[FairfieldLife] 'The Light + Liberty= Golden Opening...'
Now that we have a new President of the United States of America... We have had an opportunity to open a new 'Chakra'... This Chakra, is located, above the head, in the 'Soul Area'... Right above the head... It's colour is a mixture of the 'Heart's Golden/Green'... And, the 'Throats mixture of purified silvery threads of blue. This will allow us all to unite with the force of 'Truth, Liberty and Light'... Which will engulf the 'World's Collective Consciousness'... Which is taking place, as we speak. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: You need a hominem for an ad hominem
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Think if she had reeled off a list of African countries at her press conference, her critics would have realized how wrong they were and apologized? Or would they have suggested that there was plenty of time between when she first heard the charge and her press conference to have a quick look in an atlas, or just ask one of her aides? Your solution is a crock, Curtis. There's nothing she can do to refute the charge, because it's about what was purportedly the case *at the time*. You may be right. I was just going on the pattern we have seen from her already, to make personal attacks on Obama using innuendo and carfully crafted language which is hard to refute directly. So my solution may not work, but it was Palin who said she can't refute the charges without knowing who said it. How exactly would that help outside of personal attacks? I think we all know why she wants to know who said it. Her history of using public office to wreak very personal revenge is well established in Alaska. She did it in Wasilla, she did it as Governor, and she wants to do it now. She wants someone to name names so that she can put them on her little list and deal with them later, when she has the power to do so. Or perhaps she has other witnesses to the falseness of the statement, perhaps she could say: ask so and so, he was there too. Which is meaningless nitpicking, the same thing we see here on FFL when people get into defending themselves. The clear alternative to this compulsive protect the self, or the projected image of self that I am so attached to, is to take oneself out of the reactive equation, as Obama did so often. And as Bill Ayers did. He's only now speaking up with his side of things. I am all for having the person accusing step forward. I'm just saying Palin's excuse that she has to know the person to counter the attack doesn't work for me. Plus, the whole She didn't know Africa was a continent thing is a DIVERSION. It is intended to divert the public's attention from the shopping spree. THAT is where the rubber meets the road in terms of Sarah Palin's personal ethics. Between the clothes she bought for herself, the clothes she had low-level staffers buy for her and her family on RNC credit cards, the $1900-per-day makeup artist, and the bills for flying her kids all around the country on private planes, she cost the RNC *far* more than her family makes in a year. And they make on the plus side of $250,000 per year, according to their own tax records. Could they have used some of that money to help GOP candidates who were in trouble, largely because of her? Duh. So what does that TELL us about the mindset of Sarah Palin? Well, it tells us a great deal about what she feels that she deserves. And it tells us a great deal about the lengths she will go to to GET what she thinks she deserves. The RNC had to send a *lawyer* from L.A. to retrieve the *13 suitcases* full of clothes and luxury items she had charged to the RNC on their credit cards (plus the cost of the suitcases themselves). They would not have done that if she had offered to return them herself. The woman is a thief. Her attempts to focus on critics who call her an ignorant thief is diversion, pure and simple.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Should we bail out the auto companies?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ++ I still get a lot of satisfaction out of driving around in my '73 International pickup which gets better mileage than the economy cars that are stuck in their driveway due to the snow and getting no mileage. I notice that some of the imports are full sized pickups and wonder if they get as good mileage as my Ranger. As for lasting, the '32 ford I had in the fifties and sixties now belongs to a buddy in Vermont where it is a show piece- a lot depends on how you take care of things. N. And whether the cars in question are built (as someone here suggested) with a four-year life cycle in mind. I drive a '92 Peugeot 306 that I picked up for less than the watch I wear cost. It has over 300,000 km on it and runs like a clock, getting close to 40 mpg on the highway, and running diesel fuel, which costs far less than gasoline in Europe. It will clock out at well over 100 mph if I want it to, and it corners like it's on rails, far better than some sports cars I have owned in the past. I have never had to spend a penny maintaining it, other than to change the oil. Others may be buying into the newer is better and more fuel-efficient myth, but not me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin for president
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When asked to choose among some of the GOP's top names for their choice , 64% say Palin. An up to the minute survey of Democrats showed that 100% want the GOP to choose Palin for the party's 2012 presidential nominee Exactly. The way to deal with blowhards and people who are so self-unaware that they don't realize what they are saying is to *let them speak*. The same thing that works on Fairfield Life works in politics. When you encounter one of these blowhards, you don't have to expend your energy informing other people what they are. All you have to do is push their buttons and sit back and allow them to do it themselves, in their own words. By all means nominate Sarah Palin for the Presidency in 2012. This time, Obama will say Yes to the challenge of lots of open debates faster than shit through a goose. Because the way to expose what Sarah Palin is is to give her a platform from which to speak, and then sit back and let her do so.
[FairfieldLife] World's oldest temple found...predates Stonehenge by 6000 years
Interesting find in Turkey, with a few photos in the article from the original Smithsonian magazine article. These guys, whoever they were, not only knew how to erect hengestones, but unlike the Stonehenge builders, they knew how to carve them and leave images of their civilization. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/09/worlds-oldest-temple-disc_n_142417.html or http://tinyurl.com/6hthhd It's also fun to realize that these stones have been carbon-dated to show that they were carved 6000 years before Sarah Palin believes the Earth was created.
[FairfieldLife] Re: World's oldest temple found...predates Stonehenge by 6000 years
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting find in Turkey, with a few photos in the article from the original Smithsonian magazine article. These guys, whoever they were, not only knew how to erect hengestones, but unlike the Stonehenge builders, they knew how to carve them and leave images of their civilization. Wow !...is that 12,000BC then? Even before the last Ice Age? This just gets more and more interesting. Does that make it the most anciant structure in the world? There are underwater remains off the East coast of India believed to be at least 9,000 years old, and maybe even more advanced than this, but this is a phenomenal find. The mond boggles. OffWorld http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/09/worlds-oldest-temple-disc_n_142\ 417.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/09/worlds-oldest-temple-disc_n_14\ 2417.html or http://tinyurl.com/6hthhd http://tinyurl.com/6hthhd It's also fun to realize that these stones have been carbon-dated to show that they were carved 6000 years before Sarah Palin believes the Earth was created.
[FairfieldLife] 'Lennon the Baptist'
Let me speak of two of my Hero's... One is the recent man of the hour, Barack Obama. He seems to have woken every one up, as far as awareness goes. The other died a few years, ago. His name was John Lennon. I feel that John would really appreciate, what just happened. As much so, as Bobby Kennedy, his bother, or Martin Luther King, Jr. He(Lennon), was always a symbol to me, of the sixties; And the power of music, to the extent, that the President, At the time, Mr.Nixon with his comrade, J.Edgar Hoover; Both were plotting to throw Mr.Lennon out of this United States. Strange, huh? Well life is strange, sometimes. R.Gimbel Madison, Wisconsin
[FairfieldLife] Palin in spotlight as Republicans turn on each other
~~The Bumbling Inept Rudderless Republican Clown Show~~ As the implosion of the defeated Republican campaign continued yesterday, the landscape of American conservatism was dotted with signs that these were very strange times indeed. Rush Limbaugh, behemoth of rightwing radio, took to the airwaves to declare war on two enemies: Barack Obama and the Republican party. Bloggers at FreeRepublic.com, an internet hub for conservatives, announced a boycott of Fox News and John McCain's aides fell over one another to leak embarrassing details about the campaign to the press. Liberals, indulging in what the writer Andrew Sullivan termed Palinfreude, were presented with a smorgasbord, ranging from the tale of how McCain's pro-Palin foreign policy adviser had his Blackberry confiscated in the closing days of the race, to how the party had paid for Todd Palin's silk boxer shorts. The fighting consuming the McCain and Palin camps threatened to derail broader efforts to overhaul the Republican party after Tuesday's decisive defeat, for which some insiders blamed Sarah Palin. Veterans of the right gathered in the Shenandoah Valley, Virginia, on Thursday for a summit on the movement's future, but even as they did so, the blame went on. Ladies and gentlemen, it is worse than I thought, Limbaugh told listeners. What the Republican party, led by disgruntled and failed McCain staffers, is trying to do to Sarah Palin, is unconscionable ... There are country-club, blue-blood ... Republicans who want nothing to do with a firebrand conservative can fire up people. He added: We're going to be taking on two things here the next four years: Obama, and our own party establishment. John Fund, a Wall Street Journal columnist, said he had received multiple calls from campaign aides wanting to use me as a conduit for their complaints. [...] McCain's closest aide, Mark Salter, told Politico: Maybe if the media had been fair, we still would have lost. But there were two different standards of scrutiny for us and Obama. Palin offered to help reporters confront their problems. I want to ... help restore some credibility there, she said. [Ha Ha Ha... jrm] ~~ More of the Republican civil war here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/08/sarahpalin-republicans-rushlimbaugh http://tinyurl.com/6f56y2
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: When I read James Dickey's Deliverance and saw the movie, I didn't question that the queer hillbillies deserved to die for sexually assaulting the suburban canoers. In the movie, when it appeared that Jon Voight's character was going to have to take that cracker's dick in his mouth, I was repulsed as much as I could possibly be. I was relieved and triumphant when Burt Reynold's character killed the rapist by firing two arrows into his chest. But now, in my more mellow middle age, I think, What would Jesus do? I believe Jesus would suck the cracker's dick, and spare his life. Although well written as a whole, your last sentence is misguided to say the least. You could be right. Jesus may have opted for the alternative - to take a shotgun blast to the head. Gethsemane notwithstanding, He was a good sport about allowing himself to be sacrificed. I was thinking along this line: Jesus was a Jew and was very well versed of the Torah and its rabbinical laws. As such, it would have been an abomination for him to associate with another man in that fashion. It would have been justifiable for Jesus to kill the sumbitch easily, and I believe he had the power to do so very easily. Now let me get this straight...you are saying that Jesus H. You have been told 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' BUT *I* say unto you... Christ would have succumbed to superstition and gone with rabbinical law. You and I must have read different bios, dude. Are you sure that you are not projecting a bit of your own fundamentalism and superstition and fear of violating law onto someone who was clearly beyond such fears? Jesus' whole *career* was based on rejecting the parts of rabbinical law he didn't agree with, and his whole *message* was about the rejection of violence. I'm sorry, John, but you're coming across as as much of a fundamentalist w.r.t. the Christian Bible as you do w.r.t. the vedic literature you are a slave to. And, you are committing the sin Gordon Charrick spoke of so eloquently: You know that you have created God in your own image when he hates the same people you do. It would be one thing if you just admitted to your own fear and homophobia and stood on that. But to attempt to hide it behind an appeal to scripture (and a total misreading of that scripture to boot) is beyond comprehension. You are so offended by gays that you want to kill them. That's really the bottom line here. And you want to kill them so much that you have come up with an inner justification that tells you that Jesus would have wanted to kill them, too, and not only that, he would have had advanced ways of doing so, sooper-dooper siddhi weapons I would imagine. Would he have caused them to burst into flame? (And would that be considered a 'death threat' under rabbinical law?) Or would he have come up with some other way of displaying how much he and God hates them because they don't obey their holy word in a book they were too lazy to write themselves, and had to have ghost- written for them by humans? Curious minds want to know the methods by which you imagine Jesus killing these horrible gay sinners. Gay-bashers are often found to be latent homosexuals. Seems they try to hide it by overt negative expressions against gays. Fundamentalist repression and guilt seems to nurture this kind of behavior.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Should we bail out the auto companies?
Bhairitu wrote: The whole issue is a cabal. So, you're saying that there is a 'cabal' between Obama, the Dems, and the auto unions. Now there's some change you can believe in. So, the Gov is going to bail out the U.S. auto industry. Obama said he agreed with this - he wants to raise tariffs and support the UAW. If you voted for Obama, then you already voted in favor of this. The questions should be 'when' are we going to bail them out - in the lame duck congress or in the first week of Barack Obama? WASHINGTON Democratic leaders in Congress urged the Bush administration on Saturday to consider using the $700 billion bailout for the financial system to aid distressed American automakers, in a prelude to what may become urgent negotiations over additional economic stimulus measures. Read more: 'Pelosi and Reid Urge Aid for U.S. Automakers' By David M. Herszenhorn New York Times, November 8, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5erpvt
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin in spotlight as Republicans turn on each other
~~The Bumbling Inept Rudderless Republican Clown Show~~ Chances are, this stuff will gain her more sympathy than scorn among her fans in the Republican base, and it may also rally Alaskans, who could be electing a new senator to replace Republican Ted Stevens, who was convicted of corruption too late to remove his name from the Nov. 4 ballot and whose votes are still being counted. Read more: 'Republican bosses to blame for Palin's flop' By Lisa Van Dusen London Free Press, Sunday, 9 November, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5vbw6e
[FairfieldLife] Re: Buddhists with funny hats
On behalf of those of us that still practise the TM program, Curtis, may I apologise for Nabby's very existance. No wonder you quit meditating. Well I can assure you that it wasn't because of Nabby! But thanks for the thought Shemp! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Your post reminds me how utterly foolish any attempt of posting anything about knowledge is on FFL. My respect goes to Bob Brigante who ignores fools like you and year after year posts Knowledge anyway. It also reminds me of Maharishis words Damn democracy. When retards like you, comitted to playing hillbilly-music in bars for others of your white-trash-race, AND have the ability to vote. I say this is scary ! Nabby, You don't understand the terms you are flinging do you? Turq nailed it. You are acting like a name-calling child because I challenged your grandiose claim. On behalf of those of us that still practise the TM program, Curtis, may I apologise for Nabby's very existance. No wonder you quit meditating.
[FairfieldLife] Re: World's oldest temple found...predates Stonehenge by 6000 years
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting find in Turkey, with a few photos in the article from the original Smithsonian magazine article. These guys, whoever they were, not only knew how to erect hengestones, but unlike the Stonehenge builders, they knew how to carve them and leave images of their civilization. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/09/worlds-oldest-temple-disc_n_142417.html or http://tinyurl.com/6hthhd It's also fun to realize that these stones have been carbon-dated to show that they were carved 6000 years before Sarah Palin believes the Earth was created. Another fun thing would be to have John and other the Vedas were first fundamentalists deal with the fact that this temple predates the Vedic era by 7-8000 years.
