. Other people take help, swearing they won't get into the same
> jams, but keep doing the same dumb stuff. What are we supposed to do with such
> people when they resist or sabotage help but later demand care?
>
> Orlando

some people are stupid. do they deserve to starve to death?

blake

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:23:15 -0500, Gregory Morrow wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:58:00 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>>>
>>>> George > wrote in
>>>> - september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> So it sounds like you are saying that if someone is capable of
>>>>> being productive but decides not to they should be provided with
>>>>> not only essentials but everything someone might want such as a
>>>>> large house, multiple vehicles, large screen TVs in every room,
>>>>> large clothing and entertainment allowance, vacation vouchers for
>>>>> the family and whatever else they might want?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. But that's not likely to happen, is it.
>>>
>>> You wish.<g>
>>>
>>> Happens all the time here. I've SEEN it.
>>
>> this is bullshit. seen it *where*? it's fantasy.
>
> The Netherlands. The poor and unemployed there even get a "holiday
> allowance" so's they can take a "vacation"...

um, i think we were talking about poor people on the gravy train in the
u.s.

blake

wrote:
>black people are not subhuman, asshole.

Every race and class is capable of subhumanity or even inhumanity.
Unfortunately, no races or classes are immune to this possibility.

Orlando

wrote:
>then maybe we worthy people should slaughter them for food.

I've said nothing about "worthy people". Irresponsible breeding hurts the
breeders the most. It won't affect me very deeply whether people have too many
kids without being able to support them; it will hurt them the most by limiting
their opportunities and flexibility in survival.

Orlando

wrote:
>don't you think it might be better to bitch about the thirty-some percent
>spent on the military? do we really need to spend almost as much as the
>rest of the world combined?

I could bitch about that for years! But, we began this thread drift talking
about parental cooking practices.

Orlando

wrote:
>some people are stupid. do they deserve to starve to death?

I was born blind. Do I deserve to go through life uncomfortably dependent on
the sighted world to help me find things, do things and be friendly toward me?
Obviously not. But, the sighted world rigs the rules while professing
politically correct respect for my disability. Obviously, stupid people don't
deserve to starve to death. But, if they're too ignorant to look after
themselves, the fortunate and able bodied will have to do so. How do you
propose to make that additional burden palatable?

Orlando

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:15:36 -0500, Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:13:28 -0400, George wrote:
>>>
>>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:43:12 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So are you saying lazy-useless-parasites should decide the fate
>>>>>>>> of those who not only have dreams, but follow through on them?
>>>>>>> No, I'm saying those who have dreams should follow them but not
>>>>>>> insist others do the same.
>>>>>> But you insist that they support the lazy and unambitious?
>>>>>> Especially when they tend to breed like flies?
>>>>>
>>>>> you'd rather they die like flies instead?
>>>>>
>>>>> blake
>>>>
>>>> Nice try to totally twist the meaning of her reply and add lots of
>>>> drama but I am 100% sure that you know exactly what her post meant.
>>>
>>> 'breeding like flies' seems to imply that the underclass is somehow
>>> subhuman. i have a problem with that.
>>
>> Take the Magick Metro down to SE, blake, and you'll see that there is
>> some
>> merit to the concept...
>
> black people are not subhuman, asshole.
>
> blake

Hey, there are those who comport themselves subhumanly in all
races/ethnicities... but you read at below a 4th grade level... you're the
only one who perceived from the discussion that black people are subhuman,
mick, you simplistic racist dreck.

