|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: on sginatures (Was: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition tonational healthcare?)
Date: 16 Aug 2009 10:01:32
Message: <4a88113c$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/16/09 07:51, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>> I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.
>
> I'm having the following idea right now. I could have a database of
> quotes, and while I write my article, I somehow mark some words, or
> just one, which I wish my signature to talk about; then a program
> selects a quote that mentions that word; my client somehow removes the
> mark. So you could have selected ``shape'' and hopefully something
> that could be related to the shape discussed here would be funny. :-)
>
> I think most of the time would be confusing and not funny, but that's
> okay.
I got the random sig idea from the BBS days. They're called taglines,
and any decent BBS messaging reader had that feature. I simply had it to
select them randomly. However, some readers did more or less what you
describe.
--
I'm addicted to placebos. I'd give them up, but it wouldn't make any
difference. - Steven Wright
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Daniel Bastos
Subject: Re: on sginatures (Was: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition tonational healthcare?)
Date: 16 Aug 2009 11:02:34
Message: <4a881f8a$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4a88113c$1@news.povray.org>,
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> I got the random sig idea from the BBS days. They're called taglines,
> and any decent BBS messaging reader had that feature. I simply had it to
> select them randomly. However, some readers did more or less what you
> describe.
Bummer. I was already writing my patent.
--
I misspelled the subject. I, ~ Robot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain _to_national_health_care?
Date: 16 Aug 2009 16:10:13
Message: <4a8867a5@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/15/09 14:23, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> OK I know that not all Americans feel that way but it seems that the
>>> majority of
>>> vocal ones do.
>>
>>
>> No one seems to have pointed out the obvious reasons why some of this is
>> happening.
>
> Yes, but you make it sound like a conspiracy. ;-)
>
Some of it likely is. We are talking about the core leadership of a
party that even many of its own members have started to say no longer
reflect their own views. The is also still racism in the US, and a
general feeling, even if not expressed *as* full blown racism, that
certain people shouldn't be in charge of things. So, you have a
tri-fecta for some of these people, reform of something they can't be
bothered to fix themselves, proposed by a black man, who is a Democrat.
You don't need a conspiracy when a lot of common crackpot ideas,
delusions and fears coalesce all at one time, in a single place. All you
need is a lot of fracking nuts, all with the same *general* political
goals, who are all convinced, for their own desperate and crazy reasons,
that something is happening they need to fight against.
And, it doesn't take a lot of people "in" those groups, to stir this up,
if they know the right buttons to push. They have been pushing those
buttons since before Obama was even elected. This is just an extension
of the, "He is a Muslim", "His birth certificate is a fake.", "He is the
anti-Christ, and this time we got this right, unlike the other 400
people we said where.", "He plans to create death camps.", "He is going
to let terrorists invade the country.", etc. The level of rhetoric has
gone ballistic, and in nasty directions, right as half the right wing
politicians and preachers are getting caught, literally, and
figuratively, with their pants down. So, again, given that all such
people tend to end up Republicans... Lets just say that there is a
conspiracy going on here in the Republican party, in **exactly** the
same way that there is a conspiracy in Gotham City's Arkham Asylum to
dress the all inmates using the local costume party shops. You don't
need one, when all too many of the members are seriously unhinged.
> The actions you describe are typical of any controversial political
> issue. I'm not sure I see your point.
>
Uh.. Taken in isolation yes. But this isn't in isolation, this is a
trend, one that most people outside the US see very clearly, and which
we don't, for much the same reason that a lobster doesn't realize its
being boiled to death, if you start out with room temperature water in
the pot, and just slowly heat it. There are people conspiring, these
people *are* stupid enough to hire the US equivalent of Al Queda to
shoot at people in Muslim countries, because sending more real troops is
making people unhappy, and the fact that its a dozen different groups,
of which only 1-2 know what they are buying, while the rest are just
looking at the books dust jacket, doesn't change the fact that they are
all buying the same monotheist, white, 'but not like them old Klan
people', dominionist, theocratic, 'Democracy only works when we win,
otherwise its corrupted', library. One book, for every flavor of, "Well,
those other people are nuts, but we only believe what is in the blue
book, not the red, purple, green, orange, and silver ones, which are
published by the same madmen."
>> 4. Major right wing religious groups, like Focus on the Family, which
>> was founded by the same "I will be King, or at least on of the rich,
>> powerful people that god gave political power too will.", Eric Prince
>
> Prince wasn't the founder of Focus on the Family.
>
> I fail to see why you're bringing him into this. Has he made
> comments about health care?