[FairfieldLife] The Week Americans Reclaimed Their Country
The festive scenes of liberation that Dick Cheney had once imagined for Iraq were finally taking place in cities all over America. It Still Felt Good the Morning After By Frank Rich - New York Times, November 9, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09rich.html?_r=1oref=slogin ON the morning after a black man won the White House, America's tears of catharsis gave way to unadulterated joy. Our nation was still in the same ditch it had been the day before, but the atmosphere was giddy. We felt good not only because we had breached a racial barrier as old as the Republic. Dawn also brought the realization that we were at last emerging from an abusive relationship with our country's 21st-century leaders. The festive scenes of liberation that Dick Cheney had once imagined for Iraq were finally taking place in cities all over America. For eight years, we've been told by those in power that we are small, bigoted and stupid easily divided and easily frightened. This was the toxic catechism of Bush-Rove politics. It was the soiled banner picked up by the sad McCain campaign, and it was often abetted by an amen corner in the dominant news media. We heard this slander of America so often that we all started to believe it, liberals most certainly included. If I had a dollar for every Democrat who told me there was no way that Americans would ever turn against the war in Iraq or definitively reject Bush governance or elect a black man named Barack Hussein Obama president, I could almost start to recoup my 401(k). Few wanted to take yes for an answer. So let's be blunt. Almost every assumption about America that was taken as a given by our political culture on Tuesday morning was proved wrong by Tuesday night. The most conspicuous clichés to fall, of course, were the twin suppositions that a decisive number of white Americans wouldn't vote for a black presidential candidate and that they were lying to pollsters about their rampant racism. But the polls were accurate. There was no Bradley effect. A higher percentage of white men voted for Obama than any Democrat since Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton included. Obama also won all four of those hunting-and-Hillary-loving Rust Belt states that became 2008's obsession among slumming upper-middle-class white journalists: Pennsylvania and Michigan by double digits, as well as Ohio and even Indiana, which has gone Democratic only once (1964) since 1936. The solid Republican South, led by Virginia and North Carolina, started to turn blue as well. While there are still bigots in America, they are in unambiguous retreat. And what about all those terrified Jews who reportedly abandoned their progressive heritage to buy into the smears libeling Obama as an Israel-hating terrorist? Obama drew a larger percentage of Jews nationally (78) than Kerry had (74) and mazel tov, Sarah Silverman! won Florida. Let's defend Hispanic-Americans, too, while we're at it. In one of the more notorious observations of the campaign year, a Clinton pollster, Sergio Bendixen, told The New Yorker in January that the Hispanic voter and I want to say this very carefully has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates. Let us say very carefully that a black presidential candidate won Latinos the fastest-growing demographic in the electorate 67 percent to 31 (up from Kerry's 53-to-44 edge and Gore's 62-to-35). Young voters also triumphed over the condescension of the experts. Are they going to show up? Cokie Roberts of ABC News asked in February. Probably not. They never have before. By the time November comes, they'll be tired. In fact they turned up in larger numbers than in 2004, and their disproportionate Democratic margin made a serious difference, as did their hard work on the ground. They're not the ones who need Geritol. The same commentators who dismissed every conceivable American demographic as racist, lazy or both got Sarah Palin wrong too. When she made her debut in St. Paul, the punditocracy was nearly uniform in declaring her selection a brilliant coup. There hadn't been so much instant over-the-top praise by the press for a cynical political stunt since President Bush landed a jet on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln in that short-lived triumph Mission Accomplished. The rave reviews for Palin were completely disingenuous. Anyone paying attention (with the possible exception of John McCain) could see she was woefully ill-equipped to serve half-a-heartbeat away from the presidency. The conservatives Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy said so on MSNBC when they didn't know their mikes were on. But, hey, she was a dazzling TV presence, the thinking went, so surely doltish Americans would rally around her anyway. She killed! cheered Noonan about the vice-presidential debate, revising her opinion upward and marveling at Palin's gift for talking over the heads of the media straight to the people. Many talking heads thought she tied or beat Joe
Re: [FairfieldLife] P. Hitchens: Obama-mania is a cult like the Moonies and Scientology
This author could have made some good points, but his article is so filled with hate that its just a pseudo-Republican screed. He's ranting to the choir so they can have a delightful political circle-jerk. --- On Sun, 11/9/08, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] P. Hitchens: Obama-mania is a cult like the Moonies and Scientology To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 2:12 AM The night we waved goodbye to America... our last best hope on Earth Last updated at 9:52 PM on 08th November 2008 Add to My Stories Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead. The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something. I really don't see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts. Scroll down for more The night America changed: Barack and Michelle Obama in Chicago It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama's victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books and Obama calendars and if there isn't yet a children's picture version of his story, there soon will be. Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa, are little-read and hard to find. If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular saviour, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn't believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he'd promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over. He needn't worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America's Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton's stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to. Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a `new dawn', and a `timeless creed' (which was `yes, we can'). He proclaimed that `change has come'. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn't know what `enormity' means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don't try this at home). I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff. And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated – but rather hesitant – invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will – `Yes, we can'. They were supposed to thunder `Yes, we can!' back at him, but they just wouldn't join in. No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He'd have been better off bursting into `I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony' which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship. Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidised slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges. They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King – in schools, streets, neighbourhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law. If Mr Obama's election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn't. Mr Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Palin for president
--- On Sun, 11/9/08, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Palin for president To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 12:06 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shemp, you remind me of my mildly psychotic patients. Only the mildly psychotic ones? Gosh, I would have thought that the over-the-bend types would be more to my ilk. Well, Shemp, at least you have one foot in consensual reality, but I'm beginning to have my doubts ;-) I can't take anything you say seriously. How anyone can perceive Palin as presidential material is incomprehensible. This is not just because I tend to vote democratic. There are plenty of capable republican women out there who would make perfectly fine presidents. I might disagree with their politics, but they are not intellectually incurious with a very poor fund of information and verbally challenged. This woman-and not because she is a woman-is an absolute disgrace to the republican party. What the hell was Bill Kristol thinking when he suggested her to McCain? To even remotely believe that somehow she will run for president in 2012 is ridiculous. Why would the RNC support such a political fool? They won't. That's what they said about Reagan. Hell, they were saying that about him when he was governor of California back in the '60s. Even I know that and I grew up in Quebec and heard all about it and heard the snickering and the stereotypes heaped upon him. Palin is a hero to the conservative base. Let's see what the future brings. I'd really be shocked if the conservative base supported her. Shocked and disappointed. What's happening to her now is really awful with the anonymous attacks. I hope she doesn't do a tit-for-tat with Van Sustern on Monday.That would be a bloodbath.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Week Americans Reclaimed Their Country
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The festive scenes of liberation that Dick Cheney had once imagined for Iraq were finally taking place in cities all over America. It Still Felt Good the Morning After By Frank Rich - New York Times, November 9, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09rich.html? _r=1oref=slogin snip The most conspicuous clichés to fall, of course, were the twin suppositions that a decisive number of white Americans wouldn't vote for a black presidential candidate and that they were lying to pollsters about their rampant racism. But the polls were accurate. There was no Bradley effect. A higher percentage of white men voted for Obama than any Democrat since Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton included. Anybody who suggested that Obama couldn't win because he was black, or that those who said he was unelectable were suggesting this--as well as those who are making a huge deal about how America has finally overcome its racism with Obama's election--has conveniently forgotten what happened in 1995, when there was a brief flurry of support for Colin Powell to oppose Bill Clinton in the presidential election. Powell declared his lack of interest in the presidency, immediately squashing that notion. But on election day 1996, exit pollsters asked voters whether they would have voted for Powell if he had run against Clinton. Powell defeated Clinton on this hypothetical question, 50-38. Ironically, Rich wrote in a column in November 1995, shortly after Powell had declined to run: But after a point it didn't matter how General Powell characterized his views, or how reluctant a candidate he seemed, because we were so eager to embrace him as the antidote to all our woes that we stopped listening. Even his own understandable bridling at the ludicrous expectation that he might be an American racial panacea, a 'Great Black Hope,' went unheeded. Far from being gulled by a con man, we conned ourselves. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=9805EFD81439F932A25752C1A963958260 http://tinyurl.com/663mzc How quickly we forget.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin for president
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd really be shocked if the conservative base supported her. Shocked and disappointed. What's happening to her now is really awful with the anonymous attacks. I hope she doesn't do a tit-for-tat with Van Sustern on Monday.That would be a bloodbath. Sarah deserves all she gets. I cannot forgive her remark, made many times, about Obama palling around with terrorists. That was a disgraceful comment and she should be ashamed of it. Not only was it ridiculous and untrue, it was also dangerous and could have incited someone to harm Obama. I read that the number of threats against Obama is huge, and Sarah Palin bears some responsibility. If due to some self-destructive streak in the Republican Party she gets the 2012 nomination, I can confidently predict, right now, the result: Barack 49 states, Sarah 1 (that's assuming she can even hold on to Alaska).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: You need a hominem for an ad hominem
On Nov 9, 2008, at 2:45 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: It is intended to divert the public's attention from the shopping spree. THAT is where the rubber meets the road in terms of Sarah Palin's personal ethics. Between the clothes she bought for herself, the clothes she had low-level staffers buy for her and her family on RNC credit cards, the $1900-per-day makeup artist, and the bills for flying her kids all around the country on private planes, she cost the RNC *far* more than her family makes in a year. And they make on the plus side of $250,000 per year, according to their own tax records. Could they have used some of that money to help GOP candidates who were in trouble, largely because of her? Duh. So what does that TELL us about the mindset of Sarah Palin? Well, it tells us a great deal about what she feels that she deserves. And it tells us a great deal about the lengths she will go to to GET what she thinks she deserves. They need to adore me, to Christian Dior me... Evita This line keeps coming to mind when I think of Sarah, the main difference being, at least Eva Peron was smart. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin for president
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The way to deal with blowhards and people who are so self-unaware that they don't realize what they are saying is to *let them speak*. The same thing that works on Fairfield Life works in politics. When you encounter one of these blowhards, you don't have to expend your energy informing other people what they are. All you have to do is push their buttons and sit back and allow them to do it themselves, in their own words. Unfortunately, that doesn't work so well if at the same time you're urging folks *not to read their posts*. (Speaking of people who are so self-unaware that they don't realize what they're saying.) guffaw
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin for president
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip The way to deal with blowhards and people who are so self-unaware that they don't realize what they are saying is to *let them speak*. The same thing that works on Fairfield Life works in politics. When you encounter one of these blowhards, you don't have to expend your energy informing other people what they are. All you have to do is push their buttons and sit back and allow them to do it themselves, in their own words. Unfortunately, that doesn't work so well if at the same time you're urging folks *not to read their posts*. (Speaking of people who are so self-unaware that they don't realize what they're saying.) guffaw Plus, we know that the cult-addled ex-Pat is always the first one through the door to read those posts himself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin for president
I hope she doesn't do a tit-for-tat with Van Sustern on Monday. Wow, sexist much? I never hear you talking about Obama's rack. Oops, sorry, my inner Beevis and Butthead got the best of me but I'm OK now, Anyho No one loves their Palin hating more than I do. But you know what would shut me up? A round of normal press discussions with her about real issues, topics and concepts, and having her nail it. Not softball fluff pieces from Sean or Gretta, but a little Chris Matthews or George Stephanopoulis, John McLaughlin, O'reilly, add your own names. I don't care about all this nonsense going on with her staffers. There is too much agenda spin. I want to judge her command of issues for myself . So far we have heard two things from her, crappy initial interviews where she was rightfully scared to death,(except for when she talked to Hannity while he rubbed her foot) and her in attack-dog mode going after Obama with what I consider to be cheap-shot politics and fear mongering about his otherness. So how am I to come to come to the conclusion that there is a lot more to her? Right now she has the problem of descending into a soap opera or parody. I think she should kick back, read a few serious books about the international scene, while Todd takes care of the kids, run her state, and come out swinging next year with a round of serious get to know the real me interviews. I don't need anymore talk about Sarah, I need more talk from her. I'll know pretty quickly if my initial impression was right. I'll give you an example, Obama. I was pretty resistant to Obama mania and had heard too much ABOUT him. It wasn't until I took to the time to go back and listen to his speeches and hear him interviewed that I gained a respect for his thinking process. That is really what matters to me. I know all politicians fling plenty of BS to get elected, even some stuff they believe until their feet hit the ground. I honestly believe that Bush hoped he could bring a bi-partisan spirit to Washington, and was genuinely surprised when he hit the Washington grinder. The same thing will happen to Obama. But my optimism about him is that I think he has the (as Bill Clinton put it) intellectual curiosity to find his way. I am not putting trust in his current positions on anything, they may get reversed. As Lincoln said when challenged on his reversal on the issue of slavery, I don't respect a man who doesn't know more today than he did yesterday. So my impression of him is from listen TO him, not the political spin masters. So it is pretty simple for Palin. Let us get to know you, if your handlers kept you from the press as you claim, get out and do some substantial interviews, and we can decide for ourselves exactly what you have under the hood. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Sun, 11/9/08, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Palin for president To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 12:06 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Shemp, you remind me of my mildly psychotic patients. Only the mildly psychotic ones? Gosh, I would have thought that the over-the-bend types would be more to my ilk. Well, Shemp, at least you have one foot in consensual reality, but I'm beginning to have my doubts ;-) I can't take anything you say seriously. How anyone can perceive Palin as presidential material is incomprehensible. This is not just because I tend to vote democratic. There are plenty of capable republican women out there who would make perfectly fine presidents. I might disagree with their politics, but they are not intellectually incurious with a very poor fund of information and verbally challenged. This woman-and not because she is a woman-is an absolute disgrace to the republican party. What the hell was Bill Kristol thinking when he suggested her to McCain? To even remotely believe that somehow she will run for president in 2012 is ridiculous. Why would the RNC support such a political fool? They won't. That's what they said about Reagan. Hell, they were saying that about him when he was governor of California back in the '60s. Even I know that and I grew up in Quebec and heard all about it and heard the snickering and the stereotypes heaped upon him. Palin is a hero to the conservative base. Let's see what the future brings. I'd really be shocked if the conservative base supported her. Shocked and disappointed. What's happening to her now is really awful with the anonymous attacks. I hope she doesn't do a tit-for-tat with Van Sustern on Monday.That would be a bloodbath.