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:51:14 -0700, Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq. wrote:
>
>
>>>the idea that everyone is solely responsible for their own success or
>>>failure is a false one, and some need more help than others.
>>>
>>>your pal,
>>>blake
>>>
>>
>>DE COMEDIA UNIVERSA, QUAE DICTUR PAN
>>
>>So, therefore, count thyself happy when thou understandest all these
>>Things, being one of those Beings (or By-comings) whom we call
>>Philosophers. All is a never ending Play of Love wherein our Lady Nuit
>>and Her Lord Hadit rejoice; and every Part of the Play is Play. All pain
>>is but sharp Sauce to the Dish of Pleasure; for it is the Nature of the
>>Universe that hath devised this everlasting Banquet of Joy. And he that
>>knoweth not this is necessary as an Ingredient even as thou art; wouldst
>>thou change all and spoil the Dish? Art thou the Master-Cook? Yea, for
>>thy Palate is become fine with thy great Dalliance with the Food of
>>Experience; therefore thou art one of them that rejoice. Also it is thy
>>Nature as it is mine, to will that all Men share our Mirth and Jollity;
>>wherefore have I proclaimed my Law to Man, and thou continuest in that
>>Work of Joyaunce.
>
>
> where are you cribbing this neo-pagan bullshit from? the faux-archaic
> diction is a dead giveaway.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Apparently our definitions of bovine fecal matter differs,
significantly, from each others.
--
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://www.dancingmice.net/Karn%20Evil%209.mp3

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:23:15 -0500, Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:58:00 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> George > wrote in
>>>>> - september.org:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So it sounds like you are saying that if someone is capable of
>>>>>> being productive but decides not to they should be provided with
>>>>>> not only essentials but everything someone might want such as a
>>>>>> large house, multiple vehicles, large screen TVs in every room,
>>>>>> large clothing and entertainment allowance, vacation vouchers for
>>>>>> the family and whatever else they might want?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. But that's not likely to happen, is it.
>>>>
>>>> You wish.<g>
>>>>
>>>> Happens all the time here. I've SEEN it.
>>>
>>> this is bullshit. seen it *where*? it's fantasy.
>>
>> The Netherlands. The poor and unemployed there even get a "holiday
>> allowance" so's they can take a "vacation"...
>
> um, i think we were talking about poor people on the gravy train in the
> u.s.
>
>
People on the gravy train... that's you! Geeze, just because you spend all
day in that throne doesn't make you king. The widdle shillelagh is all ego,
The Royal Mick thinks he's hot shit on wheels! <G>

Ahahahahahahahahah. . . .

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" wrote:
The Royal Mick spakith:
>
>>black people are not subhuman, asshole.
>
> Every race and class is capable of subhumanity or even inhumanity.
> Unfortunately, no races or classes are immune to this possibility.
>
>
With the intellect of a mushroom The Royal Mick is incapable of so profound
a thought process... what the heck, he exists on horseshit so that's all one
can expect from him.

Hi brooklyn1, you wrote:

>Todays kids at 10-11 kiss and swap spit, 12
>year old girls are prego, and give birth to drug
>addicted babies. The little brats carry knives
>and bring guns to school.

I just want to point out that not all children are so inclined to
misbehave. Most kids aren't at all like the description you have
provided.

I have worked as a School Security Officer and Recreation Supervisor in
the Los Angeles area.

Jack Boot

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq." > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Domine, dirige nos.
>
>
> Pie Jesu domine, dona eis requiem
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRB45Jv6lW8
>


*Chuckle* got to watch out for those homicidal rabbits spouting Latin
--
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://www.dancingmice.net/Karn%20Evil%209.mp3

cybercat wrote:
> "Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq." > wrote
>
>>The rich and powerful write the "Laws" for their own benifit.
>>
>>Occasioanly human history gets the rarerich and powerful altuist who
>>writes something like "man is endowed by his Creator with certain
>>inalienable rights," and that among these are life, liberty, and the
>>pursuit of happiness..."
>>Written by a slave owner who had the chance to purchase what it thought of
>>as happiness, no matter how transitory it was.
>>
>>Understand first that the Disturbers of the Peace of Mankind do so by
>>Reason of their Ignorance of their own true Wills. ...
>
>
> You are very wise, Joseph.
>

I don't think i would go that far in describing myself

At best i love to read, and probly am just a bibliomanic with a highly
retentive memory.
--
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://www.dancingmice.net/Karn%20Evil%209.mp3

maxine wrote:
> On Jun 14, 1:49*pm, wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 10:07:06 -0700, "Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq."
>
>
>>Is this all you do, quote from books? Do you not have any language
>>skill, or do you prefer to hide behind someone else's quotes?
>>
>
> Sometimes, someone else has said it well already, and there's no point
> in reinventing the wheel. JL writes often enough in his own words.
>
> maxien in ri

Thanks Maxien.