>
> And just because he's a radical extremist doesn't mean he's wrong on
> health care. ;-)
>
>
Wrong group then. I don't remember the specific one he was, but he did
found one of the right wing loony groups like them. You however seem to
have ignored my point that there are an unknown number of others, with
similar ideas, who have *no interest* in helping poor people, except
that, under a democracy, having a lot of poor people, who are stupid
enough to do shit like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16gospel.html?_r=1
Which also think the best people to elect are assholes that have gone to
ridiculous lengths to obfuscate and ignore a real problem, even while
hand waving a lot and saying, "Ah, well.. maybe it is one, sort of."
In any case, I brought him up because he is an example of one of the
types that is being "let in" to the inner circles in Washington, and
even payed for being a total nut case. Or, do you *really* think that no
one in the administration had the slightest clue how crazy this guy was
before they picked "his" mercenary army to send to Iraq, instead of one
of 50 other similar groups, some of which might have been vaguely saner?
And, he shares many of their views. The idea that their god is under
attack, that the end of the world is coming, that its their purpose to
help it happen, that only right wing wackos deserve to rule, and will be
at the right hand of god when the end comes, etc. You can't honestly
look at Fox News coverage of this mess, and the blatant lies being told,
look at all the people *saying it*, look at the same lies being
repeated, verbatim, on right wing web sites, often before they are even
brought up by the politicians, the back peddling committed by several
Republicans when it suddenly looked like they where getting in trouble,
or worse, supported Obama at all, the consistent message being floated
by all the "top" Republicans on this, and the number of even other, but
less prominently positioned Republicans looking at this and going, "What
the hell are these people smoking?", and not wonder who the hell is
pulling the strings, or if no one is, why they are not all being shipped
to a mental ward.
Even Bush didn't get this kind of crazy directed at him, or for him.
McCarthy though.. That has a very similar feel to the current trend from
the right, and, guess what? That was a conspiracy. You honestly think
there isn't one this time, given all the BS, and the number of people
*caught* inciting false information at the town halls, who turn out to
either *be* politicians, or people that work for a) insurance companies,
or b) the Republican party?
Like I said. If there isn't something very disturbing going on here,
then Arkham is buying its prison clothes from Party Express, and the
Joker's (never mind the rest) only problem was that the *psychologists*
dressed him in purple.
These are people that have been losing for centuries, and in the last
50.. have seen themselves lose the hearts and minds of most of Europe,
and are seeing a *massive* rise in people thinking they are nuts in the
US too. 90% belief in something they could pretend was some form of
literalist, creation based, dominionist, theology, to 70% who sort of
still believe, but 80% of them discount literalism, are not 100% solid
on whether the 6 days version of creation is correct, mostly think we
don't have a right to impose our views on others, and barely go to
church. Or, in other words, from these people's perspective, the number
of "believers" isn't 70%, its more like 10%. They are scared out of
their minds. And, what you get is lies about Obama, lies about health
care, lies about European health care, lies about crime rates, pregnancy
rates, drug use, etc., *in* Europe, over here. You even get idiots among
them screaming that Japan, whose economy is so capitalist that you can
buy sex toys from vending machines, is too **communist** and their
health care is a perfect example of what happens when you *give up* on
the free market.
Does it matter if they are intentionally working together, or just
making shit up individually, and them repeating each other? Its still
the political equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, while
then insisting, "What? I meant tire! No one said fire! Who said fire?
You must have misquoted what I and five other senators said the other
night on national TV, with 10 million people watching it!" Yeah.. Sure..
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain _to_national_health_care?
Date: 16 Aug 2009 17:19:49
Message: <4a8877f5$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/16/09 15:10, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Yes, but you make it sound like a conspiracy. ;-)
>>
> Some of it likely is. We are talking about the core leadership of a
> party that even many of its own members have started to say no longer
> reflect their own views. The is also still racism in the US, and a
I agree. My point was that very likely that's how things have been for
most of the 20th century, if not the history of the US. Growing up, we
didn't notice it or look for these aspects, and a lot of us have a
romantic idea that things were better then (maybe not you).
The US (and perhaps most major countries) have a long history of this
kind of behavior. I guess it's just that when people use the word
"conspiracy", everyone thinks he's a crackpot, so I unintentionally
began to view anything that is demonstrably true as not being a
conspiracy. ;-)
> buttons since before Obama was even elected. This is just an extension
> of the, "He is a Muslim", "His birth certificate is a fake.", "He is the
I really enjoyed one of Jon Stewart's recent clips on this. It goes
something like this (funnier if you see all the news clips he invokes)
"During his campaign, there were some concerns. Was he a Muslim? Was he
... half a Muslim? Was he a reform Muslim? Or...was he Muslim?