[FairfieldLife] Re: You need a hominem for an ad hominem
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip [I wrote (funny how Barry deleted the attribution line, innit?):] Think if she had reeled off a list of African countries at her press conference, her critics would have realized how wrong they were and apologized? Or would they have suggested that there was plenty of time between when she first heard the charge and her press conference to have a quick look in an atlas, or just ask one of her aides? Your solution is a crock, Curtis. There's nothing she can do to refute the charge, because it's about what was purportedly the case *at the time*. You may be right. I was just going on the pattern we have seen from her already, to make personal attacks on Obama using innuendo and carfully crafted language which is hard to refute directly. So my solution may not work, but it was Palin who said she can't refute the charges without knowing who said it. How exactly would that help outside of personal attacks? I think we all know (Translation: This is what Barry wants us all to believe.) why she wants to know who said it. Her history of using public office to wreak very personal revenge is well established in Alaska. She did it in Wasilla, she did it as Governor, and she wants to do it now. She wants someone to name names so that she can put them on her little list and deal with them later, when she has the power to do so. Maybe she'll do that later, maybe not. Maybe they'll even *deserve* whatever punishment she'll be able to mete out. But at the moment, what she wants to do is to refute what they've been saying about her, which she can't do unless she knows who they are. Or perhaps she has other witnesses to the falseness of the statement, perhaps she could say: ask so and so, he was there too. Which is meaningless nitpicking, Hardly. The stories are all over the media, and she's being excoriated on the basis of those stories by both Republicans and Democrats. the same thing we see here on FFL when people get into defending themselves. Reputation is crucial in politics. Lies that become common wisdom because they haven't been refuted can kill a person's political future. We learned that lesson all too well with the Kerry campaign's failure to quickly knock down the lies of the Swift Boat Vets. (And in that case, the vets were lying on the record, quite unlike the whispering campaign that's happening against Palin now.) The clear alternative to this compulsive protect the self, or the projected image of self that I am so attached to, is to take oneself out of the reactive equation, as Obama did so often. And as Bill Ayers did. He's only now speaking up with his side of things. But Ayers is speaking up, just as Palin is. And Obama, of course, put together his Fight the Smears Web site months ago to directly address the lies being told about him, so of course he can't be said to have taken himself out of the reaction equation. (Those lies, BTW, were of the kind that *could* be refuted without having to know who was telling them. If what the anonymous folks are saying about Palin are lies, she *can't* refute them unless she knows who they are.) I am all for having the person accusing step forward. I'm just saying Palin's excuse that she has to know the person to counter the attack doesn't work for me. Plus, the whole She didn't know Africa was a continent thing is a DIVERSION. It is intended to divert the public's attention from the shopping spree. THAT is where the rubber meets the road in terms of Sarah Palin's personal ethics. Between the clothes she bought for herself, the clothes she had low-level staffers buy for her and her family on RNC credit cards, the $1900-per-day makeup artist, and the bills for flying her kids all around the country on private planes, she cost the RNC *far* more than her family makes in a year. And they make on the plus side of $250,000 per year, according to their own tax records. Could they have used some of that money to help GOP candidates who were in trouble, largely because of her? Duh. A lot of the stuff about the clothing is still not confirmed, including whether it was her idea to purchase it. She's spoken quite a bit about that, so it's not as if she's trying to keep it quiet, contrary to Barry's suggestion. As far as the bits about Africa and NAFTA are concerned, they've been denied, on the record, by one of the people who briefed her on foreign policy. See post #197329. So what does that TELL us about the mindset of Sarah Palin? Well, it tells us a great deal about what she feels that she deserves. And it tells us a great deal about the lengths she will go to to GET what she thinks she deserves. The RNC had to send a *lawyer* from L.A. to retrieve
[FairfieldLife] Jesus memes (was Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk wrote: I was able to procure a digital copy for your consideration: [[Jesus+Hard.jpg]] I was unable to view this ^ image on the web interface of Yahoo! Groups, so I googled it and found a trove of Jesus imagery. With apologies to John and the rest of the disciples, I offer this link to all who believe Jesus can take a joke: http://tinyurl.com/5944dx
[FairfieldLife] Is Ahmadinejad's wife hotter than Palin?
Enough with all this nitpicky stuff about how much clothing she stole from the DNC and whether she knew Africa was a continent. Let's stick to an area of her personal exper- tise (or at least the way some people think), hotness. On the stage of world leaders, how would Sarah Palin...uh...stack up, hotness-wise against, say the first lady of France? http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/1014_553626655_carla_bruni_6_h200552_l.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/5am6ea Or against the queen of Belgium? http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/inner/387/PaolaLiege.jpg One thing's for certain...she's got the benefit of a doubt when it comes to Ahmadinejad's wife: http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d57/b_gardenia/iran/Ahmadinejad_Wife.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/58e9o7
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Week Americans Reclaimed Their Country
On Nov 9, 2008, at 8:14 AM, do.rflex wrote: So even as we celebrated our first black president, we looked around and rediscovered the nation that had elected him. We are the ones we've been waiting for, Obama said in February, and indeed millions of such Americans were here all along, waiting for a leader. This was the week that they reclaimed their country. America is beautiful But she has an ugly side We're lookin' for a leader In this country far and wide We're lookin' for a leader With the Great Spirit on his side Someone walks among us And I hope he hears the call And maybe it's a woman Or a black man after all Neil Young
[FairfieldLife] Re: You need a hominem for an ad hominem
But at the moment, what she wants to do is to refute what they've been saying about her, which she can't do unless she knows who they are. I don' think this is true Judy. A Fox news guy (forgot his name) is offered explanations about the context of the questions on Inside Washington this morning. He is doing what I think she should have done the first day, tell us what happened that might make people report it that way. For example he said after a long day of discussing the issues in Africa, she misspoke and referred to it as the country of Africa in a question. Fair enough, sound reasonable, might even be true. But instead of that we have gotten her calling the people doing this jerks. How very Palin. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip [I wrote (funny how Barry deleted the attribution line, innit?):] Think if she had reeled off a list of African countries at her press conference, her critics would have realized how wrong they were and apologized? Or would they have suggested that there was plenty of time between when she first heard the charge and her press conference to have a quick look in an atlas, or just ask one of her aides? Your solution is a crock, Curtis. There's nothing she can do to refute the charge, because it's about what was purportedly the case *at the time*. You may be right. I was just going on the pattern we have seen from her already, to make personal attacks on Obama using innuendo and carfully crafted language which is hard to refute directly. So my solution may not work, but it was Palin who said she can't refute the charges without knowing who said it. How exactly would that help outside of personal attacks? I think we all know (Translation: This is what Barry wants us all to believe.) why she wants to know who said it. Her history of using public office to wreak very personal revenge is well established in Alaska. She did it in Wasilla, she did it as Governor, and she wants to do it now. She wants someone to name names so that she can put them on her little list and deal with them later, when she has the power to do so. Maybe she'll do that later, maybe not. Maybe they'll even *deserve* whatever punishment she'll be able to mete out. But at the moment, what she wants to do is to refute what they've been saying about her, which she can't do unless she knows who they are. Or perhaps she has other witnesses to the falseness of the statement, perhaps she could say: ask so and so, he was there too. Which is meaningless nitpicking, Hardly. The stories are all over the media, and she's being excoriated on the basis of those stories by both Republicans and Democrats. the same thing we see here on FFL when people get into defending themselves. Reputation is crucial in politics. Lies that become common wisdom because they haven't been refuted can kill a person's political future. We learned that lesson all too well with the Kerry campaign's failure to quickly knock down the lies of the Swift Boat Vets. (And in that case, the vets were lying on the record, quite unlike the whispering campaign that's happening against Palin now.) The clear alternative to this compulsive protect the self, or the projected image of self that I am so attached to, is to take oneself out of the reactive equation, as Obama did so often. And as Bill Ayers did. He's only now speaking up with his side of things. But Ayers is speaking up, just as Palin is. And Obama, of course, put together his Fight the Smears Web site months ago to directly address the lies being told about him, so of course he can't be said to have taken himself out of the reaction equation. (Those lies, BTW, were of the kind that *could* be refuted without having to know who was telling them. If what the anonymous folks are saying about Palin are lies, she *can't* refute them unless she knows who they are.) I am all for having the person accusing step forward. I'm just saying Palin's excuse that she has to know the person to counter the attack doesn't work for me. Plus, the whole She didn't know Africa was a continent thing is a DIVERSION. It is intended to divert the public's attention from the shopping spree. THAT is where the rubber meets the road in terms of Sarah Palin's personal ethics. Between the clothes she bought for herself, the clothes she had low-level staffers buy for her and her family on RNC credit cards, the $1900-per-day makeup artist, and the bills for flying her kids all around the country on private planes, she cost the RNC *far* more than her family makes in
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin for president
Feste, it sounds like you are going through serious post election withdrawal. Already looking ahead to 2012, and pontificating. Playing up this palling around with terroists as though it's beyond the pale of typical campagin rhetoric. Believe me, if not this quote, you'd find another to create good 'ol righteous indignation Try walking around your living room and work off some of this monologuing. Oh, and maybe focus on the present, and see how Obama handles the current challenges. You have placed him on such a pedestal. Tell me how he is not going to disappoint numerous supporters. Sounds like Sarah Palin is going to play the role for you that the Clintons have played for Rush Limbaugh. Whatever Barack does, you'll be complaining about Palin. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: I'd really be shocked if the conservative base supported her. Shocked and disappointed. What's happening to her now is really awful with the anonymous attacks. I hope she doesn't do a tit-for-tat with Van Sustern on Monday.That would be a bloodbath. Sarah deserves all she gets. I cannot forgive her remark, made many times, about Obama palling around with terrorists. That was a disgraceful comment and she should be ashamed of it. Not only was it ridiculous and untrue, it was also dangerous and could have incited someone to harm Obama. I read that the number of threats against Obama is huge, and Sarah Palin bears some responsibility. If due to some self-destructive streak in the Republican Party she gets the 2012 nomination, I can confidently predict, right now, the result: Barack 49 states, Sarah 1 (that's assuming she can even hold on to Alaska).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Week Americans Reclaimed Their Country
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 9, 2008, at 8:14 AM, do.rflex wrote: So even as we celebrated our first black president, we looked around and rediscovered the nation that had elected him. We are the ones we've been waiting for, Obama said in February, and indeed millions of such Americans were here all along, waiting for a leader. This was the week that they reclaimed their country. America is beautiful But she has an ugly side We're lookin' for a leader In this country far and wide We're lookin' for a leader With the Great Spirit on his side Someone walks among us And I hope he hears the call And maybe it's a woman Or a black man after all Neil Young Beautiful... and Real!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin for president
Lurk, I think you're right . . . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Feste, it sounds like you are going through serious post election withdrawal. Already looking ahead to 2012, and pontificating. Playing up this palling around with terroists as though it's beyond the pale of typical campagin rhetoric. Believe me, if not this quote, you'd find another to create good 'ol righteous indignation Try walking around your living room and work off some of this monologuing. Oh, and maybe focus on the present, and see how Obama handles the current challenges. You have placed him on such a pedestal. Tell me how he is not going to disappoint numerous supporters. Sounds like Sarah Palin is going to play the role for you that the Clintons have played for Rush Limbaugh. Whatever Barack does, you'll be complaining about Palin. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: I'd really be shocked if the conservative base supported her. Shocked and disappointed. What's happening to her now is really awful with the anonymous attacks. I hope she doesn't do a tit-for-tat with Van Sustern on Monday.That would be a bloodbath. Sarah deserves all she gets. I cannot forgive her remark, made many times, about Obama palling around with terrorists. That was a disgraceful comment and she should be ashamed of it. Not only was it ridiculous and untrue, it was also dangerous and could have incited someone to harm Obama. I read that the number of threats against Obama is huge, and Sarah Palin bears some responsibility. If due to some self-destructive streak in the Republican Party she gets the 2012 nomination, I can confidently predict, right now, the result: Barack 49 states, Sarah 1 (that's assuming she can even hold on to Alaska).
[FairfieldLife] Re: World's oldest temple found...predates Stonehenge by 6000 years
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Interesting find in Turkey, with a few photos in the article from the original Smithsonian magazine article. These guys, whoever they were, not only knew how to erect hengestones, but unlike the Stonehenge builders, they knew how to carve them and leave images of their civilization. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/09/worlds-oldest-temple-disc_n_142\ 417.html or http://tinyurl.com/6hthhd It's also fun to realize that these stones have been carbon-dated to show that they were carved 6000 years before Sarah Palin believes the Earth was created. Another fun thing would be to have John and other the Vedas were first fundamentalists deal with the fact that this temple predates the Vedic era by 7-8000 years. The Ved is not an era. Anyway, the Vedas are ONLY ever said to be the oldest most extensive records. You cannot separate the words oldest and most extensive. It is neither the oldest recorded information, nor the most extensive (modern science is bigger if you are counting books filled with information), but it is the 'oldest most extensive body, it is both old (like some other traditions) and it is also very extensive -- and the 2 together is what makes it interesting historically. And that is all anyone in the movement ever said. No one said it was older than 30,000 year old carvings of fat mother goddesses. However, if I said to you that 'truth' started only 5,000 years ago, you would think I was nuts. Veda means 'truth' or 'true knowledge' and it can be modified, when proven wrong, or something else better is proven better. For example, Maharishi added the study of meditation through scientific testing to the Vedic tradition, and this addition alone is one of the greatest innovations in history. Let me ask you this, if a shaman in a tribe 20,000 years ago sat down and taught the tribe to sit quietly, an incant a sound effortlessly, and they start to transcend and experience a profound unbounded powerful field of silence within, which they feel is transforms their physiology on the spot, and they all are healthier as a result, is that not the same? That IS Vedic And that is the only point Maharishi ever made. It is natural knowledge. As science progresses you will find more and more discoveries and medical advice in line with ancient Vedic teachings. It is natural. It is Natural Law, which just means the innate structure of existence. OffWorld .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Buddhists with funny hats
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On behalf of those of us that still practise the TM program, Curtis, may I apologise for Nabby's very existance. No wonder you quit meditating. Well I can assure you that it wasn't because of Nabby! But thanks for the thought Shemp! Of course it wasn't because of Nablusoss. Hillbillies have more important priorities than worrying about politics, sharing and justice for all; and we all know well what those priorities are. To give them the right to vote is ridicelous ! Damn Democracy !