Though i do think that, sometimes, a more formal quote by a better
writer than myself is, sometimes, more appropriate than my obscurely
esoteric rantings
--
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://www.dancingmice.net/Karn%20Evil%209.mp3

blake murphy wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:52:11 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:30:13 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:43:12 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So are you saying lazy-useless-parasites should decide the
>>>>>>>> fate of those who not only have dreams, but follow through on
>>>>>>>> them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I'm saying those who have dreams should follow them but not
>>>>>>> insist others do the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you insist that they support the lazy and unambitious?
>>>>>> Especially when they tend to breed like flies?
>>>>>
>>>>> you'd rather they die like flies instead?
>>>>>
>>>>> blake
>>>>
>>>> What do you get when you feed starving people?
>>>>
>>>> More starving people.
>>>>
>>>> People should not breed what they cannot afford to support.
>>>> It's not fair to the rest of us that breed responsibly...
>>>>
>>>> Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm seriously in to personal
>>>> responsibility!
>>>
>>> just about no one got where they are purely as a result of their own
>>> personal efforts. when growing up, you went to school that someone
>>> else paid for. your got to school on roads that someone else paid
>>> for. you are protected by a police force that somebody else paid
>>> for. etc., etc.
>>>
>>> the idea that everyone is solely responsible for their own success
>>> or failure is a false one, and some need more help than others.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>> I have no problem with them getting help, so long as they eventually
>> "get there" so they can start helping back. Not living their entire
>> life on the dole...
>
> what do you think the percentage of parasites is compared to the
> percentage of people who really need help? how do you distinguish
> between the two? and given the pittance that any of these people
> actually get, is it really worth the amount of ****ing and moaning
> that some non-poor people do about the tremendous 'burden' placed on
> them? don't forget, we're talking about eleven percent of the
> federal budget.
>
> don't you think it might be better to bitch about the thirty-some
> percent spent on the military? do we really need to spend almost as
> much as the rest of the world combined?


Yup, since we are the *sole* superpower and there are a LOT of pukes out
there who would "act up" even more than they already do if there was a
vacuum of US military power...

Your kind of pacifist thinking was de rigeur in the US in the post - WWI
period, blake - and you know what *that* led to...


--
Best
Greg

blake murphy wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:15:36 -0500, Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:13:28 -0400, George wrote:
>>>
>>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:43:12 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So are you saying lazy-useless-parasites should decide the fate
>>>>>>>> of those who not only have dreams, but follow through on them?
>>>>>>> No, I'm saying those who have dreams should follow them but not
>>>>>>> insist others do the same.
>>>>>> But you insist that they support the lazy and unambitious?
>>>>>> Especially when they tend to breed like flies?
>>>>>
>>>>> you'd rather they die like flies instead?
>>>>>
>>>>> blake
>>>>
>>>> Nice try to totally twist the meaning of her reply and add lots of
>>>> drama but I am 100% sure that you know exactly what her post meant.
>>>
>>> 'breeding like flies' seems to imply that the underclass is somehow
>>> subhuman. i have a problem with that.
>>
>> Take the Magick Metro down to SE, blake, and you'll see that there
>> is some merit to the concept...
>
> black people are not subhuman, asshole.


Black people per se are not subhuman but the variety of social pathologies
that many of them engage in certainly makes them so...

IIRC the illegitimacy rate in black households was *lower* than that of
white households until the mid-60's. Now the rate in black households is
70%. What happened, blake...???