But we soon learned that Obama was actually an angry militant black
nationalist Christian (show Rev Wright clips).
Appeased, America voted him into office."
> Uh.. Taken in isolation yes. But this isn't in isolation, this is a
> trend, one that most people outside the US see very clearly, and which
> we don't, for much the same reason that a lobster doesn't realize its
> being boiled to death, if you start out with room temperature water in
> the pot, and just slowly heat it. There are people conspiring, these
> people *are* stupid enough to hire the US equivalent of Al Queda to
> shoot at people in Muslim countries, because sending more real troops is
> making people unhappy, and the fact that its a dozen different groups,
> of which only 1-2 know what they are buying, while the rest are just
> looking at the books dust jacket, doesn't change the fact that they are
> all buying the same monotheist, white, 'but not like them old Klan
> people', dominionist, theocratic, 'Democracy only works when we win,
> otherwise its corrupted', library. One book, for every flavor of, "Well,
> those other people are nuts, but we only believe what is in the blue
> book, not the red, purple, green, orange, and silver ones, which are
> published by the same madmen."
Yes, but how is all this different from the actions in Latin America in
the 80's? Or the stuff in Vietnam? Or the blacklisting of people with
communist sympathies (nothing has come close to that yet - not even any
anti-Muslim or anti-terrorist rhetoric). Or internment of the Japanese.
Sure - they're different in minor ways. But they're all the "same
difference".
> Even Bush didn't get this kind of crazy directed at him, or for him.
> McCarthy though.. That has a very similar feel to the current trend from
> the right, and, guess what? That was a conspiracy. You honestly think
> there isn't one this time, given all the BS, and the number of people
> *caught* inciting false information at the town halls, who turn out to
> either *be* politicians, or people that work for a) insurance companies,
> or b) the Republican party?
Well, yes. That's my point. This isn't something special. It's been
done before and will continually be done. Democracy is not much of an
antidote.
I think there are *much* more of these kinds of things going on. It's
just that some of them seem big enough to fall under our radar (health
issue, Prince, etc). I know this sounds cynical, but this is mostly just
business as usual.
--
I'm addicted to placebos. I'd give them up, but it wouldn't make any
difference. - Steven Wright
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> OK I know that not all Americans feel that way but it seems that the majority of
> vocal ones do.
I think it's the corporations who profit from a lack of nationalized health
care that are most vocal. They become vocal by hiring or otherwise getting
shills to show up and make a lot of noise. The actual polls show a huge
majority of the people asked are in favor. (Where something like 85% is a
"huge majority" in this country.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America?s opposition to national healthcare?
Date: 16 Aug 2009 20:45:07
Message: <4a88a813$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> No, just the vocal ones who oppose it. And maybe not communism, but
> socialism.
I thought it was interesting to point out that insurance is, by definition,
socialism. You take a little bit from each person, put it in a pool, and
then distribute that pool to those in need.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America?s opposition to national healthcare?
Date: 16 Aug 2009 20:46:57
Message: <4a88a881@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Do /you/ know the difference?
I have an old dictionary that defines communism as government ownership of
businesses and socialism as government regulation of businesses. So, for
example, the US postal service, or the regulated monopolies like water
service, pre-divestiture phone service, etc, would be socialist.
Nowadays the dictionaries define those as political systems rather than
economic ones.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America?s opposition to national healthcare?
Date: 16 Aug 2009 20:51:43
Message: <4a88a99f@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:45:06 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> No, just the vocal ones who oppose it. And maybe not communism, but
>> socialism.
>
> I thought it was interesting to point out that insurance is, by
> definition, socialism. You take a little bit from each person, put it
> in a pool, and then distribute that pool to those in need.
Yeah, that is interesting.... :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Question: What the **** is communism anyway? And why is it bad?
What would you call a capitalist form of democracy? One where the people
with the most money and productive ability are the ones that make the rules?
Democracy is kind of like the counter-balance to capitalism - everyone gets
one vote, rather than what they're worth.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Daniel Bastos
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America?s opposition to national healthcare?
Date: 16 Aug 2009 21:47:47
Message: <4a88b6c3$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4a88a99f@news.povray.org>,
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:45:06 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> No, just the vocal ones who oppose it. And maybe not communism, but
>>> socialism.
>>
>> I thought it was interesting to point out that insurance is, by
>> definition, socialism. You take a little bit from each person, put it
>> in a pool, and then distribute that pool to those in need.
>
> Yeah, that is interesting.... :-)
If it is a fair insurance? Because when they deny treatment based on
languagelawyerism, then it becomes a corrupt communist authority? :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|