[FairfieldLife] Re: My definition of being Pro-American
shempmcgurk wrote: And I care not a whittle how many jobs are lost or how negatively my decision may hurt the economy because the $25,000 from my purchase is going into Japanese pockets instead of American pockets. Being pro-American is driving a GMC made in Texas. I wouldn't be caught dead driving a Toyota 'Tundra', even if it was made in San Antonio, Texas. The GMC is one of the best-selling vehicle in the history of auto manufacture. The Silverado pickup is the 2nd largest volume vehicle in the United States. I don't need no little sign pasted to the back of my car that says 'Carrola' or 'Yaris' - I mean WTF is that? A 'Yaris'? Is that a Muslim name like 'Yentl'? Barak Obama fully supports the UAW and so does Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It's time for real Americans to step up to the plate and pay their fair share of taxes so we can spread the wealth around to other Americans. That's what being pro-American is. Being pro-American is being anti-NAFTA. Stop the outsourcing and sending American jobs to Asia! Buy more American made products. That's the Obama way and that's the American way. Being pro-American is buying a new GMC truck, built in America by Americans. The new Silverado earned the North American Truck of the Year award for 2007 and was Motor Trend magazine's Truck of the Year for 2007. Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_Sierra
[FairfieldLife] Re: You need a hominem for an ad hominem
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But at the moment, what she wants to do is to refute what they've been saying about her, which she can't do unless she knows who they are. I don' think this is true Judy. A Fox news guy (forgot his name) is offered explanations about the context of the questions on Inside Washington this morning. He is doing what I think she should have done the first day, tell us what happened that might make people report it that way. For example he said after a long day of discussing the issues in Africa, she misspoke and referred to it as the country of Africa in a question. Fair enough, sound reasonable, might even be true. I'm not sure this refutes what I suggested. Other bits and pieces are beginning to come out, including what I posted from the guy who was briefing her on foreign policy. Where did the Fox News reporter get his information? Was he present, or did somebody fill him in on what had happened? Anonymously, or on the record? The point being that Palin went through a whole bunch of briefings in a short time, listening to lots of different people, asking them lots of different questions. She can't be expected--especially given the stress she was under--to recall all the conversations verbatim to be able to correct what's being said. She was being flooded with information and trying to stuff it all into her memory. If she knows who said what, she may at least be able to narrow things down, or as you suggested, find someone else who was there who recalls exactly what she said that she feels is being distorted. It's really very unlikely that she'd be able to remember the words she used in response to what without at least some clues as to who she was talking to when. The others coming out now who were present at one or the other of these conversations and are able to reconstruct what went on are doing so *after* her press conference at which she complained about the anonymity of the rumors. Maybe enough of them will show up that she won't need to know the sources. But when she did the press conference, those defenders hadn't yet made an appearance. But instead of that we have gotten her calling the people doing this jerks. How very Palin. That's really just unfair, Curtis, for the reasons I outlined. All she really *could* do at that point is say what she thought of the folks who were doing this to her. And if they're doing what she says they're doing, she's right, they are jerks (as are the media folks who are repeating what they've said as if it were gospel while carefully preserving their anonymity for the sake of a scoop). However much she may be to blame for letting herself in for this in the first place, she's in an impossible position now, and it looks like some people are trying to take advantage of it and cover their asses by tearing her down. That we think she said ugly things about Obama shouldn't stop us from objecting to other people saying ugly things about her. At least her smears of Obama were on the record, whereas those who are smearing her are too cowardly to identify themselves.
[FairfieldLife] Whales boast the brain cells that 'make us human'
Whales boast the brain cells that 'make us human' Whales may share our kind of intelligence, researchers say after discovering brain cells previously found only in humans and other primates. They were touted as the brain cells that set humans and the other great apes apart from all other mammals. Now it has been discovered that some whales also have spindle neurons specialised brain cells that are involved in processing emotions and helping us interact socially. Spindle cells, named after their long, spindle-shaped bodies, are the cells that are credited with allowing us to feel love and to suffer emotionally. Their discovery in whales will stimulate debate both on the level of whale intelligence and on the ethics of hunting them. The cells occur in parts of the human brain that are thought to be responsible for our social organisation, empathy, speech, intuition about the feelings of others, and rapid gut reactions (see The cell that makes us human). Anthropomorphic angle Now it turns out that these spindle cells also exist in the same brain areas in humpback whales, fin whales, killer whales and sperm whales. What is more, whales appear to have had these cells for at least twice as long as humans, and early estimates suggest they could have three times as many spindle cells as us, even accounting for the fact that whale brains are larger than ours. It's absolutely clear to me that these are extremely intelligent animals, says Patrick Hof of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, and co-discoverer of the whale spindle cells with Estel van der Gucht of the New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology, both in the US. We must be careful about anthropomorphic interpretation of intelligence in whales, says Hof. But their potential for high-level brain function, clearly demonstrated already at the behavioural level, is confirmed by the existence of neuronal types once thought unique to humans and our closest relatives. They communicate through huge song repertoires, recognise their own songs and make up new ones. They also form coalitions to plan hunting strategies, teach these to younger individuals, and have evolved social networks similar to those of apes and humans, Hof says. Express trains As with humans, the spindle cells were found in whales in the anterior cingulate cortex and frontoinsular cortex two brain regions vital for visceral reactions. Such reactions require fast but emotionally-sensitive judgments, such as deciding whether another animal is suffering pain, and the general feel of whether an experience is pleasant or unpleasant. In addition, unlike in humans, the researchers also found spindle cells in the frontopolar cortex at the back of the brain, and they were sparsely dispersed elsewhere. Hof says he does not yet know the significance of spindles found in areas other than those that contain the cells in humans and great apes. Exactly how spindle cells function in whales is still under investigation, but Hof believes the long, high-speed connections may fast-track information to and from other parts of the cortex. The velocity of the signal is faster, and they miss out junctions on the way, says Hof. They are like the `express trains' of the nervous system that bypass unnecessary connections, enabling us to instantly process and act on emotional cues during complex social interactions. Hof and van der Gucht suggest that whales probably evolved the spindle cells completely independently of humans and apes a process called convergent evolution. Moreover, they probably evolved them as long as 30 million years ago, twice as long ago as humans and apes. Spindle cells are most likely to emerge in unusually large brains which need extra circuitry to handle increasingly complex social interactions, Hof says. Cognitive parallels The discovery of spindle neurons in cetaceans is a stunning example of neuro-anatomical convergence between cetaceans and primates, says Lori Marino of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, US. The common ancestor of cetaceans and primates lived over 95 million years ago, and such a highly specific morphological similarity as the finding of spindle cells is clearly due to evolutionary convergence, not shared ancestry, she says. This is consistent with a growing body of evidence for parallels between cetaceans and primates in cognitive abilities, behaviour and social ecology. However, many highly intelligent but smaller cetaceans examined by Hof and van der Gucht did not have the spindle cells. The explanation could be that these smaller cetaceans, including bottlenose dolphins, evolved different but equally complex alternatives to the spindle cells. In this respect, it will be interesting to discover what mental capacities might distinguish humpback whales from dolphins, says Keith Kendrick of the Babraham Institute in Cambridge, UK. ~~New Scientist:
[FairfieldLife] The iconography on the 12,000 year old temple
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multimedia/photos/?c=yarticleID=30706129\ page=1 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multimedia/photos/?c=yarticleID=30706129\ page=1 The iconography on the 12,000 year old temple that Turq. posted is very interesting. I haven't read all the details, but perhaps these carvings were added much later. They are strangely advanced, slightly reminiscent of Egyptian heiroglyphs, but more organic like a medieval style. Perhaps this was an ancient temple, but used later, and adorned more extensively by some esoteric group such as the gnostics or some related group and the carvings were much later (technically speaking , with the highly developed trading routes - The Old Silk Road, this site is not that far from the Semitic regions where the gnostics operated. Which incidentally is not that far from Persia, which recent discoveries now show that the Indus Valley Civilization extended to - ie. Baghdad.) It is also interesting that this region at the time was sub-tropical, but the animals are those of a more temperate region OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] The PUMA Election
Members of PUMA, their party in a bunch and not knowing who to obsess about next, decided to sponsor a contest to see whether to throw their entire resources behind Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin in the 2012 election. The competition was to to be a swim off, from Santa Monica to Catalina Island, doing only the breaststroke. After approximately 14 hours, Hillary Clinton staggered up on shore and was declared the fastest breaststroker. Nearly 4 hours after that, Sarah Palin finally came ashore and promptly collapsed in front of the worried onlookers. When the reporters asked why it took her so long to complete the race, she replied I don't want to sound like I'm a sore loser But I think Hillary was using her arms.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Ahmadinejad's wife hotter than Palin?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Enough with all this nitpicky stuff about how much clothing she stole from the DNC and whether she knew Africa was a continent. Let's stick to an area of her personal exper- tise (or at least the way some people think), hotness. On the stage of world leaders, how would Sarah Palin...uh...stack up, hotness-wise against, say the first lady of France? Yawn. We may still be in the colonies, Barry, and unsophisticated like you. But everybody Stateside knows who Carli Bruni is, as she's on every other magazine cover. And, yes, she's being touted as the new Jackie. But even Bruni doesn't hold a candle to the King of Jordan's Palestinian wife, Queen Rania:
Re: [FairfieldLife] Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:37 PM, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wowlooks like nuclear is here to stay! What good luck for Obama. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos Timeframe is 2013-2023. After Obama.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The iconography on the 12,000 year old temple
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multimedia/photos/? c=yarticleID=30706129\ page=1 The iconography on the 12,000 year old temple that Turq. posted is very interesting. I haven't read all the details, but perhaps these carvings were added much later. FWIW, I've been reading about this temple for awhile, and I haven't seen anybody, including the guy who's leading the excavation, suggest that the carvings were added later. Everything I've read assumes the carvings were contemporaneous with the construction of the temple. For instance, from Archeology magazine: Excavations have revealed that Göbekli Tepe was constructed in two stages. The oldest structures belong to what archaeologists call the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period, which ended around 9000 B.C. Strangely enough, the later remains, which date to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period, or about 8000 B.C., are less elaborate. The earliest levels contain most of the T-shaped pillars and animal sculptures. http://www.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/turkey.html They are strangely advanced, slightly reminiscent of Egyptian heiroglyphs, but more organic like a medieval style. Exactly right, well described. If they do date that far back, they're absolutely astonishing.
[FairfieldLife] Who gets my money next?
GM bonds are yielding 40% in the bond market. That's a good investment if Obama can get the money from Congress - call it 'hedging' your bets'. The auto industry is the backbone of American manufacturing and a critical part of our attempt to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. - Barak Obama Read more: 'Who Shall They Give my Money to Next!' Posted by Matt Welch Reason Hit Run, November 7, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/69el7a
[FairfieldLife] Pulling a NAFTA?
If Europe finally likes us again as liberals are so happy to point out, it sure seems strange to leave a major European country (and one that suffered first under the Nazi's then under the Soviets in recent history) twisting in the wind. A troubling start to say the least. Read more: 'Obama Makes First Foreign Policy Error' Sunday, November 09, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/63xaxg
[FairfieldLife] Dr. Pearson Publishes The Complete Book of Yogic Flying
From: M.U.M. Development Office Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 11:11 AM Subject: Dr. Pearson Publishes The Complete Book of Yogic Flying NOVEMBER 8, 2008 University Website The Complete Book of Yogic Flying. Craig Pearson, Ph.D., Executive Vice-President of Maharishi University of Management. Yogic Flyer in Japan. Yogic Flyer in the Golden Dome. Dr. Pearson Publishes The Complete Book of Yogic Flying The Complete Book of Yogic Flying, the much-anticipated book by University Executive Vice-President Craig Pearson, is now available. A 684-page, full-color hardcover volume with hundreds of photographs, the book presents a full picture of Maharishi's technologies of consciousness, the Transcendental Meditation(R) and TM-Sidhi(R) programs, including Yogic Flying(R). The book describes in detail how these techniques create greater integration in brain functioning and benefit all areas of life. Each page is graphically engaging, and the book is full of quotations by Maharishi, experiences of people who practice Yogic Flying, and hundreds of striking pictures of people up in the air, Dr. Pearson said. The book presents the inside stories and scientific research on the great Yogic Flying assemblies over the years — Maharishi's World Peace Project, the Taste of Utopia Assembly, the International Peace Project in Israel, the National Demonstration Project in Washington, D.C., and many more around the world — and how they helped end the Cold War, create coherence all over the globe, and bring the world to the threshold of peace. Maharishi launched his World Peace Project in 1978, at a time when wars raged in many areas — Central America, Southern Africa, the Middle East and Iran, and Southeast Asia — and tension was rising between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. More than 1,400 young men were flown into different countries in these trouble spots. They didn't meet with political or military leaders, the chapter on this project recounts. They spoke with almost no one. They simply checked into hotels and, twice each day, practiced Yogic Flying. Almost overnight, the negativity and violence in these most troubled areas of the world were calmed and an ancient technology for creating and maintaining peace received dramatic confirmation and scientific verification. The book also has chapters explaining consciousness and the unified field, the physics of flying, the Maharishi Effect, higher states of consciousness, the discovery of Veda and Vedic Literature in human physiology, and more. Writing this book took my appreciation for Maharishi and his technologies for enlightenment and invincibility to an even higher level, Dr. Pearson says. And it renewed my appreciation for the extraordinary people who have been carrying out Maharishi's plans all these years and have helped transform our world. All profits from The Complete Book of Yogic Flying go to support peace-creating groups of Yogic Flying Vedic Pandits. To unsubscribe, click here Development Office, Maharishi University of Management, Fairfield, IA 52557 641-472-1180 (R)Transcendental Meditation, TM-Sidhi, Yogic Flying, and Maharishi University of Management are registered or common law trademarks licensed to Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation and used under sublicense or with permission. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Should we bail out the auto companies?