Why, after c. 45 years of poverty programs, affirmative action, civil rights
legislation, Great Society programs, etc. do black inner-city ghettos still
exist...???

What say you, blake? I'm not baiting you, I'm sincerely interested in
hearing your theories...


--
Best
Greg

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote in
> m:
>
>> Okay, I'm tired of matters "political" for a moment, so any "kitty"
>> news at your house...???
>
> The dogs left today for an extended stay in Nueva York. The cats
> have the run of the household again which means they'll be able to
> stay out of my room because I have developed allergies (my eyes
> mostly) to cat dander when they were sleeping in there every night.
>
> The male, Calvin, had an apprentice last summer, a young male named
> Keden, who is now mature and contesting Calvin's dominance over the
> neighbourhood (it's Kronos and Ouranos all over again). Keden is the
> cat of our second neighbour over. Every now and then either Calvin
> or Keden will come in with a bit of hair pulled out or a drop of
> blood on the ear or nose. They're not biting yet.
>
> The youngest, Suki, is diabetic, I think I mentioned that before. We
> have to inject her with insulin twice a day at meal times. It keeps
> her sugar level normal. She has now bonded with me as Calvin has
> bonded with my wife.
>
> Her mother, Kita, the eldest female, is the most popular cat in the
> immediate vicinity, even tempered and sociable without being naive
> about new people. She often visits at the neighbour's in the morning.
>

Thanks for the update...of course you know we'd appreciate some pictures if
you have them...


> As I am retiring (but not shy about it) on Wednesday, I'll have more
> time to spend opening and closing doors ;-)


Congrats on your retirement...

:-)


--
Best
Greg

On Jun 15, 2:03*pm, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:23:15 -0500, Gregory Morrow wrote:
`
> >> this is bullshit. *seen it *where*? *it's fantasy.
>
> > The Netherlands. *The poor and unemployed there even get a "holiday
> > allowance" so's they can take a "vacation"...
>
> um, i think we were talking about poor people on the gravy train in the
> u.s.

You know consies...when in doubt, make it up. There was a spate of
fake quotes being read by Ministers in question period in the House of
Commons back about two years ago. Quite clearly they were fabricating
"experts" to support their policies. When after extensive research we
called the Minister's office to get a copy, nothing was produced.
Hardly surprising.

"Giusi" > wrote in message
...
>
> "graham" ha scritto nel messaggio ...
>>
>
> Did you say anything? Because if you did, I couldn't find it.
I was in a pedantic mood! The OP used "bring" instead of "take" as, I'm
afraid, do many North Americans.

"Jack Boot" <@webtv> wrote
> Hi brooklyn1, you wrote:
>
>>Todays kids at 10-11 kiss and swap spit, 12
>>year old girls are prego, and give birth to drug
>>addicted babies. The little brats carry knives
>>and bring guns to school.
>
> I just want to point out that not all children are so inclined to
> misbehave. Most kids aren't at all like the description you have
> provided.
>
> I have worked as a School Security Officer and Recreation Supervisor in
> the Los Angeles area.
>
>
The LA area... that's one friggin' HUGE area.

brooklyn1 wrote:

> "Jack Boot" <@webtv> wrote
>> Hi brooklyn1, you wrote:
>>
>>> Todays kids at 10-11 kiss and swap spit, 12
>>> year old girls are prego, and give birth to drug
>>> addicted babies. The little brats carry knives
>>> and bring guns to school.
>>
>> I just want to point out that not all children are so inclined to
>> misbehave. Most kids aren't at all like the description you have
>> provided.
>>
>> I have worked as a School Security Officer and Recreation Supervisor
>> in the Los Angeles area.
>>
>>
> The LA area... that's one friggin' HUGE area.


Ya've got the gamut there, from Turd World ghet - toe to Malibu and Pacific
Palisades, Palm Springs maybe even...he's gotta be a "bit" more "specific",
lol...