John wrote: There's a NUMMI plant in Fremont, CA which is run by a Japanese manufacturer. From what I've heard, the plant is turning out good cars with American workers. From what I can recall, the plant is not unionized. And so often that I've driven by it's been vacant. I think there is some manufacturing going on there now. I believe Toyota built it. Also the unions could take over the factories. If the economy gets really bad which I think it will, that may happen. It has happened in Argentina and is now happening in China! In China the owners are running away from their factories. I think the auto workers could probably come up with a better run company and build cars worth buying. Any business needs wise managers. I'm not sure if union officials are educated or have the expertise to manage a manufacturing plant. Good managers have to be well educated and excellent leaders. Those the workers hire. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: World's oldest temple found...predates Stonehenge by 6000 years
TurquoiseB wrote: It's also fun to realize that these stones have been carbon-dated to show that they were carved 6000 years before Sarah Palin believes the Earth was created. Probably the 'Garden of Eden' Sarah Palin believes in, mentioned in the Bible. LOL! Read more: 'The Cygnus Mystery' Unlocking the Ancient Secret of Life's Origins in the Cosmos by Andrew Collins Watkins, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/55e32m
Re: [FairfieldLife] Confusing suutra-words: abhyaasa, part 1
On Nov 8, 2008, at 3:40 AM, cardemaister wrote:
The verbal root of the noun 'abhyaasa' is 'as'.
Not the verb 'as' which means 'to be' (asmi, asi, asti),
though, but that which means 'to throw'. Prefixed with
the preposition 'abhi', it (the verb) means for instance 'to
practise, repeat':
as, asyati2 ({asati}), pp. {asta} (q.v.) throw, cast, shoot at [[,]]
(loc., dat., or gen.), with (instr.). --{apa} throw away, lay down,
doff, leave, give up. ***{abhi} (also {asati, -te}) throw, hurl; throw
one's self upon, take to, practise, study, read; repeat, double,
reduplicate (g.).***
But what abhyaasa means in the YS IS practice: the endeavor (or
yatna) to make the mind stable, i.e. stilling the mind.
[FairfieldLife] Ooops! Obama -- like Palin -- doesn't know the constitution
Sarah Palin was raked over the coals for allegedly not knowing the constitution (e.g., her remarks about not knowing what the VP does) But how much worse is it when a self-described constitutional attorney doesn't know the constitution? Can you imagine how the Left would have taken Palin apart had she said the following: From: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/barack_obama_legal_scholar.html During a fundraiser in Denver, Barack Obama was asked what he hoped to accomplish in his first hundred days in office. His response: I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution, said Obama One should not have to remind the former President of the Harvard Law review that a President of the United States cannot overturn a law. Only the Supreme Court can overturn a law; Congress can change laws. A President -- even one consumed by his own grandiosity -- cannot overturn a law. That is Constitutional Law 101.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Buddhists with funny hats
Of course it wasn't because of Nablusoss. Hillbillies have more important priorities than worrying about politics, sharing and justice for all; and we all know well what those priorities are. To give them the right to vote is ridicelous ! Damn Democracy ! Just what do you imagine the word Hillbilly means Nabby? Do you understand that it refers to a specific group of people whose educational and economic backgrounds couldn't be more different from my own? You seem to have a cartoonish conception of American culture. As far as your opinion that some groups of people shouldn't be allowed to vote: we've sacrificed a lot of lives to preserve that freedom. I am happy that your anti-democracy position is completely against the global trend. Obama himself comes from a group of Americans who were denied this right for way too long in our history due to the kind of prejudice and marginalization of certain groups that you express. Using a phrase like sharing and justice for all as a disparaging comment reveals not only a profound ignorance of important human values, but a lack of understanding of the struggles in human history. If I were to sum up your latest posts I could do it in two words: ignorance and hate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: You need a hominem for an ad hominem
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I wrote:] If she knows who said what, she may at least be able to narrow things down, or as you suggested, find someone else who was there who recalls exactly what she said that she feels is being distorted. I don't know how many people were involved in her Afrian prep work, for all we know it was one person and she knows who it is who is saying this. I'll bet she has a good idea. It may all come out in time. I've referred you a couple of times now to my post quoting the guy who briefed her on foreign policy. Read it, then get back to me, OK? It's #197329.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 3:45 PM, bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Plus I question whether the U.S. is going to allow construction here because the material, although they are pretty much unenrichable, can still be used for dirty bombs. Bob, get with the program. These had been introduced to us on FFL as a windfall for Obama. We have voted for Heaven on Earth. Money for nuthin and your chicks/kicks for free. Relax, man, our work is done. Dirty bomb? No man shall be born who will rise up against Thee. Get it?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY says-Damn Democracy.
On Nov 9, 2008, at 6:23 PM, sparaig wrote: Does the term unsustainable growth mean anything to you? The TMO got too big, too fast. That is obvious to me and others like McWilliams. That you don't see it suggests that you just want to play finger-pointing games because things didn't turn out the way you thought they should. Does the term megalomaniacal mean anything to you? Whatever.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 3:45 PM, bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Plus I question whether the U.S. is going to allow construction here because the material, although they are pretty much unenrichable, can still be used for dirty bombs. Bob, get with the program. These had been introduced to us on FFL as a windfall for Obama. We have voted for Heaven on Earth. Money for nuthin and your chicks/kicks for free. Relax, man, our work is done. Dirty bomb? No man shall be born who will rise up against Thee. Get it? *** Well, whether Obama could/would sign off on these mini nuke plants, I'm guessing most of the countries that could build these devices won't -- maybe Russia, whose economy has tanked even more than the rest.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusing suutra-words: abhyaasa, part 3
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 9, 2008, at 2:51 AM, cardemaister wrote: Since one might say, that MMY was an extension of SBS in time, and thus a foremost representative of the Holy Tradition of Vedic Masters, He might be that in your imagination and that of others, but in fact he was nothing of the sort. It was actually he who added the HH (His Holiness) to his own name. Besides, as has been pointed out to you many times, TM is a tantric practice. we might use Alistair Shearer's translation here. (Höh?!) We don't have it in English, but on the basis of a Finnish TM-teacher's, Mr. Heikki Uusitupa's Finnish translation in Suomen TM-lehti: http://tinyurl.com/5f5qks Shearer translates 'abhyaasa' in the above suutra to 'repetition' rather than, say, 'practice'. Shearer's translation has many defects, this is just one example. His translation is largely an apologia for TM and the TMSP. May I ask what is your favorite translation of viraama-pratyaya-abhyaasa-puurvaH saMskaara-sheSo 'nyaH?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Week Americans Reclaimed Their Country
Now that the [American] empire has come to an end, let's give it to the black man. Cornell West starts at 25:14. http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/flash/special/20081105_caas_election08.shtml 4 Aug 1789 - 28 June 1914, The Long 19th Century 28 June 1914 - 4 Nov 2008, The American Century 4 Nov 2008 - ?, The 21st Century --- On Sun, 11/9/08, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Week Americans Reclaimed Their Country To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 10:27 AM So even as we celebrated our first black president, we looked around and rediscovered the nation that had elected him. We are the ones we've been waiting for, Obama said in February, and indeed millions of such Americans were here all along, waiting for a leader. This was the week that they reclaimed their country. America is beautiful But she has an ugly side We're lookin' for a leader In this country far and wide We're lookin' for a leader With the Great Spirit on his side Someone walks among us And I hope he hears the call And maybe it's a woman Or a black man after all Recent Activity 10 New MembersVisit Your Group Search Ads Get new customers. List your web site in Yahoo! Search. Moderator Central Yahoo! Groups Get the latest news from the team. Yahoo! Groups w/ John McEnroe Join the All-Bran Day 10 Club. .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore - The Climate for Change
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 9, 2008, at 4:16 PM, Rick Archer wrote: http://www.truthout.org/110908A My favorite line: Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis. Sal Maybe the first order of business would be to stop policies that are killing the poorest of the poor in Third World countries. Let's stop the insanity of food for fuel programs that have driven up the price of staple commodities that the poor rely on to eat that Madman Al Gore's policies have caused to be priced out of their range of affordability.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Nov 08 00:00:00 2008 End Date (UTC): Sat Nov 15 00:00:00 2008 261 messages as of (UTC) Mon Nov 10 00:13:16 2008 37 shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] 22 authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 19 TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 14 nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 14 Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12 Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12 do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11 Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10 curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10 Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8 cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7 Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7 I am the eternal [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6 bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6 Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6 Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6 John [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5 raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5 feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3 lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3 enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3 Dick Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3 BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 guyfawkes91 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Richard Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Jonathan Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Posters: 35 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Buddhists with funny hats
On Nov 9, 2008, at 7:23 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Sorry if it was confusing Vaj. I do address it to Nabby which I though made it clear. But I might have gone a bit snip happy on this one so thanks for the reminder. It's not just this email. I've had the same problem with many of your emails. I'm a committed Web access guy. I tried the email format and it seemed to slow me down. Hey, what a second? Are you saying that almost anyone here could have called me a Hillbilly! Probably, since web access is meant for people who are traveling or somehow don't have access to their typical email client for their email list(s). Maybe you should consider a new trailer park with better tech support? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: You need a hominem for an ad hominem
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, My response got eaten I think. I re-read it. A different republican from her accusers has a contradictory take on how much she knows. OK. Never mind.
[FairfieldLife] More Good News from Election '08
From More Good News from Election '08, Joan Walsh's column today in Salon.com: ...I've said it before, but I'll say it one last time: It's clear the long primary was good for Obama. Hillary Clinton showed him the primacy of economic issues in the big eastern and midwestern states, and modeled a kitchen-table appeal that could win those voters. Obama's pitch in October and November was far more focused and populist than it was in March and April (of course, the September economic crisis helped) and people liked the difference. There's another observation worth making about Clinton's primary campaign. One thing got lost in the debate over her run, over whether she should have quit earlier, how many of her supporters were racist, and so on: It was an amazing accomplishment -- for Hillary Clinton and for America -- that Clinton became the standard bearer of the white working class, especially blue collar men; that she, of all people, became the person who pointed the way toward winning back Reagan Democrats. Remember that we're talking about Hillary Clinton here. In the 1990s, a political industry was devoted to making her the poster girl for emasculating radical feminism and left-wing politics. Long before Obama was being smeared as a Marxist, Clinton was fending off those charges (Remember It Takes a Village as a prescription for socialism?) For a lot of people, especially men, she was far worse than her husband. One thing I couldn't believe during the primary was the number of male friends who simply despised her in the 1990s, who voted for her in the primaries this year. Looking back, it's clear many Obama supporters were too busy blaming racism for her success, while Hillary backers were too busy blaming sexism for her failure, to appreciate what a huge triumph for feminism and social justice her 18 million votes represented. So congratulations to white people who overcame their prejudices to vote for Obama. Congratulations to working class men and women who overcame the right-wing's depiction of Hillary as radical harridan to vote for her in the primaries. Congratulations to all of us. Obama will become president in a global crisis, but the country behind him has never been stronger. http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/11/09/obama_clin ton/ http://tinyurl.com/6yoxkw
[FairfieldLife] Re: You need a hominem for an ad hominem
snip I'm not sure this refutes what I suggested. Other bits and pieces are beginning to come out, including what I posted from the guy who was briefing her on foreign policy. Where did the Fox News reporter get his information? Was he present, or did somebody fill him in on what had happened? Anonymously, or on the record? All good questions. He didn't reveal how he knew. The point being that Palin went through a whole bunch of briefings in a short time, listening to lots of different people, asking them lots of different questions. She can't be expected--especially given the stress she was under--to recall all the conversations verbatim to be able to correct what's being said. She was being flooded with information and trying to stuff it all into her memory. If she knows who said what, she may at least be able to narrow things down, or as you suggested, find someone else who was there who recalls exactly what she said that she feels is being distorted. I don't know how many people were involved in her Afrian prep work, for all we know it was one person and she knows who it is who is saying this. I'll bet she has a good idea. It may all come out in time. snip However much she may be to blame for letting herself in for this in the first place, she's in an impossible position now, and it looks like some people are trying to take advantage of it and cover their asses by tearing her down. Or maybe they were as horrified as I was that she got this close to the Vice presidency. Everyone is assuming sinister motives, but someone trying to give more full disclosure on the bullet we just dodged is serving their country well. Considering that they are in the same party I think it is really patriotic despite the damage it will do to their partisan interests. That we think she said ugly things about Obama shouldn't stop us from objecting to other people saying ugly things about her. At least her smears of Obama were on the record, whereas those who are smearing her are too cowardly to identify themselves. I'm not sure of their motives or cowardice. They are speaking against their own party for the good of the country is another possibility. Imagine being a sharp, educated person given the task to prop Palin up to get her into the White House, knowing full well that she could potentially be the biggest disaster in our history. (MCain dies) If these things are true they are not ugly things, they may be a point of fact. That is a long way from palling around with terrorists. But I'm all for giving her lots of chances to change her initial impression. I'm ready for a 24 hour Palin-only Cable channel! They are naturals to replace The Osbourns as the most watched reality show on TV.
[FairfieldLife] Re: You need a hominem for an ad hominem
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Judy, My response got eaten I think. I re-read it. A different republican from her accusers has a contradictory take on how much she knows. OK. Never mind. I don't know why you are blowing it off. You sent me back to re-read it, I did, and gave my opinion. Are you thinking that this guy is giving the definitive version? McCain thought she was ready to be president, I guess we should just take his word for it huh?
[FairfieldLife] Obama's Inner Circle...
...or why Obama easily defeated Hillary. If you don't get it after seeing this video, you either need a better psychiatrist or you need a different meditation technique... From tonight's 60 Minutes: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/07/60minutes/main4584507.shtml LINK
[FairfieldLife] Re: You need a hominem for an ad hominem
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Judy, My response got eaten I think. I re-read it. A different republican from her accusers has a contradictory take on how much she knows. OK. Never mind. I don't know why you are blowing it off. You sent me back to re-read it, I did, and gave my opinion. Are you thinking that this guy is giving the definitive version? This is *the main guy* who was working with her on foreign policy, speaking *on the record*. I certainly give what he has to say more credibility than some aides who were hanging around and don't have the guts to speak for attribution. Especially since he was able to reconstruct one part of the conversation in detail and also describe the situation at the time. His version sounds a whole lot more plausible to me. And his comment on the Africa business echoes what your Fox reporter said this morning: it was just a fumble. It's one I'd be all too capable of making myself in a similar situation. And again, it's more *plausible* than that she really thought Africa was a country rather than a continent. McCain thought she was ready to be president, I guess we should just take his word for it huh? Straw man time again. Did this guy say anything about her being ready to be president, or are you putting words in his (and my) mouth? That's why I said Never mind. You can't seem to maintain integrity in a debate. You ignored most of my other points. And you said, Or maybe they were as horrified as I was that she got this close to the Vice presidency. Everyone is assuming sinister motives, but someone trying to give more full disclosure on the bullet we just dodged is serving their country well. Not when they do so *anonymously*, they aren't. Given what we know of her, would her knowing the NAFTA countries and that Africa was a continent mean that she was any more ready to be president than we thought she was? No, of course not. This is just petty, vicious sniping intended to make her look like a total idiot, which she's not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Buddhists with funny hats
Vaj: It's not just this email. I've had the same problem with many of your emails. Curtis: I'm open to suggestions in how to format responses. I am trying to make it clear. Web access is also great for people who have one too many emails to deal with in their off FFL live and don't need another one. Vaj: (again) Maybe you should consider a new trailer park with better tech support? :-) Curtis: (again) I can't, the pitbulls eat them. They love the tasty veal-like soft flesh of the computer geek. I'm a committed Web access guy. I tried the email format and it seemed to slow me down. Hey, what a second? Are you saying that almost anyone here could have called me a Hillbilly! Probably, since web access is meant for people who are traveling or somehow don't have access to their typical email client for their email list(s). Maybe you should consider a new trailer park with better tech support? :-)
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ooops! Obama -- like Palin -- doesn't know the constitution
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of shempmcgurk Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 5:54 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ooops! Obama -- like Palin -- doesn't know the constitution And even MORE unsettling is the fact that Rick is now telling us that Obama personally told him almost the exact, verbatim, same thing. I asked him the question in front of a crowd, so he was addressing the whole crowd, not just me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Inner Circle...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: ...or why Obama easily defeated Hillary. Actually, it wasn't that easy, despite his obviously superior campaign organization. It's interesting how often Obamazoids need to be reminded of this. If you don't get it after seeing this video, you either need a better psychiatrist or you need a different meditation technique... Nothing in it we didn't already know and hadn't gotten long since, sorry. Of course, it didn't mention how that superb campaign organization during the primaries gamed the caucuses, or how disproportionate the delegate assignments were, or how the Florida and Michigan situations were, well, finessed by the Rules Committee, or how the Clintons were race-baited to turn off African-American voters, or... It is sad, that you can't see that the campaign which Obama ran, was remarkable. Robert, you're the king of non sequiturs. Try reading what you're responding to. You're speaking of race baiting and the Rules commitee...we could debate those points for hours... They are things that happened, not in a vacumn, but as a result of many issues... Would you really want to turn back the clock and change these incidents you mention, and have Hillary as president-elect, now? Do you still think it would have worked out better, more uplifted to the consciousness of the world, to have Hillary in place of Barack? Well, I guess, we do live in a free country, and people can cling to anything which will verify thier world view. Perhaps, at the root of your world view, is victim-hood. You identify with what you percieve to be the victim, according to you. How can we make amends, with this poor woman, Hillary Clinton... She doesn't seem victimized to me... Does she to you? R.g.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Inner Circle...
On Nov 9, 2008, at 9:15 PM, Robert wrote: It is sad, that you can't see that the campaign which Obama ran, was remarkable. He beat a political couple, that has been in the business nearly all of thier lives. They had political connections all over the universe. It is a kind of miracle, that a guy named Barack Obama could beat this political machine, or Clinonian proportions. Black people began to move to Obama, when they saw he was electable. Bill's anger played into many of he defects that people percieved that the Clinton's exude: Drama. I guess Americans became tired of the Clintons drama. Many people who supported Barack Obama were very passionate, for many reasons. One of the main reasons, I feel, is that he reminded people of the sort of personalities, like Kennedy's and Kings, and Lennon: Voices opposed to the usual boring bla, bla, bla. We felt like a new door could finally be opened, and an unlimited possibility of creating a new paradigm for our country and the world. Obama is a symbol of a new paradigm. That is the root meaning of 'Change'... Just like there was change, because of Kennedy's consciousness. There was change because of the consiousness of Reagan. And change also reflected Clinton's and Bush's preisidency. But now, there will be a grander change. Many of the 'Obamazoids' feel it. Think of the many people who support him: Colin Powell, Bill and Hillary Clinton, so many people, right? are we all 'Obamazoids'... This is such a limited and deluded view. Funny how the mind will cling to wherever we need emotional healing, and stay stuck in a mindset that no longer has any validity. We either see things as they are or we don't. There's an automatic disconnect, that's automatically observable when the reality of one campaign over another finally reveals itself in the historic record. Then you know. Then there's no need to wonder about those who really sees things as they are and those who, for whatever reason, cannot. Once the scientific observations are in, the researchers and benefactors already know which way the wind really blows, long before the paper sees publication. What does that say about the others? It says on some level they are still tenaciously clinging to delusion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Inner Circle...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...or why Obama easily defeated Hillary. Actually, it wasn't that easy, despite his obviously superior campaign organization. It's interesting how often Obamazoids need to be reminded of this. If you don't get it after seeing this video, you either need a better psychiatrist or you need a different meditation technique... Nothing in it we didn't already know and hadn't gotten long since, sorry. Of course, it didn't mention how that superb campaign organization during the primaries gamed the caucuses, or how disproportionate the delegate assignments were, or how the Florida and Michigan situations were, well, finessed by the Rules Committee, or how the Clintons were race-baited to turn off African-American voters, or...
[FairfieldLife] Re: You need a hominem for an ad hominem
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip My MCain point was not a straw man. It was an example of someone being sincerely wrong. I don't take MCain's word for it and I don't take this guy's word for it. You do? Ok, so you do. Why does that mean that I lack integrity? And you just did it *again*. Basta. Discussing things with you is like interacting with a tar baby made of unpleasantness. You really can't help yourself can you? I don't think you have a cordial way to disagree. At least I haven't seen any evidence of it. Bullshit. You and I have disagreed frequently without things getting unpleasant. That isn't the problem. You obviously believe the guy or you wouldn't have used it as your definitive example. Definitive example is your term, not mine. At this point, it's the *only* example. And what I said was: I certainly give what he has to say more credibility than some aides who were hanging around and don't have the guts to speak for attribution, and His version sounds a whole lot more plausible to me. You are taking his word for it. I gave reasons for finding his version more credible than the anonymous stories. You didn't address any of them or, apparently, take them into account at all. I used an example of MCain being sincerely wrong. Maybe you don't agree with that example. McCain's overall take on Palin is obviously irrelevant to the competing versions of these stories. Apples and Fig Newtons. You're too smart not to realize that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Inner Circle...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip We either see things as they are or we don't. There's an automatic disconnect, that's automatically observable when the reality of one campaign over another finally reveals itself in the historic record. Then you know. Then there's no need to wonder about those who really sees things as they are and those who, for whatever reason, cannot. Once the scientific observations are in, the researchers and benefactors already know which way the wind really blows, long before the paper sees publication. What does that say about the others? It says on some level they are still tenaciously clinging to delusion. Says Vaj, trying desperately to make sense and failing utterly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ooops! Obama -- like Palin -- doesn't know the constitution
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sarah Palin was raked over the coals for allegedly not knowing the constitution (e.g., her remarks about not knowing what the VP does) But how much worse is it when a self-described constitutional attorney doesn't know the constitution? Can you imagine how the Left would have taken Palin apart had she said the following: From: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/barack_obama_legal_scholar.html http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/barack_obama_legal_scholar.html During a fundraiser in Denver, Barack Obama was asked what he hoped to accomplish in his first hundred days in office. His response: I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution, said Obama One should not have to remind the former President of the Harvard Law review that a President of the United States cannot overturn a law. Only the Supreme Court can overturn a law; Congress can change laws. A President -- even one consumed by his own grandiosity -- cannot overturn a law. That is Constitutional Law 101. Yawn. Big deal -- not. OffWorld
RE: [FairfieldLife] National Obama Day
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 9:23 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] National Obama Day This is apparently NOT a hoax. From the Topeka Capital-Journal: Planning under way for Obama holiday Sounds like the pet project of a few kids in Topeka. It won't fly. National holidays aren't established for living presidents.
[FairfieldLife] Re: National Obama Day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 9:23 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] National Obama Day This is apparently NOT a hoax. From the Topeka Capital-Journal: Planning under way for Obama holiday Sounds like the pet project of a few kids in Topeka. It won't fly. National holidays aren't established for living presidents. Of course not. I *hope* it's just kids, but they've apparently nailed down the local McDonald's for morning and evening planning rallies every Tuesday through January 13. Would McDonald's do that for a bunch of kids? Why hasn't anybody told them the facts of life?
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Public Humiliation of Hillary Continues
--- On Sun, 11/9/08, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Public Humiliation of Hillary Continues To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 7:27 PM I have a great idea. Why not just put Hillary in the stocks on the White House lawn on inauguration day and let passersby throw things at her? How fortunate for Sarah Palin and her family that she has returned to Alaska and can't be put beside Hillary. The Public Humiliation of Hillary Clinton Continues Posted on November 9, 2008 by bostonboomer From the New York Post: Hillary Rodham Clinton's dream of overhauling the country's health-care system as the steward of a new Senate subcommittee has reportedly flatlined. The New York senator had made health-care reform the centerpiece of her presidential campaign. After bowing out of the race, Clinton pushed fellow Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, to create a special health subcommittee for her to head. But the Massachusetts senator, who's battling brain cancer, has shot down that idea - all but dashing any hope Clinton had of pinning her legacy to universal coverage. Michael Myers, Kennedy's staff director on the committee, ended any speculation by telling the trade publication Inside Health Policy that Clinton would not chair a subcommittee. Kennedy will instead hold health-care proceedings at the full committee level, Myers said. In the end, it's President Obama who's going to lead the effort for us, Myers told Inside Health Policy. I'm guessing it will also be a cold day in hell before Obama lifts a finger to help Hillary pay off her campaign debt. Majority Leader? I'm not holding my breath. Someone please explain to me again: why did Hillary work so hard to help elect the Megalomaniacal One? Is this really his idea of unity? Oh wait. I get it now. Unity means reaching across the aisle to Republicans. I guess Ted Kennedy (the lion of the Senate) never really wanted universal health care. Although I'm disillusioned, I'm glad it's all out in the open now. Time for me to really snap out of my fantasy of what the Democratic Party stands for. FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ are all dead now. And so are their dreams of health care for all Americans; one person, one vote; and equal rights for all. The Democratic Party is no place for the poor, the sick, the troubled, women, or gays. We are all on the outside looking in now, along with the woman 18,000,000 of us voted for during the Democratic primaries. Love your logic, babe!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Buddhists with funny hats
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Curtis, you should try to include the posters name you're responding to next to their quotation, since it's hard to tell WHO you're responding to Gosh, since the first line of Curtis's response was, Just what do you imagine the word 'Hillbilly' means Nabby? I kinda assumed he was quoting Nabby. Maybe you should try to read what Curtis wrote, Vaj. snip Have you considered using an email client? The Web interface automatically provides attribution lines when you respond to a post. Or did you think those of us who are using it have been typing them all in manually? Curtis typically copies the part he wants to respond to at the top and comments underneath. Often he'll leave in the entire post--with attribution lines-- underneath his comments, so you can tell who the post was from if he doesn't indicate it by addressing the person by name, as he did here. How long have you been reading the posts here, Vaj, that you haven't yet figured all this out?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ooops! Obama -- like Palin -- doesn't know the constitution
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of shempmcgurk Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 4:39 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Ooops! Obama -- like Palin -- doesn't know the constitution I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution, said Obama That's almost verbatim the answer he gave to me in Fairfield when I asked him about impeaching Bush/Cheney and repairing the constitutional damage they had done. Gosh, Rick, if he gave you almost the same verbatim answer then it is an even WORSE reflection on Obama because: 1) he kept repeating the wrong constitutional information time after time (with you and then in Denver or whichever one came first). You see, the president has no constitutional power to overturn ANY law. 2) as he kept repeating the wrong constitutional information time after time, not one of his aides pulled him aside aftewards to correct him (say, Barack, don't say that because it is wrong). 3) one of his aides did, in fact, tell him that it was wrong but he kept repeating the wrong information time afer time. Rick, Sarah Palin is NOT a constitutional law expert; Obama purports to be one. So why is it that she gets raked over the coals for making a mistake on constitutional information but Obama, an expert, does not. Does that make any sense to you? I assumed then and we can assume now that he understands how the government works You're assuming wrong. Can't you understand what you read? Obama said he would overturn laws as president. No such power in the constitution exists for a president to overturn laws. Obama is both an attorney and a constitutional expert. Sarah Palin isn't...so at least she has an excuse. Obama doesn't. and that established procedures will have to be followed to overturn those laws. The established procedures is that there are no established procedures for Obama as president to overturn ANY law. Or are you suggesting that he operate outside the constitution? Although I would guess that if executive decisions can change policies, new executive decisions by the subsequent administration can change them back. First of all, it's called executive orders and, yes, there are some that George Bush enacted that Obama, as president, can overturn by issuing new executive orders. But executive orders are NOT laws. Laws created the executive orders that a president could invoke, NOT the other way around.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Buddhists with funny hats
Sorry if it was confusing Vaj. I do address it to Nabby which I though made it clear. But I might have gone a bit snip happy on this one so thanks for the reminder. I'm a committed Web access guy. I tried the email format and it seemed to slow me down. Hey, what a second? Are you saying that almost anyone here could have called me a Hillbilly! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 9, 2008, at 5:51 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Of course it wasn't because of Nablusoss. Hillbillies have more important priorities than worrying about politics, sharing and justice for all; and we all know well what those priorities are. To give them the right to vote is ridicelous ! Damn Democracy ! Just what do you imagine the word Hillbilly means Nabby? Do you understand that it refers to a specific group of people whose educational and economic backgrounds couldn't be more different from my own? You seem to have a cartoonish conception of American culture. As far as your opinion that some groups of people shouldn't be allowed to vote: we've sacrificed a lot of lives to preserve that freedom. I am happy that your anti-democracy position is completely against the global trend. Obama himself comes from a group of Americans who were denied this right for way too long in our history due to the kind of prejudice and marginalization of certain groups that you express. Using a phrase like sharing and justice for all as a disparaging comment reveals not only a profound ignorance of important human values, but a lack of understanding of the struggles in human history. If I were to sum up your latest posts I could do it in two words: ignorance and hate. Curtis, you should try to include the posters name you're responding to next to their quotation, since it's hard to tell WHO you're responding to--esp. if you're responding to posters most of us might ignore. In cases like that, thy seem like quotes out of the blue. Have you considered using an email client? MS's free email client was always quite excellent. And there are typically many examples online of how to easily configure them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: You need a hominem for an ad hominem
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip My MCain point was not a straw man. It was an example of someone being sincerely wrong. I don't take MCain's word for it and I don't take this guy's word for it. You do? Ok, so you do. Why does that mean that I lack integrity? And you just did it *again*. Basta. Discussing things with you is like interacting with a tar baby made of unpleasantness. You really can't help yourself can you? I don't think you have a cordial way to disagree. At least I haven't seen any evidence of it. You obviously believe the guy or you wouldn't have used it as your definitive example. You are taking his word for it. I used an example of MCain being sincerely wrong. Maybe you don't agree with that example. You could say so with out all the condescending drama of Basta. Basti.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ooops! Obama -- like Palin -- doesn't know the constitution
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Sarah Palin was raked over the coals for allegedly not knowing the constitution (e.g., her remarks about not knowing what the VP does) But how much worse is it when a self-described constitutional attorney doesn't know the constitution? Can you imagine how the Left would have taken Palin apart had she said the following: From: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/barack_obama_legal_scholar.html During a fundraiser in Denver, Barack Obama was asked what he hoped to accomplish in his first hundred days in office. His response: I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution, said Obama One should not have to remind the former President of the Harvard Law review that a President of the United States cannot overturn a law. Only the Supreme Court can overturn a law; Congress can change laws. A President -- even one consumed by his own grandiosity -- cannot overturn a law. That is Constitutional Law 101. Well, of course they can overturn/set aside executive orders. No court or legislative action necessary. Come on, you know he knows the procedures, after all he taught Constitutional law. But, Ruth, no one is saying that Obama can't overturn executive orders; we're saying that he, Obama, cannot overturn laws. He doesn't have that power; it's not in the constitution. Yet that is what Obama claimed he would do; he can't. And the fact that he taught constitutional law makes this all the more unsettling. And even MORE unsettling is the fact that Rick is now telling us that Obama personally told him almost the exact, verbatim, same thing.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Buddhists with funny hats
On Nov 9, 2008, at 4:51 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: If I were to sum up your latest posts I could do it in two words: ignorance and hate. Rick, this is the kind crap I'm supposedly missing? You're even more of a glutton for self-punishment than I am. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Public Humiliation of Hillary Continues
Okay, so it was just a personal fantasy of mine. But I really thought (yes, I really did) that day when Hillary and Barack were whispering to each other on that plane that they'd come to an arrangement. That they had struck THIS deal: Hillary would dutifully campaign for Barack, frequently and with passion, and so would Bill. And, in exchange, she'd get to lead the Congressional effort for universal health care. And her name might even be attached to the health care plan. (Of note: She had to campaign for Barack no matter what because, if he'd lost, she'd forever have been blamed. And even if he'd won, and she hadn't performed, she'd have been treated as a turncoat outcast. It was a terrible situation for her to be in, and I ached for her.) But now this?? This twisting of the knife stabbed into Hillary and all of her supporters, most of whom came through for you (god knows why but they did), you selfish prk, Barack??? http://tinyurl.com/5doxho http://tinyurl.com/5doxho And For The Losers http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/42301 Hillary Clinton didn't get the VP slot. And she is not getting health care http://www.nypost.com/seven/11082008/news/politics/denied_137757.htm stewardship at least not in the Senate. Politics is tough stuff. And if you lose, the winners generally ignore or spurn you, unless you have something to offer them or pose some danger to them. It might be wise for the new President to give Hillary, and Bill too, something to do. There will be rockier times ahead and it pays to keep your rivals close. Still, it is not likely she will pose much of a danger to his success. Her bargaining power is gone. New York Post's article, DENIED http://www.nypost.com/seven/11082008/news/politics/denied_137757.htm . The New York Post clearly ENJOYS Hillary's pain. Screenshots: [denied.jpg] http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/denied.jpg [denied22.jpg] http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/denied22.jp\ g __ Did you catch that? In the end, it's President Obama who's going to lead the effort for us, Myers told Inside Health Policy. ALL HAIL CAESAR! __ You can read the full article here http://www.nypost.com/seven/11082008/news/politics/denied_137757.htm .