--
Best
Greg

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message
m...
> brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> "Jack Boot" <@webtv> wrote
>>> Hi brooklyn1, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> Todays kids at 10-11 kiss and swap spit, 12
>>>> year old girls are prego, and give birth to drug
>>>> addicted babies. The little brats carry knives
>>>> and bring guns to school.
>>>
>>> I just want to point out that not all children are so inclined to
>>> misbehave. Most kids aren't at all like the description you have
>>> provided.
>>>
>>> I have worked as a School Security Officer and Recreation Supervisor
>>> in the Los Angeles area.
>>>
>>>
>> The LA area... that's one friggin' HUGE area.
>
>
> Ya've got the gamut there, from Turd World ghet - toe to Malibu and
> Pacific
> Palisades, Palm Springs maybe even...he's gotta be a "bit" more
> "specific",
> lol...
>
>
With that handle he's probably an East LA greaser so he's enured.

brooklyn1 wrote:

> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message
> m...
>> brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>>> "Jack Boot" <@webtv> wrote
>>>> Hi brooklyn1, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Todays kids at 10-11 kiss and swap spit, 12
>>>>> year old girls are prego, and give birth to drug
>>>>> addicted babies. The little brats carry knives
>>>>> and bring guns to school.
>>>>
>>>> I just want to point out that not all children are so inclined to
>>>> misbehave. Most kids aren't at all like the description you have
>>>> provided.
>>>>
>>>> I have worked as a School Security Officer and Recreation
>>>> Supervisor in the Los Angeles area.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The LA area... that's one friggin' HUGE area.
>>
>>
>> Ya've got the gamut there, from Turd World ghet - toe to Malibu and
>> Pacific
>> Palisades, Palm Springs maybe even...he's gotta be a "bit" more
>> "specific",
>> lol...
>>
>>
> With that handle he's probably an East LA greaser so he's enured.


Yup, and his WebTV is a "low rider" I bet, lol...chopped and channeled like
a '49 Merc...


--
Best
Greg

blake murphy > wrote in
:

> do we really need to spend almost as much as the
> rest of the world combined?

You forgot to add: to achieve nothing of significance and kill a lot of
innocent people in the process.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in
:

> Your kind of pacifist thinking was de rigeur in the US in the post - WWI
> period, blake - and you know what *that* led to...

Pacifism was also popular much more recently, during the Ban the Bomb
movement of the 50's and early 60's (when I participated in marches on to
Parliament Hill), during the Unwinnable War, and again now as governments
are becoming embroiled in yet another quagmire.

Pacifist movements usually decry pointless violence. World War I was
largely pointless violence. QED.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

"Gregory Morrow" >

I note you are using a Spanish address...something you're not telling us?

wrote in
:

> Thanks for the update...of course you know we'd appreciate some
> pictures if you have them...

Once I find my camera, it should be possible.

>> As I am retiring (but not shy about it) on Wednesday, I'll have more
>> time to spend opening and closing doors ;-)
>
> Congrats on your retirement...

Although people congratulate me, I'm not sure why. There is no merit in
this beyond surviving to achieve it.

That said, thanks :-)

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Dave Smith > wrote in news:4a3651ec$0$5851
:

> Sure, we can agree that people don't have to pull their own weight, but
> that requires other people pull their own weight plus the weight of
> others.

You're assuming that if some don't others have to do it for them. I
dispute that. In fact I have suggested my plan befo nationalize
primary and secondary industries (leaving the tertiary finishing and
commercial sectors in the hands of capitalists) and give everyone (man,
woman and child) a sufficient guaranteed income, non-taxable. You would
immediately do away with welfare, disability pensions, unemployment
insurance (which in Canada is a large amount), retirement funds, reduce
the load on taxes, and ensure a healthier population. And you do away
with poverty.