[FairfieldLife] Questions and answers - Share International, November 2008
Q. (1) Now that the US Congress has passed a financial bailout plan, how close is the US and the world to the worldwide stock market crash that Share International magazine has predicted? (2) Are we heading for a total economic collapse, or depression, worldwide as some have predicted, or (3) are the economic problems we are facing more limited in scope? A. (1) This is the crash. We could not be closer. (2) Not total perhaps, but very far-reaching. (3) No. The entire economic system and thinking must be transformed. It will take the adoption of the principle of sharing to bring that about. Q. Will Maitreya's message of sharing be more difficult to accept for some people now, given that the economic situation of many millions in the US and other developed nations is increasingly precarious? A. On the contrary, it will show these nations that the old greedy and selfish ways do not work in a rational manner. Only sharing, in the end, will bring stability, justice and the peace we all desire. Q. Are we facing the end of hypercapitalism? A. Yes. According to the Masters the best ratio for successful, stable, fair government is: Socialism 70 per cent Capitalism 30 per cent. At the present time the ratio in the US is 95 per cent Capitalism 5 per cent Socialism. UK 85 per cent Capitalism 15 per cent Socialism. France and Germany much the same. Scandinavia about 40 per cent Capitalism 60 per cent Socialism. For this reason the Scandinavian countries, except for Iceland, are the most stable and fair. Q. A team of French scientists led by archaeologist Franck Goddio, announced that they have found a bowl dating to the first century AD, engraved with what they believe could be the world's first known reference to Christ: DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS. This has been interpreted by the archaeological team to mean either, by Christ the magician or, the magician by Christ. (1) Do these words indeed refer to Jesus (overshadowed by Christ) during his time in Palestine, or (2) someone else? (3) Did the person who wrote the inscription know Jesus directly? (4) Did they mean magician in the derogatory way that it might be interpreted as today, which could mean a trickster etc? A. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) No. (4) No. On the contrary, they were meant to praise Jesus. They were inscribed 25 years after the death of Jesus. Q. Famed Canadian neuroscientist Wilder Penfield thought that the mind may interface with the brain in part of the diencephalon. (1) Is that true? (2) If so, is there a specific part of the diencephalon that you can identify where the mind interfaces with the brain? A. (1) Yes. (2) It is not in a part of, but in the diencephalon. Q. (1) Should we have compassion for the Lords of Materiality? (2) Or should we pay them no attention at all? A. (1) No. (2) Yes. Q. How can one open the mind more become less rigid or set in one's beliefs? A. Become more tolerant of difference. Meet more people of opposing views and try to understand their point of view. Q. What is the quality of Piscean energy and how is it different from the quality of Aquarian energy? A. Idealism, devotion and individuality. As we have used them, however, they have demonstrated, through our marked individuality, as division, separation, fanaticism, fundamentalism. It has the ideals of unity, brotherhood, justice, freedom but if you look around the world there's little sign of that brotherhood, or justice. These positive qualities need a broader view of these ideals; not a simple, fanatical bigoted view which has been the norm throughout Pisces. We are living at the end of the age of Pisces and that's a problem. The energies began to be withdrawn in 1625. Our solar system has come into the same relationship as with Pisces, but now with the constellation of Aquarius; we are living in the early years of the Aquarian dispensation. Aquarius is totally different its qualities are those of synthesis; they will fuse and blend humanity together in a way which now seems impossible. It's difficult to imagine because of the influence of Pisces. The energies of Aquarius began to come into this solar system and to this planet in 1675 and they are gathering momentum with every day that passes. The energies are more or less equal neither one dominates. The energies of Pisces are still somewhat more prevalent about 58 per cent to 42 per cent. So not equal but relatively so. We are still living in a world with the old structures which we created political economic, scientific, religious, cultural and so on. All structures are the result of our response to the energies of Pisces. The governments of the world are struggling to cope with the situation of today and the future, with the tools of an age which has passed. All our concepts of international politics, of economic structures, of how humanity should live together are dominated by the concepts of Pisces. Yet here we are
[FairfieldLife] Re: You need a hominem for an ad hominem
Judy: That's why I said Never mind. You can't seem to maintain integrity in a debate. Me: And you can't resist taking a shot at me in what was otherwise a friendly discussion. It has nothing to do with integrity we are seeing it differently. You think you know what happened from his statements, and I don't think you do. You have added another story to the mix. We are just giving our POV's. Nobody knows who is lying and who is just wrong. Obviously this guy was not the only guy who prepped her. Maybe she was inconsistent in her ability to express her knowledge. My position is that we don't have all the facts. That includes you. My MCain point was not a straw man. It was an example of someone being sincerely wrong. I don't take MCain's word for it and I don't take this guy's word for it. You do? Ok, so you do. Why does that mean that I lack integrity? We'll see in time what it true. I am ready to accept that Palin knows that Africa is a continent and someone got it wrong or is being malicious once we get more information than we have now. You seem to think that this guy is the last word and I don't. No need to start flinging accusations about integrity because I don't share your confidence in this guy's opinion settles it all. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Judy, My response got eaten I think. I re-read it. A different republican from her accusers has a contradictory take on how much she knows. OK. Never mind. I don't know why you are blowing it off. You sent me back to re-read it, I did, and gave my opinion. Are you thinking that this guy is giving the definitive version? This is *the main guy* who was working with her on foreign policy, speaking *on the record*. I certainly give what he has to say more credibility than some aides who were hanging around and don't have the guts to speak for attribution. Especially since he was able to reconstruct one part of the conversation in detail and also describe the situation at the time. His version sounds a whole lot more plausible to me. And his comment on the Africa business echoes what your Fox reporter said this morning: it was just a fumble. It's one I'd be all too capable of making myself in a similar situation. And again, it's more *plausible* than that she really thought Africa was a country rather than a continent. McCain thought she was ready to be president, I guess we should just take his word for it huh? Straw man time again. Did this guy say anything about her being ready to be president, or are you putting words in his (and my) mouth? That's why I said Never mind. You can't seem to maintain integrity in a debate. You ignored most of my other points. And you said, Or maybe they were as horrified as I was that she got this close to the Vice presidency. Everyone is assuming sinister motives, but someone trying to give more full disclosure on the bullet we just dodged is serving their country well. Not when they do so *anonymously*, they aren't. Given what we know of her, would her knowing the NAFTA countries and that Africa was a continent mean that she was any more ready to be president than we thought she was? No, of course not. This is just petty, vicious sniping intended to make her look like a total idiot, which she's not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: National Obama Day
Most states -- and I presume the federal government -- have laws on the books that prevent this sort of thing. To name bridges, streets, other places after people or make national or state holidays usually require the person to be dead...and dead for a specified period of time. These rules have evolved precisely to prevent the type of thing being contemplated here. And the rules/laws are there to prevent an overextending and an initial excitement about someone or an event. These sorts of things usually, at the very least, require an executive order...by the president on the federal level and the governor on the state level. I suspect that this will become clear to the organisers once this thing gets out. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is apparently NOT a hoax. From the Topeka Capital-Journal: Planning under way for Obama holiday Published Sunday, November 09, 2008 Plans are being made to promote a national holiday for Barack Obama, who will become the nation's 44th president when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20. Yes We Can planning rallies will be at 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. every Tuesday at the downtown McDonald's restaurant, 1100 Kansas Ave., until Jan. 13. The goals are to secure a national holiday in Obama's honor, to organize celebrations around his inauguration and to celebrate the 200th birthday of President Abraham Lincoln, who was born on Feb. 12 1809. At 7:30 a.m. on Inauguration Day, Obama Cake will be served at the downtown McDonald's, and a celebration is scheduled for 8 p.m. to midnight Jan. 20 at the Ramada Hotel and Convention Center, 420 S.E. 6th. For more information, contact Sonny Scroggins, (785) 232-3761, 845-6148 or at [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lamont Lassiter, McDonald's general manager, 608-2739; Ava Chander -Beard, (785) 234-9138, [EMAIL PROTECTED]; or Rhoda Carr, (785) 220-5883. http://cjonline.com/stories/110908/loc_353922770.shtml
[FairfieldLife] Re: National Obama Day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is apparently NOT a hoax. From the Topeka Capital-Journal: Planning under way for Obama holiday Published Sunday, November 09, 2008 Plans are being made to promote a national holiday for Barack Obama, who will become the nation's 44th president when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20. Yes We Can planning rallies will be at 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. every Tuesday at the downtown McDonald's restaurant, 1100 Kansas Ave., until Jan. 13. The goals are to secure a national holiday in Obama's honor, to organize celebrations around his inauguration and to celebrate the 200th birthday of President Abraham Lincoln, who was born on Feb. 12 1809. At 7:30 a.m. on Inauguration Day, Obama Cake will be served at the downtown McDonald's, and a celebration is scheduled for 8 p.m. to midnight Jan. 20 at the Ramada Hotel and Convention Center, 420 S.E. 6th. For more information, contact Sonny Scroggins, (785) 232-3761, 845-6148 or at [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lamont Lassiter, McDonald's general manager, 608-2739; Ava Chander -Beard, (785) 234-9138, [EMAIL PROTECTED]; or Rhoda Carr, (785) 220-5883. http://cjonline.com/stories/110908/loc_353922770.shtml Hey that's pretty cool and he hasn't even done anything yet!,,,..well, other than being black. Maybe we should really be celebrating white liberation day, finally the ball and chain of racism has been removed, I think, oops I'm not sure Jessie Jackson would approve.
[FairfieldLife] The Public Humiliation of Hillary Continues
I have a great idea. Why not just put Hillary in the stocks on the White House lawn on inauguration day and let passersby throw things at her? How fortunate for Sarah Palin and her family that she has returned to Alaska and can't be put beside Hillary. The Public Humiliation of Hillary Clinton Continues http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/the-public-humiliation-of\ -hillary-clinton-continues/Posted on November 9, 2008 by bostonboomer [http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/stocks3.gif?w=468h=31\ 9] From the New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/seven/11082008/news/politics/denied_137757.htm Hillary Rodham Clinton's dream of overhauling the country's health-care system as the steward of a new Senate subcommittee has reportedly flatlined. The New York senator had made health-care reform the centerpiece of her presidential campaign. After bowing out of the race, Clinton pushed fellow Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, to create a special health subcommittee for her to head. But the Massachusetts senator, who's battling brain cancer, has shot down that idea - all but dashing any hope Clinton had of pinning her legacy to universal coverage. Michael Myers, Kennedy's staff director on the committee, ended any speculation by telling the trade publication Inside Health Policy that Clinton would not chair a subcommittee. Kennedy will instead hold health-care proceedings at the full committee level, Myers said. In the end, it's President Obama who's going to lead the effort for us, Myers told Inside Health Policy. I'm guessing it will also be a cold day in hell before Obama lifts a finger to help Hillary pay off her campaign debt. Majority Leader? I'm not holding my breath. Someone please explain to me again: why did Hillary work so hard to help elect the Megalomaniacal One? Is this really his idea of unity? Oh wait. I get it now. Unity means reaching across the aisle to Republicans. I guess Ted Kennedy (the lion of the Senate) never really wanted universal health care. Although I'm disillusioned, I'm glad it's all out in the open now. Time for me to really snap out of my fantasy of what the Democratic Party stands for. FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ are all dead now. And so are their dreams of health care for all Americans; one person, one vote; and equal rights for all. The Democratic Party is no place for the poor, the sick, the troubled, women, or gays. We are all on the outside looking in now, along with the woman 18,000,000 of us voted for during the Democratic primaries.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin for president
Now I find confirmation in the Telegraph of what I had said about Palin, so I'm not quite so ready to accept your censure, Lurk. What she did was dangerous and could have had, could still have, terrible consequences. She should not show her face on the national stage again. Published on Sunday, November 9, 2008 by The Telegraph/UK Sarah Palin Blamed by The US Secret Service Over Death Threats Against Barack Obama Sarah Palin's attacks on Barack Obama's patriotism provoked a spike in death threats against the future president, Secret Service agents revealed during the final weeks of the campaign. by Tim Shipman The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of palling around with terrorists, citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers. Palin's tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists. The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling terrorist and kill him until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric. But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further. The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks. Michelle Obama, the future First Lady, was so upset that she turned to her friend and campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett and said: Why would they try to make people hate us? The revelations, contained in a Newsweek history of the campaign, are likely to further damage Mrs Palin's credentials as a future presidential candidate. She is already a frontrunner, with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, to take on Mr Obama in four years time. Details of the spike in threats to Mr Obama come as a report last week by security and intelligence analysts Stratfor, warned that he is a high risk target for racist gunmen. It concluded: Two plots to assassinate Obama were broken up during the campaign season, and several more remain under investigation. We would expect federal authorities to uncover many more plots to attack the president that have been hatched by white supremacist ideologues. Irate John McCain aides, who blame Mrs Palin for losing the election, claim Mrs Palin took it upon herself to question Mr Obama's patriotism, before the line of attack had been cleared by Mr McCain. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lurk, I think you're right . . . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: Feste, it sounds like you are going through serious post election withdrawal. Already looking ahead to 2012, and pontificating. Playing up this palling around with terroists as though it's beyond the pale of typical campagin rhetoric. Believe me, if not this quote, you'd find another to create good 'ol righteous indignation Try walking around your living room and work off some of this monologuing. Oh, and maybe focus on the present, and see how Obama handles the current challenges. You have placed him on such a pedestal. Tell me how he is not going to disappoint numerous supporters. Sounds like Sarah Palin is going to play the role for you that the Clintons have played for Rush Limbaugh. Whatever Barack does, you'll be complaining about Palin. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: I'd really be shocked if the conservative base supported her. Shocked and disappointed. What's happening to her now is really awful with the anonymous attacks. I hope she doesn't do a tit-for-tat with Van Sustern on Monday.That would be a bloodbath. Sarah deserves all she gets. I cannot forgive her remark, made many times, about Obama palling around with terrorists. That was a disgraceful comment and she should be ashamed of it. Not only was it ridiculous and untrue, it was also dangerous and could have incited someone to harm Obama. I read that the number of threats against Obama is huge, and Sarah Palin bears some responsibility. If due to some self-destructive streak in the Republican Party she gets the 2012 nomination, I can confidently predict, right now, the result: Barack 49 states, Sarah 1 (that's assuming she can even hold on to Alaska).
[FairfieldLife] Re: My definition of being Pro-American
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: And I care not a whittle how many jobs are lost or how negatively my decision may hurt the economy because the $25,000 from my purchase is going into Japanese pockets instead of American pockets. Being pro-American is driving a GMC made in Texas. Actually that is anti-American because you are supporting a communist system that props up its ailing industry with bailouts and huge government subsidies. This is true of your vast Republican farm subsidies that you are so proud of, your subsidies for failing banks, and pretty much all aspects of your society. In fact, Neocons like you and Shemp want the biggest military spending in the world, but, like all Neocons, don't want anyone to pay taxes for it. You say you support the troops but don't want to pay for them. This is anti-troop, and anti-american. Disgusting, ignorant, selfish hypocrisy. Typical Texan coward. You are part and parcel of one of the most communist system in the world, and as a warmonger, you are entirely a communist in that you want the government to pay for all the wars, but practically a secessionist at the same time because, as a republican, you want other people to pay for that, but not you -- just like Joe the Plumber. You people would let old ladies suffer, and sick children die, and the troops with no armor, because you are against social help systems, and paying taxes (and no, sorry, charity is no different than a socialist system, less efficient OVERALL, and it is the expectation that the rich will pay, but no-one else - that is a Nanny state.) And now you are driving a vehicle entirely subsidised under a communist-like system. What a selfish American idiot you are. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes
I am the eternal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have just finished an election where we have voted for Heaven on Earth. This is not the time to be asking pesky questions like what to do with the radioactive waste. Surely we can vote radioactive waste out of existence. Sounds like a job for.Camelot!
[FairfieldLife] Re: My definition of being Pro-American
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Being pro-American is driving a GMC made in Texas. off wrote: Actually that is anti-American because you are supporting a communist system that props up its ailing industry with bailouts and huge government subsidies. So, you DO NOT agree with Barak Obama, but you voted for him anyway? Yawn. Obama is nothing like you communistic Neocons. But I'm supporting a 'communist system' because I bought a GMC truck manufactured in Texas? This doesn't even make any sense. No it would not make sense to you because you don't understand anything. Republicans say they support the troops but don't want to pay taxes to pay for them or buy them armor. Republicans claim they do not want to pay taxes and would rather let little old ladies suffer and sick children die rather than support them with social sevices. They want roads and birdges but don't want to pay for them. They want someone else to pay for them. Unless the government steps in, analysts warned, GM could face bankruptcy, endangering the livelihoods of about 100,000 North American autoworkers and hundreds of thousands of others whose jobs depend on the industry. So what?.Britain lost ALL of its auto industry in the 1970's and the British then became richer per capita than Americans have ever been, and the auto workers found better jobs for more money and did great ! If you and Joe the Plumber do not want to help little old ladies and sick children with a small part of your profits, then you better get the hell out of my country you anti-Aemerican. If you and Joe the Plumber do not want to support the troops then get out of my country. If you want to take all the money for yourself and never share it with the needy, then get out of my country. If you come to Vermont you will die of suffocation from breathing the clean intoxicating air of true freedom. Get out of my country Texas, you are not welcome here. OffWorld Read more: 'Reid, Pelosi Urge Treasury to Extend Aid to Automakers' By Lori Montgomery Washington Post, Sunday, November 9, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/58mdxj http://tinyurl.com/58mdxj
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am the eternal wrote: On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:37 PM, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wowlooks like nuclear is here to stay! What good luck for Obama. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature- nuclear-reactors-los-alamos Timeframe is 2013-2023. After Obama. And what do you do with the waste? Having grown up around Hanford I know how much an issue that is. *** Plus I question whether the U.S. is going to allow construction here because the material, although they are pretty much unenrichable, can still be used for dirty bombs.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: When I read James Dickey's Deliverance and saw the movie, I didn't question that the queer hillbillies deserved to die for sexually assaulting the suburban canoers. In the movie, when it appeared that Jon Voight's character was going to have to take that cracker's dick in his mouth, I was repulsed as much as I could possibly be. I was relieved and triumphant when Burt Reynold's character killed the rapist by firing two arrows into his chest. But now, in my more mellow middle age, I think, What would Jesus do? I believe Jesus would suck the cracker's dick, and spare his life. Although well written as a whole, your last sentence is misguided to say the least. You could be right. Jesus may have opted for the alternative - to take a shotgun blast to the head. Gethsemane notwithstanding, He was a good sport about allowing himself to be sacrificed. I was thinking along this line: Jesus was a Jew and was very well versed of the Torah and its rabbinical laws. As such, it would have been an abomination for him to associate with another man in that fashion. It would have been justifiable for Jesus to kill the sumbitch easily, and I believe he had the power to do so very easily. Now let me get this straight...you are saying that Jesus H. You have been told 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' BUT *I* say unto you... Christ would have succumbed to superstition and gone with rabbinical law. You and I must have read different bios, dude. Are you sure that you are not projecting a bit of your own fundamentalism and superstition and fear of violating law onto someone who was clearly beyond such fears? Jesus' whole *career* was based on rejecting the parts of rabbinical law he didn't agree with, and his whole *message* was about the rejection of violence. I'm sorry, John, but you're coming across as as much of a fundamentalist w.r.t. the Christian Bible as you do w.r.t. the vedic literature you are a slave to. And, you are committing the sin Gordon Charrick spoke of so eloquently: You know that you have created God in your own image when he hates the same people you do. It would be one thing if you just admitted to your own fear and homophobia and stood on that. But to attempt to hide it behind an appeal to scripture (and a total misreading of that scripture to boot) is beyond comprehension. You are so offended by gays that you want to kill them. That's really the bottom line here. And you want to kill them so much that you have come up with an inner justification that tells you that Jesus would have wanted to kill them, too, and not only that, he would have had advanced ways of doing so, sooper-dooper siddhi weapons I would imagine. Would he have caused them to burst into flame? (And would that be considered a 'death threat' under rabbinical law?) Or would he have come up with some other way of displaying how much he and God hates them because they don't obey their holy word in a book they were too lazy to write themselves, and had to have ghost- written for them by humans? Curious minds want to know the methods by which you imagine Jesus killing these horrible gay sinners. Gay-bashers are often found to be latent homosexuals. Seems they try to hide it by overt negative expressions against gays. Fundamentalist repression and guilt seems to nurture this kind of behavior. It appears that you are accusing those who voted for the proposition to be latent homosexuals. That's a lot of people to be believable. It is more likely that those who voted against the proposition and their sympathizers are gay. You may have fallen into a trap set up by a certain person in this thread. He may have outed you without your intention to do so. Further, this person appears to be erratic in his personality as he unilaterally issued a fatwa of silence for those people he did not approve of. Then, although not qualified, insisted that he can certify the sanity of people here in this forum. To make matters worse, he unilaterally broke his own fatwa and wrote a spurious and manipulative accusations about a post not addressed to him. Now, he demands that his accusations be answered to satisfy his own questionable motives. It appears that this person has lost his
Re: [FairfieldLife] Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes
I am the eternal wrote: On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:37 PM, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wowlooks like nuclear is here to stay! What good luck for Obama. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos Timeframe is 2013-2023. After Obama. And what do you do with the waste? Having grown up around Hanford I know how much an issue that is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: You need a hominem for an ad hominem
Judy, My response got eaten I think. I re-read it. A different republican from her accusers has a contradictory take on how much she knows. OK. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: [I wrote:] If she knows who said what, she may at least be able to narrow things down, or as you suggested, find someone else who was there who recalls exactly what she said that she feels is being distorted. I don't know how many people were involved in her Afrian prep work, for all we know it was one person and she knows who it is who is saying this. I'll bet she has a good idea. It may all come out in time. I've referred you a couple of times now to my post quoting the guy who briefed her on foreign policy. Read it, then get back to me, OK? It's #197329.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Inner Circle...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Would you really want to turn back the clock and change these incidents you mention, and have Hillary as president-elect, now? Boy, would I ever. Do you still think it would have worked out better, more uplifted to the consciousness of the world, to have Hillary in place of Barack? I'm thinking beyond the election and what Obama's going to do in office, as compared to what Hillary would have done. The world's consciousness would have been uplifted whether Hillary or Obama had won. The question is, how long is it going to stay uplifted once Obama gets in the White House? snip Perhaps, at the root of your world view, is victim-hood. horselaugh
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusing suutra-words: abhyaasa, part 3
On Nov 9, 2008, at 6:31 PM, cardemaister wrote: May I ask what is your favorite translation of viraama-pratyaya-abhyaasa-puurvaH saMskaara-sheSo 'nyaH? I'm probably biased on this one, but my favorite translation and commentary is that of my dear Patanjali Guru, Pundit Usharbudh Arya in his work which translates the first chapter (ISBN 0-89389-092-8): (Asampranjnata) is the other (samadhi), having as it's prerequisite the practice of the cognition and causal principle of cessation and leaving its samskara as residue. Much more interesting is his commentary on what it fully means. Your email address is a no reply one or I'd send you a copy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: National Obama Day
On Nov 9, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Of course not. I *hope* it's just kids, but they've apparently nailed down the local McDonald's for morning and evening planning rallies every Tuesday through January 13. Would McDonald's do that for a bunch of kids? Why hasn't anybody told them the facts of life? Hey, I could have meetings at our local McDonalds. Just meet friends there at a pre-arranged time every week. It would hardly lend stature to my undertaking. And besides, it's Kansas, they don't believe in the facts of life there, they still believe dinosaurs walked the earth 6000 years ago. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Al Gore - The Climate for Change
On Nov 9, 2008, at 4:16 PM, Rick Archer wrote: http://www.truthout.org/110908A My favorite line: Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: You need a hominem for an ad hominem
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip My MCain point was not a straw man. It was an example of someone being sincerely wrong. I don't take MCain's word for it and I don't take this guy's word for it. You do? Ok, so you do. Why does that mean that I lack integrity? And you just did it *again*. Basta.
[FairfieldLife] Obama's Statement on Torture
The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration's approach. Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America's standing in the world, not how you strengthen it. It's time to tell the world that America rejects torture without exception or equivocation. It's time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows. No more secret authorization of methods like simulated drowning. When I am president America will once again be the country that stands up to these deplorable tactics. When I am president we won't work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values. ~~ Barack Obama statement in response to the new report in the New York Times this morning [October 4, 2007] about the Bush administration's secret authorization of brutal interrogation techniques. http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/04/obama_torture_and_secrecy_betr.php http://tinyurl.com/5wdu2y New York Times article: Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html