The guaranteed income is inalienable, does not require service and can be
spent anywhere. In other words, if someone wants to retire to the
Bahamas and live in a hut at age 25, s/he can do it. People who do work
(and more would work than you think) would be taxed on the income over
their guaranteed amount. And work would be freed up by those who don't
wish to work, so there would be a. no unemployment, and b. no shortage of
jobs. People could be free to be a carpenter one year and a bookseller
the next (something advocated by Karl Marx, btw) without fear of losing
basic income. People could achieve their true potential instead of being
shackled to mind-numbingly dull jobs because of the fear of poverty.

To achieve this requires a fundamental change in attitudes...a revolution
if you will, but it would work. And no one who worked would have to
contribute their income to it. This should in fact be the plan those
whingers would want to implement if they actually thought about it.

Another (less exciting and much less revolutionary) way is to put some
money into a microloan organization like Kiva. I manage a small fund
(150$) on Kiva which goes to various projects around the world which I
select, and which help to create employment and lift people out of
poverty.

www.kiva.org

But I still think the first plan is the better one. However, I know how
people will react, so I'm not holding my breath.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

wrote:
>You're assuming that if some don't others have to do it for them. I
>dispute that. In fact I have suggested my plan befo nationalize
>primary and secondary industries (leaving the tertiary finishing and
>commercial sectors in the hands of capitalists) and give everyone (man,
>woman and child) a sufficient guaranteed income, non-taxable. You would
>immediately do away with welfare, disability pensions, unemployment
>insurance (which in Canada is a large amount), retirement funds, reduce
>the load on taxes, and ensure a healthier population. And you do away
>with poverty.

Where would this guaranteed income come from and how could people be convinced
to contribute to it?

>The guaranteed income is inalienable, does not require service and can be
>spent anywhere. In other words, if someone wants to retire to the
>Bahamas and live in a hut at age 25, s/he can do it.

Ah, but then you'd have the disparity of the same guaranteed minimum income
being worth more or less in different countries or provinces of the same
country. That would lead to people whining about how their guaranteed income
doesn't yield as much spending money in New York City as it does in North
Dakota.

>People who do work (and more would work than you think) would be taxed on the
income over their guaranteed amount. And work would be freed up by those who
don't wish to work, so there would be a. no unemployment, and b. no shortage of
>jobs. People could be free to be a carpenter one year and a bookseller
>the next (something advocated by Karl Marx, btw) without fear of losing
>basic income. People could achieve their true potential instead of being
>shackled to mind-numbingly dull jobs because of the fear of poverty.

This part sounds extremely promising. But, you could never get different
sectors of the population to agree on what amounts to a free ride for their
"inferiors".

>To achieve this requires a fundamental change in attitudes...a revolution
>if you will, but it would work. And no one who worked would have to
>contribute their income to it.

If this money pool were not generated from taxation, the private business
sector should have to contribute toward it. Considering how much businesses
gripe about paying into health insurance for their employees, I doubt they
would be enthused about yet another tax burden.

>Another (less exciting and much less revolutionary) way is to put some
>money into a microloan organization like Kiva. I manage a small fund
>(150$) on Kiva which goes to various projects around the world which I
>select, and which help to create employment and lift people out of
>poverty.

I think this is extremely important work.

Orlando

Michel Boucher wrote:
> Dave Smith > wrote in news:4a3651ec$0$5851
> :
>
>> Sure, we can agree that people don't have to pull their own weight, but
>> that requires other people pull their own weight plus the weight of
>> others.
>
> You're assuming that if some don't others have to do it for them. I
> dispute that. In fact I have suggested my plan befo nationalize
> primary and secondary industries (leaving the tertiary finishing and
> commercial sectors in the hands of capitalists) and give everyone (man,
> woman and child) a sufficient guaranteed income, non-taxable. You would
> immediately do away with welfare, disability pensions, unemployment
> insurance (which in Canada is a large amount), retirement funds, reduce
> the load on taxes, and ensure a healthier population. And you do away
> with poverty.


That still involves people working in those nationalized businesses. If
everyone had the same attitude that other people had to provide for them
there would not be anyone working.



> The guaranteed income is inalienable, does not require service and can be
> spent anywhere. In other words, if someone wants to retire to the
> Bahamas and live in a hut at age 25, s/he can do it. People who do work
> (and more would work than you think) would be taxed on the income over
> their guaranteed amount. And work would be freed up by those who don't
> wish to work,


Those who chose not to work???? Screw that. Why should I have to get up
in the morning and get to work and labour all day while they get to sit
around at home and party all day? If they chose not to work then they
can chose not to reap the benefits of work.

> To achieve this requires a fundamental change in attitudes...a
revolution
> if you will, but it would work. And no one who worked would have to
> contribute their income to it. This should in fact be the plan those
> whingers would want to implement if they actually thought about it.

Given a system where everyone able bodied person is required to pull
their weight or one in which everyone is able to sit back and suck on
the public teat, only one has a chance of succeeding.


> But I still think the first plan is the better one. However, I know how
> people will react, so I'm not holding my breath.


Damn, it's a bitch to run into a wall of reality.

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message
m...
> brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jack Boot" <@webtv> wrote
>>>>> Hi brooklyn1, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Todays kids at 10-11 kiss and swap spit, 12
>>>>>> year old girls are prego, and give birth to drug
>>>>>> addicted babies. The little brats carry knives
>>>>>> and bring guns to school.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just want to point out that not all children are so inclined to
>>>>> misbehave. Most kids aren't at all like the description you have
>>>>> provided.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have worked as a School Security Officer and Recreation
>>>>> Supervisor in the Los Angeles area.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The LA area... that's one friggin' HUGE area.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ya've got the gamut there, from Turd World ghet - toe to Malibu and
>>> Pacific
>>> Palisades, Palm Springs maybe even...he's gotta be a "bit" more
>>> "specific",
>>> lol...
>>>
>>>
>> With that handle he's probably an East LA greaser so he's enured.
>
>
> Yup, and his WebTV is a "low rider" I bet, lol...chopped and channeled
> like
> a '49 Merc...
>
>
> --
> Best
> Greg
>
A 49 Merc ain't no Cholo car esse.

A Cholo car is a 38 Cheby......

or a Monte Carlo with air shocks

Dimitri

Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote in
:

>>You're assuming that if some don't others have to do it for them. I
>>dispute that. In fact I have suggested my plan befo nationalize
>>primary and secondary industries (leaving the tertiary finishing and
>>commercial sectors in the hands of capitalists) and give everyone
>>(man, woman and child) a sufficient guaranteed income, non-taxable.
>>You would immediately do away with welfare, disability pensions,
>>unemployment insurance (which in Canada is a large amount), retirement
>>funds, reduce the load on taxes, and ensure a healthier population.
>>And you do away with poverty.
>
> Where would this guaranteed income come from and how could people be
> convinced to contribute to it?

Read the paragraph above. It comes from the commercializing of products
from primary and secondary industries. No person contributes to it.
That's the whole point.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote in
:

> This part sounds extremely promising. But, you could never get
> different sectors of the population to agree on what amounts to a free
> ride for their "inferiors".

Ok, this is the old thinking that gets me all riled up. No one is getting
a free ride, everyone receives their guaranteed income regardless. Even
the rich.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote in
:

>>To achieve this requires a fundamental change in attitudes...a
>>revolution if you will, but it would work. And no one who worked
>>would have to contribute their income to it.
>
> If this money pool were not generated from taxation, the private
> business sector should have to contribute toward it.

Ok, what part of NATIONALIZATION do you not understand?

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Dave Smith > wrote in news:4a36d697$0$5857
:

> That still involves people working in those nationalized businesses. If
> everyone had the same attitude that other people had to provide for them
> there would not be anyone working.

Well, then in capitalist terms, they would not be necessary.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes