[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert"  wrote:
> >
> >  (snip)
> > > On the subject of emptysuit:
> > 
> > You must be referring to 'The Empty Pants Suit'...
> > I haven't heard The Secretary of State, speak up on these positions...
> > She is in charge, of most of what you state here...
> 
> Wrong Robert, Obama is in charge. Here's a little lesson on the fundamentals 
> of political viability: Every cabinet member, every special envoy, every; 
> presidential appointee, serves at the pleasure of the president, and supports 
> the president's policies in public or leaves office. 
> 
> > Why don't you write your friend, Hillary, and asked her, what's up with 
> > these issues, that you so specifically mention, here...
> > R.G.
> > 
> 
> Why don't you write your friend Obama and ask why he has gone back on his 
> promises? 
> (snip)
OK, here's the low-down, on my friend, President Obama...
He knows what he is doing, and I trust him to make the right decisions on these 
matters..
Rome wasn't built in a day, and these policies won't be changed in a day...
He has enough to contend with, being a Muslim and everything, and having to put 
up with the stupid ignorant people, who believe all this bogus propaganda, 
that's being put out, by the remnints of the Bush Crime family, et el...
Anyways, Barack Obama is the 'Righteous Leader' predicted in the 'Dead Sea 
Scrolls, which I helped to write, all those centuries, ago...
Way, way before you were born.
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] People afraid of shadows, living in a world full of lightbulbs

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> >  
> > > --- shempmcgurk wrote:
> > > 
> > > No, because I still want to remain anonymous here on FFL.
> > 
> > I know the identities of many anonymous people here and 
> > am good at keeping them secret. 
> >
> > Is that so ? At least your "friend", 
> 
> He is my friend.
> > 
> > the fellow with earpieces looking very gay 
> 
> you have a problem with that?
>
> > and drugged-out 
> 
> he doesn't take drugs.
> 
> > from the pictures the Turq posted here, Alex Stanley is 
> > doing what he can to proove you wrong.
> > Where have you been, did you not read what that fool 
> > posted here a couple of days ago?
> 
> I believe I did. He said, correctly, that you can tell 
> where a person is, roughly, by their IP address, which 
> you can see in the header info of their post. It has 
> always been that way. What's your point?

Rick,

It occurred to me this morning, as I brewed
myself a coffee and settled in to read FFL,
that there is an analogy that seems to fairly
accurately describe folks here who are either
1) overly paranoid about concealing their 
identity, or 2) overly compulsive about trying
to control or "spin" their image -- what other
people think of them.

That analogy is that they're like people who
are deathly afraid of shadows, but who live in
a room full of light bulbs. One of those light
bulbs goes on, casts a shadow of *them* onto
the wall, and they react in terror. They scream
in fear and yell and blame the light for their
own fear of their own shadow.

In the case of people trying to protect their
anonymity, as I've said before, there are good
reasons to do so. One could be concerned about
reprisals from the TM movement, or be concerned
that being known as a TMer might hurt their 
business. 

There are also bad reasons for anonymity, such
as a *continued* history of abuse of others, 
including actual reprisals and threats of actual
violence against them, performed from under the
cover of an ever-changing series of screen names.
What these people (and there are very few of them
on FFL, and all obviously not quite "all there"
mentally) don't seem to realize is that according
to the Patriot Act, in America threatening some-
one physically over the Internet gets them classed
as a terrorist, and in the Bush era could have
guaranteed them a one-way ticket to Guantanamo. 
Now, under Obama, such threats would probably 
only land them in a local jail.

As for the compulsion to "spin" one's projected 
image, and to repetitively react to any perception 
of them that doesn't match their projected image,
well that's a more interesting phenomenon IMO.

On a spiritual level, it is clearly attachment to
self. The self is what "casts a shadow." The light
is what *creates* the shadow, attempting to pass
through it as the selflessness that light knows it
really is, but finding "substance" -- samskaras, ego,
beliefs, attachments. All of these things cast a 
shadow. And the self doesn't *LIKE* the shadow-
selves that light projects of them, so it reacts
with fear and anger and a compulsion to 1) demonize
the light, and 2) claim that "That shadow isn't me.
Only *I* -- the way *I* present myself -- am me."

The fascinating thing is that none of the ways that
these selves-attached-to-their-selves present them-
selves are "them," either. Only Self is really "them,"
and Self doesn't cast a shadow.

I'm all for anonymity on this forum unless it is used
to hide abuse. I'm less for the compulsive "spinning"
of one's shadow to pretend it isn't one's own. We're
all "light bulbs" on this forum, and we all cast our
own light. And we all cast our own shadows. If we're
wise, we *learn* from those shadows...we don't fear 
them and curse the light that projected them.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 5:25 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional
> advice?
>  
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > No, because I still want to remain anonymous here on FFL.
> >
> 
> I know the identities of many anonymous people here and am good at keeping
> > them secret. 
> 
> Is that so ? At least your "friend", 
> He is my friend.
> the fellow with earpieces looking very gay 
> you have a problem with that?
> and drugged-out 
> he doesn't take drugs.
> from the pictures the Turq posted here, Alex Stanley is doing what he can to
> proove you wrong.
> Where have you been, did you not read what that fool posted here a couple of
> days ago?
> I believe I did. He said, correctly, that you can tell where a person is,
> roughly, by their IP address, which you can see in the header info of their
> post. It has always been that way. What's your point?

There is no IP adress in what I see here, it is your "friend" that has provided 
that for the readers. 
My point is that I thought FFL was anonymous.

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM: Bad meditation attendance = expulsion

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "gullible fool"  wrote:
>
> In the 1990s, the head librarian at the MUM library used to search through 
> internet history to see what websites were being accessed. I  have not been 
> on campus in a while, and so can't comment on what is going on currently.  


You mean they don't have it automated, as most businesses do?

How primitive.

Lawson (who was advised 20 years ago to write a key-logging program for
 businesses and refused due to moral/ethical issues)

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM: Bad meditation attendance = expulsion

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > "We think John Hagelin's burger king crown is ridiculous. TM works for
> > some people, though we are highly curious about new and different
> > practices. But most importantly, we believe in what this university
> > could be and we think the movement/TM organization is ruining it." -
> > Andrew (MUM student being ousted for not meditating enough).
> >
> > from TMFree
> (http://tmfree.blogspot.com/2009/06/wind-of-freedom-at-transcendental.ht\
> ml
>  ml>
> > ):
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > So this article is circulating around student Facebook profiles... I
> > thought this may be of interest to you or possibly even to post. Much
> > of what he says about the student body is true. Many of us this year
> > have just begun to do what we wish without fear of repercussion. Well,
> > the fear is still somewhat there, but we care far less about the
> > motives of the TM organization. In fact, recently the "RC Dept."
> > brought the hammer down on quite a few students telling them they had
> > to leave at the end of the year because of low meditation attendance.
> > I myself am one of these students. Word soon spread to the V.P. and he
> > was dumbfounded that the RC department (in cooperation with an
> > "Academic Committee") was assuming the authority to kick students out.
> > Almost all of these students, including me, also have above a 3.0 GPA.
> > So the V.P. told them to stop kicking people out, but for the most
> > part it was too late because quite a few of the students told to leave
> > had
> > already made plans.
> >
> > We still have respect for what the founders intended with the
> > university, but we are not those same people. Much of what Gabriel
> > Renfrow's letter embodies is the spirit of a majority within the
> > students. We know what is going on. We laugh at the answers we get
> > from our "rounding" instructors.>
> 
> Reason dictates that if you don't like meditation it is best to attend a
> university in which meditation is not the core of the curriculum.
> 


Noticed that did you?

It's not like they weren't upfront about the requirements or something.

It's like attending a US military academy and objecting to the firearms 
proficiency class.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Carradine's Jyotish Chart

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "gullible fool"  wrote:
>
> I know Jupiter can be malefic. My point is, if all the planets are malefic, 
> with the one exception that sometimes Jupiter can be benefic, isn't it 
> misleading to try to base someone's tragedy on this or that malefic? Since 
> the chart is basically nothing but malefics all the time?  
>

*

http://www.aryabhatt.com/vediclessons/lesson10.htm 

"Planets behave as benefics and malefics depending on the houses they own."

Planets could not be all malefic all the time, because people are generally not 
all malefic all the time, and that returning karma, bouncing back from all 
points in the universe to the individual, the source of those karmic pulses, 
life-supporting or life-damaging, is going to be a mixture of good and bad. The 
planets are not responsible for determining one's life; the individual is 
entirely responsible for the good or grief that the planets return to us. The 
English word "grab" is derived the word for Jyotish "planets" in Sanskrit: 
"grahas" -- the planets, plus the moon, sun, and Rahu/Ketu grab us, but it's 
only with our own karma coming back to us.

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM: Bad meditation attendance = expulsion

[gullible fool]

In the 1990s, the head librarian at the MUM library used to search through 
internet history to see what websites were being accessed. I  have not been on 
campus in a while, and so can't comment on what is going on currently.  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 7, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Jun 7, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Vaj wrote:
> >
> >> "We think John Hagelin's burger king crown is ridiculous. TM works  
> >> for some people, though we are highly curious about new and  
> >> different practices. But most importantly, we believe in what this  
> >> university could be and we think the movement/TM organization is  
> >> ruining it." -Andrew (MUM student being ousted for not meditating  
> >> enough).
> >
> > The comments at the bottom are easily
> > the most interesting part, IMO.
> 
> 
> Thanks, a lot were new, I would have missed them. It highlights an  
> aspect of MUM I hadn't thought of: that of latter day folks coming  
> into an already existing subculture and scene for which they are  
> effectively outsiders, not privvy to the in and outs, the dogmas, the  
> secrets and the scandals, the TB-isms and the censorship. It has to be  
> an odd experience for these poor students--by one persons account the  
> majority (emphases mine):
> 
> "It is a great place to accomplish personal growth and individual  
> advancement. There are however issues that inhibit that growth and  
> advancement in a majority of the student population. Unfortunately the  
> credibility of your friend in the registrars office is tainted by the  
> strange blanket of secrecy surrounding the actual "business" of the  
> "movement" itself."
> 
> Other comments are equally disturbing.
> 
> "...thanks for the comments, that inside information is incredibly  
> welcome and unseen here at MUM. I'm not sure if everyone is aware of  
> not only the internet censorship, but also censorship of artwork here,  
> but I haven't experienced this much oppression since being in China.
> 
> Sadly I must say, that MUM is the first place that I didn't feel  
> welcome. Everywhere I went from Indonesia, Thailand and anywhere in  
> between I was welcomed with open arms and a loving heart. Accepted for  
> my beliefs, my joy, and my Self. Here the opposite seems to occur,  
> where your beliefs are "less than" or the diluted and essentially  
> manufactured opinion of the Veda through Mahesh is the ultimate  
> knowledge.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Within the last semester about 30% of the incoming class left. 10%  
> left before SCI finished. Many other students will not be returning  
> next semester, and even more will leave after the following spring.
> 
> Again, the management/faculty of the university seems to be a bit  
> disconnected from the reality of it all."
> 
> Kudos to the brave students who risk their very degrees--and huge  
> monetary investments--to have their voices heard.
> 
> I wonder what form the internet censorship takes?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Carradine's Jyotish Chart

[gullible fool]

I know Jupiter can be malefic. My point is, if all the planets are malefic, 
with the one exception that sometimes Jupiter can be benefic, isn't it 
misleading to try to base someone's tragedy on this or that malefic? Since the 
chart is basically nothing but malefics all the time?  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> It all depends what the birth sign is and what house the planets are located. 
>  Even Jupiter can bring bad results such as obesity and grand financial 
> schemes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "gullible fool"  wrote:
> >
> > "Saturn and Rahu are malefic planets and are located in the 8th house of 
> > secret affairs and death."
> > 
> > Aren't all the planets malefic, except for Jupiter, which can be either?
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To All:
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks Vaj for the information.  Using the birth time provided, Mr. 
> > > > Carradine was born under the sign of Aquarius or Kumbha, and the Moon 
> > > > was in the nakshatra of Chitra.
> > > > 
> > > > At this birth sign, we can see the reason why he had trouble 
> > > > maintaining his marriage.  Mars is in the 8th house which causes an 
> > > > affliction termed as kujadosha.  This affliction causes conflicts in 
> > > > marriage and divorces.
> > > > 
> > > > The same Mars is considered as an apsara karaka signifying that he has 
> > > > penchant for beautiful women, resulting in secret affairs and 
> > > > dalliances.
> > > > 
> > > > The nature of his death is not readily apparent from the rashi chart.  
> > > > However, the circumstances of his death are shown more clearly from the 
> > > > navamsha chart.  From that chart, Saturn and Rahu are in conjunction in 
> > > > the 8th house from the Moon.  Saturn and Rahu are malefic planets and 
> > > > are located in the 8th house of secret affairs and death.
> > > > 
> > > > Saturn is further debilitated showing that his body has already 
> > > > weakened due to his age.  This planet is the karaka (significator) for 
> > > > air or lack of it.  When mixed with the influence of Rahu, the results 
> > > > are lethal.
> > > > 
> > > > Rahu is represented in Hindu myth as a bodyless demon who pretended to 
> > > > be a demigod.  In the navamsha chart, Rahu is the lord of the 11th 
> > > > house of desire which is enducing Saturn to indulge in strange sexual 
> > > > gratifications.
> > > > 
> > > > With the influence of Rahu's sexual preferences, he indulged in getting 
> > > > autoerotic pleasures through asphyxiation.
> > > > 
> > > > JR
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I already posted it in the files section, but I accidentally used the 
> > > > >  
> > > > > Yukteshwar ayanamsha. That's the birth data built into Goravani for  
> > > > > Grasshopper.
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Jun 6, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Did you look here?
> > > > > > http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Main_Page
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Carradine's Jyotish Chart

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "John"  wrote:
> > At this birth sign, we can see the reason why he had trouble
maintaining his marriage.  Mars is in the 8th house which causes an
affliction termed as kujadosha.  This affliction causes conflicts in
marriage and divorces.
> >


***

Mars in the seventh house is more an indicator of marital discord --
Lord Rama famously had Mars in the 7th: "50-51. Mars in the 7th House
will make one go devoid of wife ( Lord Shri Rama also had Mars in 7th
and we know the Ramayana, he is separated form his wife Sita devi for
many many years and then again when the Demon King Ravana is killed and
everything becomes peaceful, he sends his wife away suspecting her
chastity, so anyway they remain separated).  http://tinyurl.com/l7lb9n



Mars in the 8th house would more likely mean the death of the spouse.
Mars in the 8th is an indicator of violent or accidental death, so this
would certainly fit Kung Fu David:

"Mars in the 7th house - There will be clash and unhappiness in married
life and this is perhaps the worst of all Kuja Doshas - a direct hit.
Mars is a planet of abuse and violation and Mars being in 7th house very
possibly can give violation in married life. In a female chart it might
give physical or excessive mental torture from the husband. There will
be also fight for the dominating power, and there might be lack of
harmony in the sexual issues. The sexual and emotional needs of the
partners might not match or might have a great difference. Mars might
give over sexual desire / sickly sexual desire to the native or to his
spouse and create mess in marital life for this issue. It might give a
short tempered spouse.

Mars in the 8th house - The 8th house rules marital tie, from the 8th
house we see the possibility of death of the spouse. Mars is the planet
of accident, operation, assault from weapons and bleeding etc. - all of
the things are ruled by 8th house. So being in the 8th house, Mars will
be very eager to develop these tendencies. He might cause death of
spouse, possibly through accident, operation or any other mishaps. Thus
it can indicate an early death of the spouse. 8th house is also a house
of hidden issues / immoral acts and Mars here can make the native /
spouse be involved in hidden and sinful acts. When they come forward,
storm blows in married life.
http://www.jyotish-remedies.com/articles/kuja_dosha_manglik.htm

[FairfieldLife] 'Right-Wing Radio Begins Screening All Call In.s'

[Robert]

All of the 'Reich-Wing Radio Shows'...
Have begun a brain-washing tradition...
Of instituting a 20 Second Delay...
So, they can keep their callers, fascist.

In that way, they can screen all calls,
Which they feel would be to their opposition.

Kind of Pussy-Whipped, 
Don't ya thunk?

R.Gimbel  Madison, WI


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM: Bad meditation attendance = expulsion

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Vaj  wrote:
>
> "We think John Hagelin's burger king crown is ridiculous. TM works for
> some people, though we are highly curious about new and different
> practices. But most importantly, we believe in what this university
> could be and we think the movement/TM organization is ruining it." -
> Andrew (MUM student being ousted for not meditating enough).
>
> from TMFree
(http://tmfree.blogspot.com/2009/06/wind-of-freedom-at-transcendental.ht\
ml

> ):
>
> Hi John,
>
> So this article is circulating around student Facebook profiles... I
> thought this may be of interest to you or possibly even to post. Much
> of what he says about the student body is true. Many of us this year
> have just begun to do what we wish without fear of repercussion. Well,
> the fear is still somewhat there, but we care far less about the
> motives of the TM organization. In fact, recently the "RC Dept."
> brought the hammer down on quite a few students telling them they had
> to leave at the end of the year because of low meditation attendance.
> I myself am one of these students. Word soon spread to the V.P. and he
> was dumbfounded that the RC department (in cooperation with an
> "Academic Committee") was assuming the authority to kick students out.
> Almost all of these students, including me, also have above a 3.0 GPA.
> So the V.P. told them to stop kicking people out, but for the most
> part it was too late because quite a few of the students told to leave
> had
> already made plans.
>
> We still have respect for what the founders intended with the
> university, but we are not those same people. Much of what Gabriel
> Renfrow's letter embodies is the spirit of a majority within the
> students. We know what is going on. We laugh at the answers we get
> from our "rounding" instructors.>

Reason dictates that if you don't like meditation it is best to attend a
university in which meditation is not the core of the curriculum.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > >
> > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> > > On Behalf Of Robert
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 3:50 PM
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
> > >  
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > >  , "raunchydog" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Finally, Secretary Clinton will be interviewed on a Sunday TV show. This
> > > Sunday, June 7, she'll appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. 
> > > It'll
> > > be her first Sunday show interview as secretary of state and her first
> > > Sunday show since she ended her presidential campaign almost exactly a 
> > > year
> > > ago.
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/05/secretary_clinton_on_sunda
> > > y_tv_finally
> > > >
> > > Hillary being interview by Steph and fetch it...
> > > Is like Cheney being interview by Shawn Hannity...
> > > No real hard questions, there...
> > > It wasn't meant to be a hardball interview. She did most of the talking.
> > > Anyone know why this was her first Sunday morning interview since the
> > > campaign?
> > >
> > Yes, because she is going with the flow... 
>  (snip)
> Besides, her first love is 'French Furniture circa 18th century'...
> Just a little secret regarding our lovely Queen...
> Give her something 'French, from the 18th century'...
> And, She Will Be Your Friend for Life...
> 
> Now, take your place at the Guillotine, Madame? he feebly mumbled to himself..
> R.G.
>

Misogyny much, Robert? You think it's funny, don't you? The thought of Hillary 
at the Guillotine is just a hoot, isn't it? I don't fault you for making such a 
stupid comment. You were trained well during the primary to hate Hillary. Your 
comment is simply an example of the many misogynistic, violent slams on Hillary 
I saw during the primary. Dumbass.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert"  wrote:
>
>  (snip)
> > On the subject of emptysuit:
> 
> You must be referring to 'The Empty Pants Suit'...
> I haven't heard The Secretary of State, speak up on these positions...
> She is in charge, of most of what you state here...

Wrong Robert, Obama is in charge. Here's a little lesson on the fundamentals of 
political viability: Every cabinet member, every special envoy, every; 
presidential appointee, serves at the pleasure of the president, and supports 
the president's policies in public or leaves office. 

> Why don't you write your friend, Hillary, and asked her, what's up with these 
> issues, that you so specifically mention, here...
> R.G.
> 

Why don't you write your friend Obama and ask why he has gone back on his 
promises? 

> > 
> > Obama defends "Prolonged Detention" instead of Habeas Corpus
> > Obama wants to imprison people for pre-crime:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jshogbjtYs&feature=related
> > 

Re: Prolonged Detention: During the primary both Hillary and Obama said they 
would restore Habeas Corpus. Obama's reversal of this position is his decision 
alone. Hillary has not said whether she agrees of disagrees with him on this 
issue. I suspect privately she disagrees but it is not her place to contradict 
Obama in public.

> > Suppression of torture photos instead of promise of transparency
> > Obama wants to conceal evidence of war crimes 
> > http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/05/photos/index.html
> > 

Re: Suppression of torture photos: Obama has stated in public his opposition to 
releasing the torture photos and reluctance to pursuing prosecutions of the 
Bush administration for War Crimes. Again, Hillary has not said whether she 
agrees of disagrees with him on this issue. I suspect privately she disagrees.

> > "President Obama has appointed Alexia Kelley, executive director of 
> > Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG), to head the Center for 
> > Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Department of Health and 
> > Human Services. ... Kelley has made clear that she seeks instead to reduce 
> > access to abortion. That is an extremely disturbing development, especially 
> > coming this week in the wake of George Tiller's assassination." 
> > http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=3072
> > 

Re appointment of Alexia Kelley: Hillary has not said whether she agrees of 
disagrees with Obama on this issue, but I can assure you that this one 
appointment you would never have seen if Hillary were president.

> > Forget about FISA. Forget about the Fourth Amendment that prohibits 
> > unreasonable searches and seizures
> > http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/1197
> > 

Re FISA: Just for the record, during the primary, Obama voted in favor of FISA 
when he was in the Senate and Hillary voted against it. For me, it was an 
indication of his willingness to backpedal on issues important to the left. 
Further, the Senate didn't even need his vote to pass the FISA bill. 

> > On the "Journal", Scahill says how the war policies of Barack Obama are no 
> > different or radical from that of the George Bush Administration. The Obama 
> > Government has just started following the old government policies regarding 
> > the Middle East war situation. The statistics in those nations show that at 
> > present, over two fifty thousand contractors are battling it out in Iraq 
> > and Afghanistan. It accounts for almost about fifty percent of the total US 
> > force.
> > http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world/jeremy-scahill-on-bill-moyers-journal_100201638.html
> > 

Jeremy Scahill was the journalist who exposed the scandalous use of  
mercenaries in Iraq by the Bush administration. During the primary, Scahill was 
a rabid Obama supporter. I doubt he is now. 

I never supported Obama so I'm not as disappointed in him as you ought to be, 
Robert.  

> > Obama's media guys are good at re-framing the language of Bush polices but 
> > it's still Bush Lite. His emptysuit blows which ever way the wind blows as 
> > he does the bidding of corporations.
> > 
> > Sorry, Rick, I just checked in with myself and there are no irrational 
> > female driven emotions to be found. Just the facts.
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Special full Moon Messages from the Pleiadians (Jupiter, Neptune, Chiron)

[fflmod]

 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/212859


"Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only 
love." 
 
- Amma  

--- On Sun, 6/7/09, TurquoiseB  wrote:


From: TurquoiseB 
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Special full Moon Messages from the Pleiadians 
(Jupiter, Neptune, Chiron)
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 3:10 AM











Oh, I just knew there was a reason to stick around...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: ls...@... [mailto:ls...@...] 
> Subject: Special full Moon Messages from the Pleiadian's (Jupiter, Neptune, 
> Chiron)
> 
> Dear clients and spiritual family of Astrological Varieties,

Especially clients.

> It is a pleasure to bring to you full Moon messages from the
> Pleiadian’s on this full Moon in Sagittarius night. This is 
> a taste of what will be the format in my new e-book “Full 
> Moon Messages from the Pleiadian’s” coming out on 
> September 12, 2009.

But just a taste. The book is best served with a 
light, fruity white wine. Special discounts will
be given to anyone who can pronounce the
parts of the book title that are in Pleiadian:
’s”

> Lou: What happened to the mass landing plans that UFO 
> authors talked about like Sister Tuella’s book “Project: 
> World Evacuation” and Sheldon Nidle/Virgina Essene in 
> regards to the Photon Belt?
> 
> Pleiadian’s: The male energy took over during those points 
> of time in both big government and Religion so it did not allow 
> certain light wave patterns to make the connections necessary 
> for our higher technologies to work. YOU CANNOT 
> MOVE IN AND OUT OF TIME OR VIBRATIONS 
> WHEN THE GODDESS ENERGY IS LOW.

It's getting tougher for Lou to spring a boner, 
too. He suspects that's because of all the "male 
energy" going around.

> Lou: Then when is the manifestation?
> 
> The Pleiadian’s: When Uranus moves into Aries in March 
> of 2011 we will start to show ourselves much more to prepare 
> for the beginning of “ THE PREPERATION PHASE” to 
> fully start when Neptune moves into it’s own sign of 
> Pisces in February of 2012. 

And if it doesn't happen then, as it hasn't happened
in the past, Lou will just edit his web page to make it
look as if he never predicted it. THAT is a prediction
you can count on.

> Lou: It has been so long since the volunteers have been 
> working to help bring balance. Why do we have to keep 
> waiting? I want to go home. I don’t enjoy it here anymore.
> 
> The Pleiadian’s: We know. Many volunteers have been 
> frustrated over the delay of plans and many have given up...
> . . .
> We are working with the Ashtar Command as well as the 
> Jerusalem Command to speed things up now. 

A rare photo of the Ashtar Command. I'm not 
sure which one is Lou:



> Lou: Thank you for your time and answering these questions 
> tonight.
> 
> The Pleiadian’s: You are welcome Lou. As always we enjoy 
> communicating through one of our family members. It is an 
> honor to serve the light. 

And help him sell his book... 








  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[seekliberation]

Being married to Bill is a double edged sword.  Perhaps he did lose the 
election for her.  But if he weren't former president, would she have been 
nearly as popular?  I think her success is similar to GW's success having a 
father as a former President.  I never knew who Hillary was until 1992 when 
Bill Clinton entered the spotlight.  I don't mean to underestimate Hillary's 
ambition, but I doubt she would've gone as far as she did without his initial 
popularity to jumpstart their collective political ambitions.


> The only one I can think of on the left, who is a macho sexist, is her hubby, 
> Bill, who did 'Blow the Election for Her'...big time!
> If you want to blame someone 'On the Left' for costing Hillary the election, 
> blame Billy Boy!
> R.G.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Here are the Results of the Poll

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> Here are the results linked to below:
> 
> 
> 
> Government Bailouts...
> Good for America?
> 
> 
> Here are the results!
> 
> The Total Number of people who voted in this poll: 414454



It's clearly a worthless, unscientific poll likely participated in only by the 
fringe who subscribe to the wingnut's newsletter.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Robert]

 (snip)
> On the subject of emptysuit:

You must be referring to 'The Empty Pants Suit'...
I haven't heard The Secretary of State, speak up on these positions...
She is in charge, of most of what you state here...
Why don't you write your friend, Hillary, and asked her, what's up with these 
issues, that you so specifically mention, here...
R.G.


> 
> Obama defends "Prolonged Detention" instead of Habeas Corpus
> Obama wants to imprison people for pre-crime:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jshogbjtYs&feature=related
> 
> Suppression of torture photos instead of promise of transparency
> Obama wants to conceal evidence of war crimes 
> http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/05/photos/index.html
> 
> "President Obama has appointed Alexia Kelley, executive director of Catholics 
> in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG), to head the Center for Faith-Based 
> and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services. 
> ... Kelley has made clear that she seeks instead to reduce access to 
> abortion. That is an extremely disturbing development, especially coming this 
> week in the wake of George Tiller's assassination." 
> http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=3072
> 
> Forget about FISA. Forget about the Fourth Amendment that prohibits 
> unreasonable searches and seizures
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/1197
> 
> On the "Journal", Scahill says how the war policies of Barack Obama are no 
> different or radical from that of the George Bush Administration. The Obama 
> Government has just started following the old government policies regarding 
> the Middle East war situation. The statistics in those nations show that at 
> present, over two fifty thousand contractors are battling it out in Iraq and 
> Afghanistan. It accounts for almost about fifty percent of the total US force.
> http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world/jeremy-scahill-on-bill-moyers-journal_100201638.html
> 
> Obama's media guys are good at re-framing the language of Bush polices but 
> it's still Bush Lite. His emptysuit blows which ever way the wind blows as he 
> does the bidding of corporations.
> 
> Sorry, Rick, I just checked in with myself and there are no irrational female 
> driven emotions to be found. Just the facts.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> 
> [I wrote:]
> > > And with Palin, we saw it coming
> > > almost *exclusively* from the left.
> >
> > Palin was an idiot. She had no business running for vice
> > president, and McCain was a fool to choose her. If she
> > had been a man with the same capabilities, then I'd be
> > saying "he" was an idiot and McCain was a fool to choose
> > him.
> 
> Sure. But that's the point--she had so many negatives
> politically, she wouldn't have been competitive if she
> had been a man. So why did the left (including the usual
> suspects here) feel the need to use sexism against her?
> Criticism of her abilities and lack of experience should
> have been more than enough.
>
When you say, 'The Left', who do you mean on the left?
Who exactly was the big macho sexist, that cost Hillary the election?
The only one I can think of on the left, who is a macho sexist, is her hubby, 
Bill, who did 'Blow the Election for Her'...big time!
If you want to blame someone 'On the Left' for costing Hillary the election, 
blame Billy Boy!
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Jun 06 00:00:00 2009
End Date (UTC): Sat Jun 13 00:00:00 2009
234 messages as of (UTC) Mon Jun 08 00:10:27 2009

44 authfriend 
29 TurquoiseB 
23 shempmcgurk 
20 Rick Archer 
16 Robert 
14 off_world_beings 
10 Duveyoung 
 7 WillyTex 
 7 Bhairitu 
 7 "do.rflex" 
 6 Sal Sunshine 
 5 nablusoss1008 
 5 geezerfreak 
 4 ruthsimplicity 
 4 cardemaister 
 4 John 
 3 raunchydog 
 3 lurkernomore20002000 
 3 Vaj 
 3 Richard M 
 2 sparaig 
 2 dhamiltony2k5 
 2 bob_brigante 
 2 It's just a ride 
 1 scienceofabundance 
 1 nelson lafrancis 
 1 gullible fool 
 1 ffl...@yahoo.com
 1 azgrey 
 1 Peter 
 1 Nelson 
 1 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 1 "min.pige" 

Posters: 33
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] MUM: Bad meditation attendance = expulsion

[Vaj]

On Jun 7, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote:




On Jun 7, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Vaj wrote:

"We think John Hagelin's burger king crown is ridiculous. TM works  
for some people, though we are highly curious about new and  
different practices. But most importantly, we believe in what this  
university could be and we think the movement/TM organization is  
ruining it." -Andrew (MUM student being ousted for not meditating  
enough).


The comments at the bottom are easily
the most interesting part, IMO.



Thanks, a lot were new, I would have missed them. It highlights an  
aspect of MUM I hadn't thought of: that of latter day folks coming  
into an already existing subculture and scene for which they are  
effectively outsiders, not privvy to the in and outs, the dogmas, the  
secrets and the scandals, the TB-isms and the censorship. It has to be  
an odd experience for these poor students--by one persons account the  
majority (emphases mine):


"It is a great place to accomplish personal growth and individual  
advancement. There are however issues that inhibit that growth and  
advancement in a majority of the student population. Unfortunately the  
credibility of your friend in the registrars office is tainted by the  
strange blanket of secrecy surrounding the actual "business" of the  
"movement" itself."


Other comments are equally disturbing.

"...thanks for the comments, that inside information is incredibly  
welcome and unseen here at MUM. I'm not sure if everyone is aware of  
not only the internet censorship, but also censorship of artwork here,  
but I haven't experienced this much oppression since being in China.


Sadly I must say, that MUM is the first place that I didn't feel  
welcome. Everywhere I went from Indonesia, Thailand and anywhere in  
between I was welcomed with open arms and a loving heart. Accepted for  
my beliefs, my joy, and my Self. Here the opposite seems to occur,  
where your beliefs are "less than" or the diluted and essentially  
manufactured opinion of the Veda through Mahesh is the ultimate  
knowledge.


(...)

Within the last semester about 30% of the incoming class left. 10%  
left before SCI finished. Many other students will not be returning  
next semester, and even more will leave after the following spring.


Again, the management/faculty of the university seems to be a bit  
disconnected from the reality of it all."


Kudos to the brave students who risk their very degrees--and huge  
monetary investments--to have their voices heard.


I wonder what form the internet censorship takes?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:

> I'm not as politically insightful or articulate as you,
> so it puzzles me how you can perceive Obama as an empty
> suit when just about everyone else except right-wingers
> is rather impressed with how well he's handling the huge
> pile on his plate. That's why I suspect that emotions
> skew your perception.

Wow. I was so focused on the sexism-vs.-racism aspect
of your post, I missed this entirely until Raunchy
quoted it again just now.

WRONGAROONIE, Rick. There are a significant number of
people on the left (who supported Obama) who are not
only not impressed, but deeply disappointed and
distressed by a lot of what Obama is doing. (Ironically
but not surprisingly, some of what most upsets the left
has pleased the right.)

Raunchy gave you some representative links, but I just
wanted to back her up on this, and add that many on
the left are *extremely* unhappy with what he's doing
on the economy.

There's no question that virtually all lefties prefer
having Obama in office to Bush (or McCain). Even Bush-
lite is better than the full Bush. But don't kid
yourself that "just about everyone else except right-
wingers" is happy with him, or that his only critics
on the left are disgruntled Hillary supporters. It's
just not the case.

Here's another recent column to add to the pile:

Obama's trail of broken promises

The prophet of hope now doesn't even bother with
explanations when he reneges on his campaign pledges.

By David Sirota

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/06/sirota/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Here are the Results of the Poll

[shempmcgurk]

Here are the results linked to below:



Government Bailouts...
Good for America?


Here are the results!

The Total Number of people who voted in this poll: 414454
1) Who is most to blame for America's current economic crisis?   
68% voted: Clinton Administration and the Democrats in Congress
12% voted: The Bush Administration
3% voted: Wall Street
13% voted: Banks and sub-prime lenders
2% voted: Real estate and mortgage professionals
0% voted: Investors
1% voted: Home buyers   2) Do you agree government bailouts are the
answer to America's financial crisis?7% voted: Yes
88% voted: No
5% voted: Undecided   3) Do you believe the American taxpayers should
have to foot the bill for our financial systems mistakes?7% voted:
Yes, we have to or we'll end up in a prolonged recession or worse a
depression.
22% voted: No, America is too far in debt already.
69% voted: Absolutely not, the American people should never be
responsible for bailing out the private sector.
2% voted: Undecided   4) Do you believe the government bailouts will
ultimately rescue our country's financial system?8% voted: Yes
86% voted: No
6% voted: Undecided  5) Do you believe Barack Obama was the best choice
to handle the country's future economic policy?12% voted: Yes
85% voted: No
3% voted: Undecided
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nelson lafrancis
 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> - Forwarded Message 
> From: Bob Livingston elet...@...
> To: nelsonriddle2...@...
> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2009 9:12:32 PM
> Subject: Here are the Results of the Poll
>
> Personal Liberty Alerts
>
>
>
> Thank you for casting your vote in our "Government Bailouts…
Good for America?" poll. Your subscription to Liberty Alerts from
PersonalLiberty.com has been received.
> Click Here for the results of the poll
> Check your inbox for my urgent Post-Election Wealth Alert…
"Money," The Greatest Hoax on Earth
>
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE
> You are receiving this email because you indicated an interest in
receiving special updates and offers from Personal Liberty
Alerts™. We hope you'll find these updates interesting and
informative. But if you'd rather not receive them, click here. You will
be removed from our database within 48 hours. Remember, your personal
information will never be rented or sold and you may unsubscribe at any
time.
>

[FairfieldLife] Fw: Here are the Results of the Poll

[nelson lafrancis]

- Forwarded Message 
From: Bob Livingston 
To: nelsonriddle2...@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2009 9:12:32 PM
Subject: Here are the Results of the Poll

Personal Liberty Alerts 
  


Thank   you for casting your vote in our "Government Bailouts… Good for 
America?" poll.  Your subscription to Liberty Alerts from PersonalLiberty.com 
has been received.  
Click Here for the results of the poll
Check your inbox for my urgent   Post-Election Wealth Alert… "Money," The 
Greatest Hoax on Earth  
 

TO UNSUBSCRIBE
You are receiving this email because you indicated an interest in receiving 
special updates and offers from Personal Liberty Alerts™. We hope you'll find 
these updates interesting and informative. But if you'd rather not receive 
them, click here. You will be  removed from our database within 48 hours. 
Remember, your personal information will never be rented or sold and you may 
unsubscribe at any time.  


  

Re: [FairfieldLife] MUM: Bad meditation attendance = expulsion

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 7, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Vaj wrote:

"We think John Hagelin's burger king crown is ridiculous. TM works  
for some people, though we are highly curious about new and  
different practices. But most importantly, we believe in what this  
university could be and we think the movement/TM organization is  
ruining it." -Andrew (MUM student being ousted for not meditating  
enough).


The comments at the bottom are easily
the most interesting part, IMO.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Behalf Of authfriend
> > > > 
> > > > "Absolutely," Clinton replied. "And, you know, the
> > > > president, in his public actions and demeanor, and
> > > > certainly in private with me and with the national
> > > > security team, has demonstrated just the kind of
> > > > weaknesses I was worried about.
> > > > 
> > > > "He's not well informed, and he vacillates all over
> > > > the place. I think he's doing a barely mediocre job.
> > > > And it's a major drag to serve with him," the former
> > > > secretary of state declared.
> > > 
> > > Yuk, yuk. Did you watch the interview, Judy? Obviously 
> > > that is not Hillary's opinion. it's quite apparent that 
> > > her private feelings and public statements are quite 
> > > in sync.
> > 
> > I think what Judy is trying to imply with her
> > joke is that if Hillary really *did* feel that
> > way, she would not say so in public, because
> > that would cost her her job. So she'd lie.
> > 
> > And that's the kind of honest politician Judy
> > admires.  :-)
> >
> Honest politician?  would that be a contradiction in terms?
>
 
"An Honest Politician is one who stays bought." --R.A. Heinlein


L

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of raunchydog
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 2:16 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
> 
> My opinion that Obama is an emptysuit has nothing to do with Hillary's
> private or public opinion of him. Does anyone know what anyone REALLY
> thinks? What Hillary thinks of Obama`s polices at any point in time depends
> on the issues at hand. What does it matter anyway? Whether Hillary agrees or
> disagrees with Obama, she clearly understands her role as SOS and the
> importance of supporting his policies in the interest of national security.
> Hillary takes her job seriously and has a strong sense of patriotic duty
> that impels her to her best for Obama and for our country. 
> 
> Once again, Rick, I don't care that Hillary lost. I care how she lost. The
> DNC and Obama's complicity in allowing blatant sexism to run wild in the
> primary will always be a sore spot for me whether it is for Hillary or not. 
> OK, that's pretty clear, and the points in the article below are well put,
> and you've posted examples of indisputable sexism against Hillary but please
> remind me, how did Obama "complicitly allow" sexism against Hillary? Should
> he have regularly chastised the bloggers during the campaign? I received a
> lot of racist stuff during the campaign and still do. Doctored photos of the
> White House lawn turned into a watermelon patch, and stuff like that. Why is
> Hillary complicitly allowing people to distribute these things? Why did Bill
> belittle Obama's win in North (South?) Carolina by comparing it with Jesse
> Jackson's? I'm not as politically insightful or articulate as you, so it
> puzzles me how you can perceive Obama as an empty suit when just about
> everyone else except right-wingers is rather impressed with how well he's
> handling the huge pile on his plate. That's why I suspect that emotions skew
> your perception. 
> 

On the subject of emptysuit:

Obama defends "Prolonged Detention" instead of Habeas Corpus
Obama wants to imprison people for pre-crime:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jshogbjtYs&feature=related

Suppression of torture photos instead of promise of transparency
Obama wants to conceal evidence of war crimes 
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/05/photos/index.html

"President Obama has appointed Alexia Kelley, executive director of Catholics 
in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG), to head the Center for Faith-Based and 
Neighborhood Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services. ... 
Kelley has made clear that she seeks instead to reduce access to abortion. That 
is an extremely disturbing development, especially coming this week in the wake 
of George Tiller's assassination." 
http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=3072

Forget about FISA. Forget about the Fourth Amendment that prohibits 
unreasonable searches and seizures
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/1197

On the "Journal", Scahill says how the war policies of Barack Obama are no 
different or radical from that of the George Bush Administration. The Obama 
Government has just started following the old government policies regarding the 
Middle East war situation. The statistics in those nations show that at 
present, over two fifty thousand contractors are battling it out in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. It accounts for almost about fifty percent of the total US force.
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world/jeremy-scahill-on-bill-moyers-journal_100201638.html

Obama's media guys are good at re-framing the language of Bush polices but it's 
still Bush Lite. His emptysuit blows which ever way the wind blows as he does 
the bidding of corporations.

Sorry, Rick, I just checked in with myself and there are no irrational female 
driven emotions to be found. Just the facts.   

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 5:25 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional
advice?
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:

> 
> No, because I still want to remain anonymous here on FFL.
>

I know the identities of many anonymous people here and am good at keeping
> them secret. 

Is that so ? At least your "friend", 
He is my friend.
the fellow with earpieces looking very gay 
you have a problem with that?
and drugged-out 
he doesn't take drugs.
from the pictures the Turq posted here, Alex Stanley is doing what he can to
proove you wrong.
Where have you been, did you not read what that fool posted here a couple of
days ago?
I believe I did. He said, correctly, that you can tell where a person is,
roughly, by their IP address, which you can see in the header info of their
post. It has always been that way. What's your point?
 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 5:39 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:

[I wrote:]
> > And with Palin, we saw it coming
> > almost *exclusively* from the left.
>
> Palin was an idiot. She had no business running for vice
> president, and McCain was a fool to choose her. If she
> had been a man with the same capabilities, then I'd be
> saying "he" was an idiot and McCain was a fool to choose
> him.

Sure. But that's the point--she had so many negatives
politically, she wouldn't have been competitive if she
had been a man. So why did the left (including the usual
suspects here) feel the need to use sexism against her?
Criticism of her abilities and lack of experience should
have been more than enough.
Point well taken.
 

[FairfieldLife] Ali G on Drugs

[do.rflex]

British PSA

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DduAbLpZDHg

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:

[I wrote:]
> > And with Palin, we saw it coming
> > almost *exclusively* from the left.
>
> Palin was an idiot. She had no business running for vice
> president, and McCain was a fool to choose her. If she
> had been a man with the same capabilities, then I'd be
> saying "he" was an idiot and McCain was a fool to choose
> him.

Sure. But that's the point--she had so many negatives
politically, she wouldn't have been competitive if she
had been a man. So why did the left (including the usual
suspects here) feel the need to use sexism against her?
Criticism of her abilities and lack of experience should
have been more than enough.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:

> 
> No, because I still want to remain anonymous here on FFL.
>

I know the identities of many anonymous people here and am good at keeping
> them secret. 

Is that so ?  At least your "friend", the fellow with earpieces looking very 
gay and drugged-out from the pictures the Turq posted here, Alex Stanley is 
doing what he can to proove you wrong.
Where have you been, did you not read what that fool posted here a couple of 
days ago ?

[FairfieldLife] 'King of Arabia says: Be LIke RAmA of the Jungle!'

[Robert]

RIYADH (Reuters) - King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has urged U.S. President 
Barack Obama to impose a solution on the festering Arab-Israeli conflict if 
necessary, a Saudi newspaper said on Sunday.
Saudi Arabia and other Arab states want Obama to get tough with Israeli Prime 
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has balked at Palestinian statehood and defied 
U.S. calls to halt the expansion of Jewish settlements.
King Abdullah told Obama during his visit to Riyadh last week that Arab 
patience was wearing thin and that a solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict 
would be the "magic key" to all issues in the region, al-Hayat said, quoting 
what it called informed sources.
"We want from you a serious participation to solve the Palestinian issue and 
impose the solution if necessary," the Saudi monarch told Obama, according to 
the paper, which is owned by a nephew of the monarch. It did not elaborate.
Saudi Arabia was the driving force behind an Arab peace initiative first put 
forward by Arab states in 2002 offering Israel recognition in return for 
withdrawal from Arab land occupied in 1967 and a Palestinian state.
Israel has reacted coolly to the offer, renewed in 2007, saying a return of 
Palestinian refugees to areas now inside Israel would destroy the Jewish 
character of the state.
"We (Arabs) want to devote our time ... to build a generation capable of 
confronting the future with science and work," King Abdullah said, according to 
al-Hayat.
Saudi Arabia believes the collapse of Middle East peacemaking has given Iran a 
chance to expand its regional influence through Sunni Islamist groups such as 
the Palestinian Hamas, as well as its Shi'ite traditional Hezbollah allies in 
Lebanon. 


  

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 4:38 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
 
Racism is no longer, thank goodness, publicly
acceptable in this society. But sexism still is. And
unlike racism, sexism is not primarily the province
of the right wing. That was the real shocker, that
so-called progressives, who are supposed to be for
women's rights, hadn't the slightest problem
indulging in it. 
You're probably right, which would mean that sexism is a deeper-seated
prejudice, such that people are less aware of it in themselves, and thus in
their environment. I confess to having to have it pointed out to me, and
still needing to make an effort to see it. I didn't much like Hillary as
candidate, because I didn't like her vibe, but I'm a poor judge of
character. After all, I canvassed for Edwards.
And with Palin, we saw it coming
almost *exclusively* from the left.
Palin was an idiot. She had no business running for vice president, and
McCain was a fool to choose her. If she had been a man with the same
capabilities, then I'd be saying "he" was an idiot and McCain was a fool to
choose him.
 

[FairfieldLife] MUM: Bad meditation attendance = expulsion

[Vaj]

"We think John Hagelin's burger king crown is ridiculous. TM works for some people, though we are highly curious about new and different practices. But most importantly, we believe in what this university could be and we think the movement/TM organization is ruining it." -Andrew (MUM student being ousted for not meditating enough).from TMFree (http://tmfree.blogspot.com/2009/06/wind-of-freedom-at-transcendental.html):Hi John,So this article is circulating around student Facebook profiles... I thought this may be of interest to you or possibly even to post. Much of what he says about the student body is true. Many of us this year have just begun to do what we wish without fear of repercussion. Well, the fear is still somewhat there, but we care far less about the motives of the TM organization. In fact, recently the "RC Dept." brought the hammer down on quite a few students telling them they had to leave at the end of the year because of low meditation attendance. I myself am one of these students. Word soon spread to the V.P. and he was dumbfounded that the RC department (in cooperation with an "Academic Committee") was assuming the authority to kick students out. Almost all of these students, including me, also have above a 3.0 GPA. So the V.P. told them to stop kicking people out, but for the most part it was too late because quite a few of the students told to leave hadalready made plans.We still have respect for what the founders intended with the university, but we are not those same people. Much of what Gabriel Renfrow's letter embodies is the spirit of a majority within the students. We know what is going on. We laugh at the answers we get from our "rounding" instructors. We think John Hagelin's burger king crown is ridiculous. TM works for some people, though we are highly curious about new and different practices. But most importantly, we believe in what this university could be and we think the movement/TM organization is ruining it.Here is the link to the blog post my friend and student recently made:http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=91000722430&h=Bwd3D&u=_U11O&ref=nfFeel free to post whatever you'd like :-)All the Best,AndrewRandEm Hero arcatec...@yahoo.comhttp://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3364072-whats-going-on-in-fairfield-iaWhats Going On in Fairfield IABY: just4playplay Fairfield : IA : USA | 4 days ago  A School of Enlightenment? Maybe you've heard of it. David Lynch? The Beatles? Maharishi on Larry King Live, talking about a New World Order? Welcome to Maharishi University of Management, one of the only schools of it's kind. With regular practice of the Meditation technique started by the "Guru to the Beatles", the wide range of students here make for an other worldly educational experience. One class at a time equals defragmentation. Finding peace within yourself. That is the basic idea. With programs ranging from Sustainable Living to Video Production, there is a little something for everybody here.Getting all the way out here to Iowa breeds culture shock the moment you drive into the town of 9000 people. The esoteric nature of the town develops a sense of mystery and sometimes paranoia about whats really going on here. Getting lost in those thoughts is easy, it drives a large chunk of the students away after the first semester. With rumors circulating about "The Movement", seeds of fear easily plant themselsves in newcomers. However, the Student Union is getting ballsy, standing up to the 1970s guru experience the original meditators cling so tightly to. The changes made to the regulations of the school have been staggering. The dress code, meditation policies and even censorship of art and media projects have changed dramatically in the past year. Who knows? Even with the looming power of the Global Country for World Peace's hot breath down the necks of students and faculty alike, the electricity being generated in this new generation of peace loving hippies seems like it could blow the lid of the current corruption of the original "Movement", and possibly start something much more life-changing for the world around us.The key is the youth. We're here, we are more inquisitive than our 70s predecessors. One idea slowly began growing back then, an idea powerful enough to create a global group of people interested in developing education along with individual expansion of consciousness. Within three decades, the groundwork was laid by an intelligent group of individuals. Here we are, coming into an already established Global Government, with no real interest in how they got done what they did. "We" is the operative word here. We see what's in front of us. We question the intent of the leaders of the group we joined, a group we're a part of now, a group we knew nothing about when we were perusing the web site for Maharishi University of Management. We're here now. Some of us are stuck here. Some voluntarily stay here. Some are checking underneath their doors every night, c

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Robert
> > Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 3:50 PM
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
> >  
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >  , "raunchydog" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Finally, Secretary Clinton will be interviewed on a Sunday TV show. This
> > Sunday, June 7, she'll appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It'll
> > be her first Sunday show interview as secretary of state and her first
> > Sunday show since she ended her presidential campaign almost exactly a year
> > ago.
> > > 
> > >
> > http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/05/secretary_clinton_on_sunda
> > y_tv_finally
> > >
> > Hillary being interview by Steph and fetch it...
> > Is like Cheney being interview by Shawn Hannity...
> > No real hard questions, there...
> > It wasn't meant to be a hardball interview. She did most of the talking.
> > Anyone know why this was her first Sunday morning interview since the
> > campaign?
> >
> Yes, because she is going with the flow... 
 (snip)
Besides, her first love is 'French Furniture circa 18th century'...
Just a little secret regarding our lovely Queen...
Give her something 'French, from the 18th century'...
And, She Will Be Your Friend for Life...

Now, take your place at the Guillotine, Madame? he feebly mumbled to himself..
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:

> OK, that's pretty clear, and the points in the article
> below are well put, and you've posted examples of
> indisputable sexism against Hillary but please remind
> me, how did Obama "complicitly allow" sexism against
> Hillary? Should he have regularly chastised the bloggers
> during the campaign?

Bloggers and the media and his surrogates and
supporters, yes, indeed. He couldn't have stopped it
entirely, but he could have made it forcefully known
that he found it unacceptable and wanted it to stop.

> I received a lot of racist stuff during the campaign
> and still do. Doctored photos of the White House lawn
> turned into a watermelon patch, and stuff like that. 

Rick, for goodness sake, do you really not recognize
the difference? The sexism was right up front, out
in the open, all over television and the newspapers,
all over otherwise respectable lefty blogs.

Racism from *other Democrats* was mostly under the
table, furtive. When racism against Obama was
reported in the media, it was with disgust and scorn
and outrage. Anyone who made an even faintly racist
remark on the same lefty blogs that were full of
open sexism against Hillary was anathematized.

And of course the absolute *nadir* of the Obama
campaign was its attempt to paint the Clintons as
racists. You've seen even on FFL how some attempt
to portray Hillary supporters as racists, along
with the incredibly sexist attacks on us.

Racism is no longer, thank goodness, publicly
acceptable in this society. But sexism still is. And
unlike racism, sexism is not primarily the province
of the right wing. That was the real shocker, that
so-called progressives, who are supposed to be for
women's rights, hadn't the slightest problem
indulging in it. And with Palin, we saw it coming
almost *exclusively* from the left.

Racism and sexism in the primary campaign simply
aren't equivalent.

[FairfieldLife] 'Fairfield Lite: For Moodmakers and other silly ones'

[Robert]

Some needs to start a 'fairfieldl...@...
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > I would like to thank Bill for encouraging me to stay.
> > > Thanks to people like him, I will. For a while, anyway.
> > 
> > Turq, I did notice that too about Bill and did wonder 
> > where he came from.
> 
> Interestingly, Doug, "Bill Hicks" first appeared 
> on Fairfield Life the same week that all the other
> IDs in the following list did:
> (snip)
There's a monk-like Character named 'Tom Hicks PHd, who lives up in Iowa 
City...could it be old Tommy Boy?
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Robert
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 3:50 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
>  
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "raunchydog" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Finally, Secretary Clinton will be interviewed on a Sunday TV show. This
> Sunday, June 7, she'll appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It'll
> be her first Sunday show interview as secretary of state and her first
> Sunday show since she ended her presidential campaign almost exactly a year
> ago.
> > 
> >
> http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/05/secretary_clinton_on_sunda
> y_tv_finally
> >
> Hillary being interview by Steph and fetch it...
> Is like Cheney being interview by Shawn Hannity...
> No real hard questions, there...
> It wasn't meant to be a hardball interview. She did most of the talking.
> Anyone know why this was her first Sunday morning interview since the
> campaign?
>
Yes, because she is going with the flow...she is very happy as Secretary of 
State, and did not want to hog the lime lite from the President...
She is doing a good job, and will do interviews, when the job calls for it, not 
for ego...
The loss of hers, in the primary, was good for her to transcend her ego, and 
good for Bill also, to transcend his monster ego...
All is well in paradise, for now, anyway...
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > I would like to thank Bill for encouraging me to stay.
> > Thanks to people like him, I will. For a while, anyway.
> 
> Turq, I did notice that too about Bill and did wonder 
> where he came from.

Interestingly, Doug, "Bill Hicks" first appeared 
on Fairfield Life the same week that all the other
IDs in the following list did:

-- Peter violates the FFL rules 
-- Barry is a stupid cunt 
-- Fairfield Lifer 
-- Peter is an ignorant cunt 
-- It's just a ride 

That was coincidentally the same week that the
poster who called himself "I Am The Eternal"
(and whose real name we all know) had one of 
his periodic psychotic breaks and went cuckoo.

Another clue is that the only mention of dead
comedian Bill Hicks' name in a post on Fairfield
Life also appeared in one of this I Am's posts.

I find it fascinating that I mentioned the story 
of the person who posted porn to Fairfield Life 
in an attempt to get it closed down in my fairly
restrained response to his recent blast at me. 
That, as it turns out, was pure coincidence. At 
the time, I didn't know I was talking to the 
person who actually did it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Special full Moon Messages from the Pleiadians (Jupiter, Neptune, Chiron)

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Rick Archer wrote:
> >  
> >  
> > From: ls...@... [mailto:ls...@...] 
> > Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 10:35 PM
> > To: ls...@...
> > Subject: Special full Moon Messages from the Pleiadian's (Jupiter, Neptune, 
> > Chiron)
> >  
> >
> > Dear clients and spiritual family of Astrological Varieties,
> >  
> > It is a pleasure to bring to you full Moon messages from the Pleiadian’s 
> > on this full Moon in Sagittarius night. This is a taste of what will be the 
> > format in my new e-book “Full Moon Messages from the Pleiadian’s” 
> > coming out on September 12, 2009.
> 
> 
> Full moons (and new moons often mean earthquakes.  Even before the moon 
> was full which occurring exactly right now (real low tides), yesterday 
> afternoon at around 3:30 we had a 3.2.  Felt like a sonic boom.  Next 
> month will be eclipseville.
>
Eclipsing I assume would only intensify the gravitational pull, more so, than 
just new and full...
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > 
> > Is that before or after you inflate her?
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Ha!  Funny!
> 
> I suppose blow-up dolls are the male equivalent to dildos?
>

Fleshlight (K-18, ROT-13):

uggc://syrfuyvtugsnaf.pbz/

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Robert
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 3:50 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "raunchydog" 
wrote:
>
> Finally, Secretary Clinton will be interviewed on a Sunday TV show. This
Sunday, June 7, she'll appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It'll
be her first Sunday show interview as secretary of state and her first
Sunday show since she ended her presidential campaign almost exactly a year
ago.
> 
>
http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/05/secretary_clinton_on_sunda
y_tv_finally
>
Hillary being interview by Steph and fetch it...
Is like Cheney being interview by Shawn Hannity...
No real hard questions, there...
It wasn't meant to be a hardball interview. She did most of the talking.
Anyone know why this was her first Sunday morning interview since the
campaign?
 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of raunchydog
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 2:16 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> Good interview. Here's a quote they replayed from her concession speech:
> "Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to
> dwell on what might have been." No hint in the interview of Hillary having
> sour grapes. No indication that he regards Obama as a "stuffed suit." She
> clearly gave the impression that she is very impressed with Obama and
enjoys
> working with him. Could it possibly be, Raunchy, that her perspective is a
> little bit better informed than yours?
>

My opinion that Obama is an emptysuit has nothing to do with Hillary's
private or public opinion of him. Does anyone know what anyone REALLY
thinks? What Hillary thinks of Obama`s polices at any point in time depends
on the issues at hand. What does it matter anyway? Whether Hillary agrees or
disagrees with Obama, she clearly understands her role as SOS and the
importance of supporting his policies in the interest of national security.
Hillary takes her job seriously and has a strong sense of patriotic duty
that impels her to her best for Obama and for our country. 

Once again, Rick, I don't care that Hillary lost. I care how she lost. The
DNC and Obama's complicity in allowing blatant sexism to run wild in the
primary will always be a sore spot for me whether it is for Hillary or not. 
OK, that's pretty clear, and the points in the article below are well put,
and you've posted examples of indisputable sexism against Hillary but please
remind me, how did Obama "complicitly allow" sexism against Hillary? Should
he have regularly chastised the bloggers during the campaign? I received a
lot of racist stuff during the campaign and still do. Doctored photos of the
White House lawn turned into a watermelon patch, and stuff like that. Why is
Hillary complicitly allowing people to distribute these things? Why did Bill
belittle Obama's win in North (South?) Carolina by comparing it with Jesse
Jackson's? I'm not as politically insightful or articulate as you, so it
puzzles me how you can perceive Obama as an empty suit when just about
everyone else except right-wingers is rather impressed with how well he's
handling the huge pile on his plate. That's why I suspect that emotions skew
your perception. 


For the Record 
by Melissa McEwan | Tuesday, June 03, 2008

I'm not sad because Obama's the nominee.

I'm sad because there are women at this blog, in my personal life, across
this nation, and-if my inbox is any indication-across the globe, women of
all races and sexualities and socio-economic classes, many of whom weren't
even Hillary Clinton supporters, many of whom voted for Obama in the
primary, who have watched with horror the seething hatred directed at
Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman.

(I'm not talking about legitimate criticisms of her campaign, which I have
made myself. I'm not saying any criticism of Clinton is de facto sexist; it
isn't. I'm talking specifically and only about misogynist attacks, which are
always unjustified and smear not just the woman at whom they are directed,
but all women.)

And these women have witnessed this despicable but spectacular marriage of
aggressive misogyny and their long-presumed allies' casual indifference to
it, and wondered what fucking planet they were on that dehumanizing
eliminationist rhetoric, to which lefty bloggers used to object once upon a
time, was now considered a legitimate campaign strategy, as long as it was
aimed at a candidate those lefty bloggers didn't like.

And these women felt, quite rightly, like feminist principles were being
thrown to the wolves in a fit of political expedience.

And these women felt personally abandoned. By people they had considered
allies.

And while they struggled to understand just what was happening, while they
were losing their way along well-traveled paths that no longer felt familiar
or welcoming, they were admonished like children to stop taking things
personally. They were sneered at for playing identity politics. They were
demeaned as ridiculous, overwrought, hysterics. They were called bitches and
cunts. They were bullied off blogs they'd called home for years.

(But don't take that personally.)

And now, at long last, even now, when Clinton cannot win, she is being
pushed out, carelessly, rudely, with little regard for the implicit message
in hustling a historic candidate off the stage and demanding her
graciousness in defeat, despite offering her no graciousness in victory.
Right to the end, there is a lack of respect that hurts to watch.

And I'm sad because I know there are women who are hurting. Not because
their candidate lost. Clinton may not have even been their candidate.
They'

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Robert]

  (snip)
> My opinion that Obama is an emptysuit ... 
 (snip)
WoW! How misinformed can one Be? I am wondering...
This 'Empty Suit'...raised more grass roots support, than any other candidate 
in history...
This President we have is respected around the world, and is inspiring to every 
race, to every child, and all free men and woman throughout the world...
You are nuts, plain and simple.
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Robert]

 (snip)
> And these women have witnessed this despicable but spectacular marriage of 
> aggressive misogyny ...
 (snip)
Yes, but she agreed to stay in the marriage with Bill.
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> Finally, Secretary Clinton will be interviewed on a Sunday TV show. This 
> Sunday, June 7, she'll appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It'll 
> be her first Sunday show interview as secretary of state and her first Sunday 
> show since she ended her presidential campaign almost exactly a year ago.
> 
> http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/05/secretary_clinton_on_sunday_tv_finally
>
Hillary being interview by Steph and fetch it...
Is like Cheney being interview by Shawn Hannity...
No real hard questions, there...
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Behalf Of authfriend
> > > > 
> > > > "Absolutely," Clinton replied. "And, you know, the
> > > > president, in his public actions and demeanor, and
> > > > certainly in private with me and with the national
> > > > security team, has demonstrated just the kind of
> > > > weaknesses I was worried about.
> > > > 
> > > > "He's not well informed, and he vacillates all over
> > > > the place. I think he's doing a barely mediocre job.
> > > > And it's a major drag to serve with him," the former
> > > > secretary of state declared.
> > > 
> > > Yuk, yuk. Did you watch the interview, Judy? Obviously 
> > > that is not Hillary's opinion. it's quite apparent that 
> > > her private feelings and public statements are quite 
> > > in sync.
> > 
> > I think what Judy is trying to imply with her
> > joke is that if Hillary really *did* feel that
> > way, she would not say so in public, because
> > that would cost her her job. So she'd lie.

Barry apparently thinks Rick is very, very stupid.

> > And that's the kind of honest politician Judy
> > admires.  :-)
> >
> Honest politician?  would that be a contradiction in terms?

In that situation, "honest employee" would be a
contradiction in terms. Nobody who wants to keep
their job is going to bash their boss on national
television.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of shempmcgurk
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 1:44 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional
advice?
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Richard M" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "shempmcgurk"  
> wrote:
> >
> 
> > 
> > Heck, at this point I just want people to locate my site by putting 
> the name of my site into the search engine...and even that's not 
> happening yet! Perhaps it's because I just created the site and not 
> enough time has elapsed, I don't know...
> > 
> 
> If it's a new site, then it is thought that Google runs a sort of 
> "sandbox" policy (though only Google really know and they ain't 
> telling). This means that it can take 6 to 9 months to get a half 
> decent ranking.
> 
> One thing to be very aware of: The technology you have used to build 
> your site can harm you by preventing Google from indexing your site 
> properly. For example if your site uses HTML frames, flash, or content 
> generated 'on the fly'. 
> 
> Could you post your URL?
>

No, because I still want to remain anonymous here on FFL.
I know the identities of many anonymous people here and am good at keeping
them secret. So if you want some recommendations, email me privately.
Otherwise, search for your domain name in Google. If nothing comes up,
you're not even indexed, which means no one links to your site.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > > On Behalf Of authfriend
> > > 
> > > "Absolutely," Clinton replied. "And, you know, the
> > > president, in his public actions and demeanor, and
> > > certainly in private with me and with the national
> > > security team, has demonstrated just the kind of
> > > weaknesses I was worried about.
> > > 
> > > "He's not well informed, and he vacillates all over
> > > the place. I think he's doing a barely mediocre job.
> > > And it's a major drag to serve with him," the former
> > > secretary of state declared.
> > 
> > Yuk, yuk. Did you watch the interview, Judy? Obviously 
> > that is not Hillary's opinion. it's quite apparent that 
> > her private feelings and public statements are quite 
> > in sync.
> 
> I think what Judy is trying to imply with her
> joke is that if Hillary really *did* feel that
> way, she would not say so in public, because
> that would cost her her job. So she'd lie.
> 
> And that's the kind of honest politician Judy
> admires.  :-)
>
Honest politician?  would that be a contradiction in terms?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> Good interview. Here's a quote they replayed from her concession speech:
> "Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to
> dwell on what might have been." No hint in the interview of Hillary having
> sour grapes. No indication that he regards Obama as a "stuffed suit." She
> clearly gave the impression that she is very impressed with Obama and enjoys
> working with him. Could it possibly be, Raunchy, that her perspective is a
> little bit better informed than yours?
>

My opinion that Obama is an emptysuit has nothing to do with Hillary's private 
or public opinion of him. Does anyone know what anyone REALLY thinks?  What 
Hillary thinks of Obama`s polices at any point in time depends on the issues at 
hand.  What does it matter anyway?  Whether Hillary agrees or disagrees with 
Obama, she clearly understands her role as SOS and the importance of supporting 
his policies in the interest of national security.  Hillary takes her job 
seriously and has a strong sense of patriotic duty that impels her to her best 
for Obama and for our country. 

Once again, Rick, I don't care that Hillary lost. I care how she lost. The DNC 
and Obama's complicity in allowing blatant sexism to run wild in the primary 
will always be a sore spot for me whether it is for Hillary or not.  

For the Record  
by Melissa McEwan | Tuesday, June 03, 2008

I'm not sad because Obama's the nominee.

I'm sad because there are women at this blog, in my personal life, across this 
nation, and—if my inbox is any indication—across the globe, women of all races 
and sexualities and socio-economic classes, many of whom weren't even Hillary 
Clinton supporters, many of whom voted for Obama in the primary, who have 
watched with horror the seething hatred directed at Hillary Clinton just 
because she is a woman.

(I'm not talking about legitimate criticisms of her campaign, which I have made 
myself. I'm not saying any criticism of Clinton is de facto sexist; it isn't. 
I'm talking specifically and only about misogynist attacks, which are always 
unjustified and smear not just the woman at whom they are directed, but all 
women.)

And these women have witnessed this despicable but spectacular marriage of 
aggressive misogyny and their long-presumed allies' casual indifference to it, 
and wondered what fucking planet they were on that dehumanizing eliminationist 
rhetoric, to which lefty bloggers used to object once upon a time, was now 
considered a legitimate campaign strategy, as long as it was aimed at a 
candidate those lefty bloggers didn't like.

And these women felt, quite rightly, like feminist principles were being thrown 
to the wolves in a fit of political expedience.

And these women felt personally abandoned. By people they had considered allies.

And while they struggled to understand just what was happening, while they were 
losing their way along well-traveled paths that no longer felt familiar or 
welcoming, they were admonished like children to stop taking things personally. 
They were sneered at for playing identity politics. They were demeaned as 
ridiculous, overwrought, hysterics. They were called bitches and cunts. They 
were bullied off blogs they'd called home for years.

(But don't take that personally.)

And now, at long last, even now, when Clinton cannot win, she is being pushed 
out, carelessly, rudely, with little regard for the implicit message in 
hustling a historic candidate off the stage and demanding her graciousness in 
defeat, despite offering her no graciousness in victory. Right to the end, 
there is a lack of respect that hurts to watch.

And I'm sad because I know there are women who are hurting. Not because their 
candidate lost. Clinton may not have even been their candidate. They're hurting 
because misogyny hurts all women, and because they have fewer allies than they 
once thought.

And unlike the people (including many of these women) who are feeling the same 
way with regard to racism in this campaign, who are licking wounds of racist 
attacks even as preparations begin for the breathtakingly awesome celebration 
of the first ever presumptive nominee of color, ZOMG, these women do not have 
an equivalent wonder to celebrate. They don't have a "despite it all." They 
don't have a step forward to point to, to say the pain was worth it.

They just have the pain.

And I'm sad because I see so little evidence of people who are willing to 
understand that.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone

[It's just a ride]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 12:26 PM, dhamiltony2k5 wrote:

>
> Just wondering.  It helps a lot in figuring who to read when they post
> things here to FFL.
>
> Jai Guru Dev,
>
> -Doug in FF
>

Doug, calling self appointed FFL's Lord of the Flies Barry and He Who Only
Knows What He's Read About in Books Vaj "meditators" invalidates this whole
dark endeavor of yours.

I know you well enough to have given up trying to make sense out of a lot of
things you do and say.  I just figure well, that's the way you are.  I do
agree with others that this survey is creepy.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Special full Moon Messages from the Pleiadians (Jupiter, Neptune, Chiron)

[Bhairitu]

Rick Archer wrote:
>  
>  
> From: ls...@aol.com [mailto:ls...@aol.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 10:35 PM
> To: ls...@aol.com
> Subject: Special full Moon Messages from the Pleiadian's (Jupiter, Neptune, 
> Chiron)
>  
>
> Dear clients and spiritual family of Astrological Varieties,
>  
> It is a pleasure to bring to you full Moon messages from the Pleiadian’s on 
> this full Moon in Sagittarius night. This is a taste of what will be the 
> format in my new e-book “Full Moon Messages from the Pleiadian’s” coming out 
> on September 12, 2009.


Full moons (and new moons often mean earthquakes.  Even before the moon 
was full which occurring exactly right now (real low tides), yesterday 
afternoon at around 3:30 we had a 3.2.  Felt like a sonic boom.  Next 
month will be eclipseville.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  
> wrote:
> >
> 
> > 
> > Heck, at this point I just want people to locate my site by putting 
> the name of my site into the search engine...and even that's not 
> happening yet!  Perhaps it's because I just created the site and not 
> enough time has elapsed, I don't know...
> > 
> 
> If it's a new site, then it is thought that Google runs a sort of 
> "sandbox" policy (though only Google really know and they ain't 
> telling). This means that it can take 6 to 9 months to get a half 
> decent ranking.
> 
> One thing to be very aware of: The technology you have used to build 
> your site can harm you by preventing Google from indexing your site 
> properly. For example if your site uses HTML frames, flash, or content 
> generated 'on the fly'. 
> 
> Could you post your URL?
>

No, because I still want to remain anonymous here on FFL.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
> >
> 
> > Heck, at this point I just want people to locate my site
> > by putting the name of my site into the search engine...
> > and even that's not happening yet!
> 
> Where did they get the name of your site from? How do
> they know what it is?
>

I should have made that clearer...I was referring to when I tried googling it 
myself.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Upgrade your FFL Meditator Status

[dhamiltony2k5]

Should like to update your status here?

Om, just as you could come back to regular meditation practice, you could also 
update your FFL to `yes'= Meditator 
posting status.


Posters: 99

You Don't meditate?

Not close.  Sorry. 

Don't meditate is non-meditation.  Which of course would be
'no'=non-meditator in status as a writer here at FFL.



 > > > > `Yes' = meditators


> > > >
> > > > Fairfield Life Post Counter, Meditator Status:
> > > >
> > > > 50 authfriend 
> > > > `Yes' 50 TurquoiseB 
> > > > `Yes' 45 Vaj 
> > > > `Yes' 44 nablusoss1008 
> > > > 32 "grate.swan" 
> > > > `Yes'  31 Bhairitu 
> > > > 29 sparaig 
> > > > 27 ruthsimplicity 
> > > > 27 "Richard J. Williams" 
> > > > `yes' 24  Robert 
> > > > 22 off_world_beings 
> > > > `Yes' 22 dhamiltony2k5 
> > > > 21 enlightened_dawn11 
> > > > `Yes' 20 Rick Archer 
> > > > `Yes' 20 Duveyoung 
> > > > 18 "do.rflex" 
> > > > 17 bob_brigante 
> > > > 16 Sal Sunshine 
> > > > `Yes' 15 "BillyG." 
> > > > 13 Richard M 
> > > > `Yes' 12 shempmcgurk 
> > > >'Yes' 10 satvadude108 
> > > > `Yes' 10 raunchydog 
> > > > 10 lurkernomore20002000 
> > > > 9 cardemaister 
> > > > 8 WLeed3@
> > > > 8 Nelson 
> > > > 7 geezerfreak 
> > > > 3 drpetersutphen 
> > > > 3 William108 
> > > > 3 Dick Richardson 
> > > > `Yes' 3 Dick Mays 
> > > > 3 Alex Stanley 
> > > > 2 sgrayatlarge 
> > > > 2 scienceofabundance 
> > > > 2 beno beno 
> > > > 2 Tom 
> > > > 2 Marek Reavis 
> > > > 2 Hugo 
> > > > 1 uns_tressor 
> > > > 1 tkrystofiak 
> > > > 1 pranamoocher 
> > > > 1 nelson lafrancis 
> > > > 1 metoostill 
> > > > 1 Peter 
> > > > 1 Paul Mason 
> > > > 1 Patrick Gillam 
> > > > 1 Mike Doughney 
> > > > 1 Mike Dixon 
> > > > 1 Joe Smith 
> > > > 1 Barbara Thomas 
> > > > 1 "min.pige" 
> > > > 1 wayback71 
> > > > 1 jyouells2000  
> > > >
> > > > 1 shukra69 
> > > > 1 sanosh2002 
> > > > 1 Zoran Krneta 
> > > > 1 John 
> > > >  `Yes'  1 enpai 
>  2 Jason 
>  2 tomwalsh23 
>  2 It's just a ride 
>  3 kaladevi93 
>  2 Stu 
>  6 Ben 
>   1 kuldip jhala  
>  1 ve...@...
>  1 ultrarishi 
>  1 sanosh2002 
>  1 horashastra 
>  1 feste37 
>  1 emptybill 
>  1 wle...@...
> "yes'  1 Dick Mays 
>  1 Devanath Saraswati 
>  1 uns_tressor 
>  1 jimjim5886 
>  1 Darrylle 
>  1 Thomas Walsh 
>  1 ffl...@...
>  `yes'  1 bhawani_shank2000 
>  1 jim_falkenstern 
>  `yes'=meditator  1 at_man_and_brahman 
>  1 curtisdeltablues 
>  4 It's just a ride 
>  4 I am the eternal 
>  1 gullible fool 
>  1 vedamer...@...
>  3 metoostill 
>  1 alex52556 
>  1 Randy Meltzer 
>  1 claudiouk 

>  Posters: 99





>
> Move over to
> `yes'=meditator
> 
> 
> Anybody writing here would like their non-meditation status reviewed or 
> upgraded for the FFL posting list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't meditate?
> 
> Not close.  Sorry. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >  FFL  Meditators
> > > 
> > > > >> Are these writers, all meditators? Of some kind?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Like, current practicing meditators?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Yes, some of these folks evidently are, in FFL public admissions of 
> > > >recent times.
> > > Any others than these?
> > > 
> >  `Yes' = meditators
> > > 
> > > Fairfield Life Post Counter, Meditator Status:
> > >
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of shempmcgurk
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:27 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional
advice?
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Google prides itself on having a secret formula that changes often and in
a significant fashion.
> 
> Search engines cannot be manipulated beyond a certain extent or they'll
catch you at it. Best to have content to attract traffic to your site and
hope that it resonates enough to create word of mouth, viral processes, etc.
If you put eight hours a day into promoting awareness of the site, you'll
get your traffic sooner or later if you got what folks want. There's just no
gimmicks of worth that can make a site popular if the content isn't there.
> 
> That said, for a newbie, I'll bet Rick's services can cut to the chase
fast and help them out with all the broad considerations when it comes to
marketing a Web site. 
> 
> Edg
> 
> 

Heck, at this point I just want people to locate my site by putting the name
of my site into the search engine...and even that's not happening yet!
Perhaps it's because I just created the site and not enough time has
elapsed, I don't know...
What is your site?
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Carradine's Jyotish Chart

[John]

It all depends what the birth sign is and what house the planets are located.  
Even Jupiter can bring bad results such as obesity and grand financial schemes.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "gullible fool"  wrote:
>
> "Saturn and Rahu are malefic planets and are located in the 8th house of 
> secret affairs and death."
> 
> Aren't all the planets malefic, except for Jupiter, which can be either?
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > To All:
> > > 
> > > Thanks Vaj for the information.  Using the birth time provided, Mr. 
> > > Carradine was born under the sign of Aquarius or Kumbha, and the Moon was 
> > > in the nakshatra of Chitra.
> > > 
> > > At this birth sign, we can see the reason why he had trouble maintaining 
> > > his marriage.  Mars is in the 8th house which causes an affliction termed 
> > > as kujadosha.  This affliction causes conflicts in marriage and divorces.
> > > 
> > > The same Mars is considered as an apsara karaka signifying that he has 
> > > penchant for beautiful women, resulting in secret affairs and dalliances.
> > > 
> > > The nature of his death is not readily apparent from the rashi chart.  
> > > However, the circumstances of his death are shown more clearly from the 
> > > navamsha chart.  From that chart, Saturn and Rahu are in conjunction in 
> > > the 8th house from the Moon.  Saturn and Rahu are malefic planets and are 
> > > located in the 8th house of secret affairs and death.
> > > 
> > > Saturn is further debilitated showing that his body has already weakened 
> > > due to his age.  This planet is the karaka (significator) for air or lack 
> > > of it.  When mixed with the influence of Rahu, the results are lethal.
> > > 
> > > Rahu is represented in Hindu myth as a bodyless demon who pretended to be 
> > > a demigod.  In the navamsha chart, Rahu is the lord of the 11th house of 
> > > desire which is enducing Saturn to indulge in strange sexual 
> > > gratifications.
> > > 
> > > With the influence of Rahu's sexual preferences, he indulged in getting 
> > > autoerotic pleasures through asphyxiation.
> > > 
> > > JR
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I already posted it in the files section, but I accidentally used the  
> > > > Yukteshwar ayanamsha. That's the birth data built into Goravani for  
> > > > Grasshopper.
> > > > 
> > > > On Jun 6, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Did you look here?
> > > > > http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Main_Page
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "shempmcgurk" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > Google prides itself on having a secret formula that changes often
and in a significant fashion.
> >
> > Search engines cannot be manipulated beyond a certain extent or
they'll catch you at it.  Best to have content to attract traffic to
your site and hope that it resonates enough to create word of mouth,
viral processes, etc.  If you put eight hours a day into promoting
awareness of the site, you'll get your traffic sooner or later if you
got what folks want.  There's just no gimmicks of worth that can make a
site popular if the content isn't there.
> >
> > That said, for a newbie, I'll bet Rick's services can cut to the
chase fast and help them out with all the broad considerations when it
comes to marketing a Web site.
> >
> > Edg
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Heck, at this point I just want people to locate my site by putting
the name of my site into the search engine...and even that's not
happening yet!  Perhaps it's because I just created the site and not
enough time has elapsed, I don't know...

In that case, did you put the name of your site as the first meta-tag?
Also, the most important search terms should also be the first text
content on the site. For example, a site called "Shemp" should have that
in the title, meta-tags, but should also be some of the first words in
the body of the homepage. Eg. Instead of having this as your first
words, "At our company, we strive for excellence and customer service",
put "Shemp" - At our company, we strive for excellence and customer
service"  Repeat the most important search terms several times in the
body of the pages, even if you have to contrive it a little.

OffWorld


>
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "shempmcgurk" 
wrote:
> > >
> > > Rick: if it is inappropriate to ask for and receive from you free
professional advice, please excuse me for it.
> > >
> > > Regarding meta-tags, which I've just added to a website that I've
created: is it true that the key words that one puts in as meta-tags
must be identical to words that actually appear on the webpage in which
the meta-tags have been placed?  Someone once told me that if they
aren't then search engines such as google will reject them.
> > >
> > > Is this true?
> > >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 7, 2009, at 12:30 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:


I have a relationship with a woman; get over it. It's
not an especially successful relationship by many
measurements -- as I've said, it takes a ton of
intimacy to shift a POV -- but we try to be honest
and represent ourselves with considerable vulnerability.


When Edg describes his Relationship (always
with a capital 'R' implied), I often get the
feeling that it's a lot like the one in this
video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnYAKAQd9Zg


LOL...shame on you, Turq! :)
Are  you trying to imply that Edg's "woman"
is...gasp...fantasy??

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  
wrote:
>

> 
> Heck, at this point I just want people to locate my site by putting 
the name of my site into the search engine...and even that's not 
happening yet!  Perhaps it's because I just created the site and not 
enough time has elapsed, I don't know...
> 

If it's a new site, then it is thought that Google runs a sort of 
"sandbox" policy (though only Google really know and they ain't 
telling). This means that it can take 6 to 9 months to get a half 
decent ranking.

One thing to be very aware of: The technology you have used to build 
your site can harm you by preventing Google from indexing your site 
properly. For example if your site uses HTML frames, flash, or content 
generated 'on the fly'. 

Could you post your URL? 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon

[Duveyoung]

That is exactly the relationship I have with my lady. Yup.

Very funny bit that.

Having bowed to the metaphor, let me say that you're fucking right that I imply 
a capital R on my Relationship.  I earned several PhD's worth of expertise 
about her and she about me, and a capital R is the least I can imply when I 
write about it.

I feel sorry for anyone who hasn't tried to connect with at least one other 
person on the planet in this way.  I know of nothing else that can yield so 
much pleasure, meaning, and evolution of spirit and psychology.

And, defensively speaking, what man hasn't been a dinosaur in his gal's eyes?  

Edg


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > I have a relationship with a woman; get over it. It's 
> > not an especially successful relationship by many 
> > measurements -- as I've said, it takes a ton of 
> > intimacy to shift a POV -- but we try to be honest 
> > and represent ourselves with considerable vulnerability.  
> 
> When Edg describes his Relationship (always
> with a capital 'R' implied), I often get the
> feeling that it's a lot like the one in this
> video:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnYAKAQd9Zg
> 
> :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Health Industry Obscene Bribes and Lobbying $ to Block Single-Payer

[do.rflex]

"Private insurers necessarily waste health 
dollars on things that have nothing to do 
with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, 
sales and marketing departments as well as 
huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. 

"Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly 
administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. 

"Combined, this needless administration consumes 
one-third (31 percent) of Americans' health dollars.
Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture 
this wasted money. 

"The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 
billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive 
coverage to everyone without paying any more than we 
already do."

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php


THIS is what's shameful:

~ Democrats teaming up with Republicans to kill health care reform at the 
behest of Big Insurance and the whole Medical-Industrial Complex ~


Above and beyond the $3,405,669,482 the Medical-Industrial Complex has spent on 
lobbying in the last decade (second only to the banksters' $3,560,808,113 
lobbying efforts in the same time period), the Medical-Industrial Complex has 
"donated" $833,259,267 directly to members of Congress. 

Not counting the huge amounts of money given to presidential candidates like 
Obama, McCain and Kerry, the biggest "donations" have gone to the 3 worst 
industry shills who have been well-paid to make sure there will never be 
effective, robust health care reform:

Arlen Specter (R-D- PA- $4,026,933)
Max Baucus (DLC- MT- $2,833,731)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY- $2,758,468)

And when you just go right to Big Insurance, the non-presidential candidates 
who got the biggest legalized bribes were the 7 senators who have been tasked 
with the job of killing single-payer:

Ben Nelson (DLC-NE- $1,196,799)
Max Baucus (DLC- MT- $1,184,113)
Joe Lieberman (DLC- CT- $1,036,302)
Arlen Specter (R-D- PA- $1,035,530)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY- $981,400)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY- $929,207)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA- $884,724)

~Full article: http://snipurl.com/jmyo9

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
>

> Heck, at this point I just want people to locate my site
> by putting the name of my site into the search engine...
> and even that's not happening yet!

Where did they get the name of your site from? How do
they know what it is?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
[I wrote:]
> > "He's not well informed, and he vacillates all over
> > the place. I think he's doing a barely mediocre job.
> > And it's a major drag to serve with him," the former
> > secretary of state declared.

> Yuk, yuk. Did you watch the interview, Judy? Obviously
> that is not Hillary's opinion. it's quite apparent that
> her private feelings and public statements are quite in
> sync.

No, I didn't watch it, and I might well have had the
same impression you did if I had. BUT I don't place
absolute reliance on my impressions of professional
politicians, especially in this kind of situation,
where they don't have much choice about what kind of
impression to give.

Again, my point is that we couldn't expect her to be
anything but very positive and to do her best to
convey that those were her private feelings, even if
she hated his guts (which I don't think she does; I'm
just saying).

It's the same with the folks here who regularly post
Obama's high approval numbers in response to criticism
as if they were somehow *proof* that the criticism was
uncalled for.

There's a strong element of kabuki in politics, and
you have to allow for it.

[FairfieldLife] Rick on climatology (was How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public...

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
[responding to Shemp]
> Pretty much everyone in your strange little world. In the real
> world, all legitimate climatologists agree that it's a real 
> and serious threat.

I bet that word "legitimate" is gonna be taking  a lot of weight if we 
we push this claim. Or is it circular? i.e. "Legitimate" *means* those 
who have the "correct" view?

In my mind's eye Rick I imagine you at a little wine & cheese party for 
exalted company. Here you would have the opportunity to repeat your 
view about the "legitimacy" of some individuals who do not share your 
certainty about climate change.

First Rick, meet professor Richard Lindzen, a Harvard trained 
atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at 
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "How do you do". 

Oh and here we have Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the Founding Director of the 
International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska 
Fairbanks (UAF) and its Director since its establishment in 1998 until 
January 2007. Previously he was director of the Geophysical Institute 
since 1986. "Pleased to meet you".

Now over here Rick! Here's Dr Roy W. Spencer, principal research 
scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. 
Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 
(AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist 
for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in 
Huntsville, Alabama. He is principally known for his satellite-based 
temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American 
Meteorological Society's Special Award. (A real heavyweight 
climatolgist Rick, but DON'T MENTION INTELLIGENT DESIGN!). "How do you 
do".

And also with us this evening we have Dr John Christy. He is a 
distinguished professor of atmospheric science, and director of the 
Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. 
He was appointed Alabama's state climatologist in 2000. For his 
development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was 
awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the 
American Meteorological Society's "Special Award." In 2002, Christy was 
elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. "Pleased to meet 
you".

I'd love to be a fly on the wall! You wouldn't be shy would you Rick?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> I have a relationship with a woman; get over it. It's 
> not an especially successful relationship by many 
> measurements -- as I've said, it takes a ton of 
> intimacy to shift a POV -- but we try to be honest 
> and represent ourselves with considerable vulnerability.  

When Edg describes his Relationship (always
with a capital 'R' implied), I often get the
feeling that it's a lot like the one in this
video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnYAKAQd9Zg

:-)

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Duveyoung
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:22 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional
advice?
 
Google prides itself on having a secret formula that changes often and in a
significant fashion.
True, but certain things have always been important and approved by Google,
such as unique, useful content (as you said) and legitimate page
optimization. Here's Google's advice on the matter:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35291
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
[I wrote:]
> > If I may comment: Are you really suggesting that if
> > Hillary, Obama's secretary of state, thought Obama
> > was a stuffed suit and hated working with him, that
> > she'd be announcing it on a nationally televised
> > TV show on Sunday morning only a few months into his
> > term?
>
> I don't think she would have taken the job in the first
> place if she thought that.

Unless she didn't realize it until after she'd been
in the job for a bit.

I don't think she loathes him, but then I think he's
doing a pretty good job with foreign affairs.

My point is that you can't draw conclusions about what
someone thinks of their boss by what they say in a
nationally televised interview; it's extremely
unlikely it'll be anything but very positive (unless
they're about to quit).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Google prides itself on having a secret formula that changes often and in a 
> significant fashion.
> 
> Search engines cannot be manipulated beyond a certain extent or they'll catch 
> you at it.  Best to have content to attract traffic to your site and hope 
> that it resonates enough to create word of mouth, viral processes, etc.  If 
> you put eight hours a day into promoting awareness of the site, you'll get 
> your traffic sooner or later if you got what folks want.  There's just no 
> gimmicks of worth that can make a site popular if the content isn't there.
> 
> That said, for a newbie, I'll bet Rick's services can cut to the chase fast 
> and help them out with all the broad considerations when it comes to 
> marketing a Web site.  
> 
> Edg
> 
> 



Heck, at this point I just want people to locate my site by putting the name of 
my site into the search engine...and even that's not happening yet!  Perhaps 
it's because I just created the site and not enough time has elapsed, I don't 
know...



> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
> >
> > Rick: if it is inappropriate to ask for and receive from you free 
> > professional advice, please excuse me for it.
> > 
> > Regarding meta-tags, which I've just added to a website that I've created: 
> > is it true that the key words that one puts in as meta-tags must be 
> > identical to words that actually appear on the webpage in which the 
> > meta-tags have been placed?  Someone once told me that if they aren't then 
> > search engines such as google will reject them.
> > 
> > Is this true?
> >
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of shempmcgurk
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:15 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Rick Archer: may I have some free professional
advice?
 

Rick: if it is inappropriate to ask for and receive from you free
professional advice, please excuse me for it.

Regarding meta-tags, which I've just added to a website that I've created:
is it true that the key words that one puts in as meta-tags must be
identical to words that actually appear on the webpage in which the
meta-tags have been placed? Someone once told me that if they aren't then
search engines such as Google will reject them.
 
The keywords meta tag itself is worthless, but the title and description
tags are important. Your home page title tag should include your 2-3 most
important KW phrases or variations of one phrase, usually first, with your
company name last. Your description tag should be more readable - an
enticement to click on your link rather than some other in the search engine
results.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone

[dhamiltony2k5]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> I would like to thank Bill for encouraging me to stay.
> Thanks to people like him, I will. For a while, anyway.
> 

Turq, I did notice that too about Bill and did wonder where he came from.

Hey Bill Hicks, you a regularly practicing meditator?  Just wondering.  

Like, not just a someone who might have learned  a meditation but quit or 
dropped practicing.  That kind of  `fallen away' status of course would be just 
a `non-meditator'.  Are you a practicing meditator, of some kind?

Just wondering.  It helps a lot in figuring who to read when they post things 
here to FFL.

Jai Guru Dev,

-Doug in FF   



> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride"
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:40 PM, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
> > >
> > > From my side, to be honest, I've been trying
> > > to provoke a little interest lately, in lieu
> > > of bailing from FFL altogether.
> > > . . .
> > > So, if you'd like, consider my "high numbers"
> > > a "last gasp," an attempt to see if there is
> > > any life left in the Olde FFL, from my obviously
> > > jaded perspective. If so, I'll stick around. If
> > > not, I'll bail.
> >
> > Don't you realize that people have left because they have
> > had enough of our resident Lord of the Flies?  The one who
> > lords over all, thinks "pushing buttons" is a noble thing
> > instead of an ill mannered, nasty thing to do and is in
> > violation of the guidelines and rules of FFL?
> 
> Pushing buttons *IS* a noble thing, in spiritual
> environments filled with people who wish to
> identify those "buttons" in themselves, identify
> the attachments they reveal, and work on elim-
> inating them. In such environments, the person
> who can help you to pinpoint your own hot
> button issues (and thus your samskaras and
> attachments) is your friend.
> 
> Interestingly, in environments filled with folks
> I tend to call "spiritual slackers," such people
> are not only not considered friends, they are
> considered enemies. The reason is that the
> spiritual slackers are NOT working on trying
> to eliminate their attachments and their sam-
> skaras and their hot button issues. They *cling*
> to their hot button, as if they believed that the
> buttons -- and the overreactions they indulge
> in when they are pushed -- are "them."
> 
> One might suggest, Bill, that your post -- coming
> as it does from someone I don't think I have ever
> interacted with at all -- is an example of the latter.
> 
> > Try reading the guidelines and rules.  Its as though they
> > were written just for you.  Why Rick hasn't thrown you
> > out in light of his guidelines and rules is beyond me and
> > I'm sure many other FFL people.  Thankfully for you
> > Rick is the owner/moderator in name only.
> 
> The fact that Rick has not "thrown me out" the
> way you'd like him to might have something to
> do with him having been "thrown out" of the
> domes himself in Fairfield. It might have some-
> thing to do with the credo he posted for this
> online cyberestablishment on its home page:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> 
> 
> Bill, spend a little time reading that credo. Then
> ask yourself whether a forum that was *founded*
> to provide a rare place where people who have
> been involved with the TM movement can talk
> about that movement *without* fear of retalia-
> tion from the TM movement is likely to throw
> someone off that forum for being merely an
> asshole and pushing a few spiritual slackers'
> hot buttons *as* they talk about it.
> 
> I mean, Rick didn't throw off one guy even after
> he mounted a cyberattack on FFL by posting
> porn to it and then writing to the Yahoo admin-
> istrators complaining about the porn *he* had
> posted, in an attempt to get the forum taken down.
> 
> I *understand* that you are happier with the "TMO
> approach" to things you don't like --  BAN THEM.
> Like the TMO, you'd like to declare the things or
> the people you don't like anathema, declare them
> heretics or "off the program," and send them away.
> 
> Cool, I guess, if that's what floats your boat. I don't
> think you're going to have much luck convincing
> Rick to ride in it, though.
> 
> > People would stop lurking and become contributors to FFL
> > if you left.  But they will lurk until assured they won't be
> > playing into your game of superiority and bullying, trying to
> > compensate for the obvious, that you have no other place to
> > go.  Many go away for a few months, come back to check if
> > you're still here then go away again, hoping to wait you out.
> 
> Bill, as I say I don't think I've ever interacted with
> you before. Other than a couple of posts of yours
> recently, I don't think I've ever even *seen* you
> post here. The only post of yours that the broken
> Yahoo search engine can find is from February:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/messa

RE: [FairfieldLife] Whale Wars

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Duveyoung
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:13 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Whale Wars
 
Anyone watching the Whale Wars?

My jury is having a hard time deciding if these folks are terrorists or
angels doing triage.

They be pirates fer shur, but maybe they's gots some fine ass halos too.
I'm a big fan. Watched it last year too.
http://animal.discovery.com/tv/whale-wars/
I think these folks are heroes. The Japanese aren't going to stop whaling
unless they're forced. The "killing whales for research" provision should
never have been included in the international anti-whaling laws, and there's
no way these killers are doing any research. International law appears
toothless, as no one is stopping them, so I applaud the efforts of these
brave people to stop the whaling. 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?

[Duveyoung]

Google prides itself on having a secret formula that changes often and in a 
significant fashion.

Search engines cannot be manipulated beyond a certain extent or they'll catch 
you at it.  Best to have content to attract traffic to your site and hope that 
it resonates enough to create word of mouth, viral processes, etc.  If you put 
eight hours a day into promoting awareness of the site, you'll get your traffic 
sooner or later if you got what folks want.  There's just no gimmicks of worth 
that can make a site popular if the content isn't there.

That said, for a newbie, I'll bet Rick's services can cut to the chase fast and 
help them out with all the broad considerations when it comes to marketing a 
Web site.  

Edg


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
>
> Rick: if it is inappropriate to ask for and receive from you free 
> professional advice, please excuse me for it.
> 
> Regarding meta-tags, which I've just added to a website that I've created: is 
> it true that the key words that one puts in as meta-tags must be identical to 
> words that actually appear on the webpage in which the meta-tags have been 
> placed?  Someone once told me that if they aren't then search engines such as 
> google will reject them.
> 
> Is this true?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:


[snip]

> 
> Is that before or after you inflate her?

[snip]

Ha!  Funny!

I suppose blow-up dolls are the male equivalent to dildos?

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex  wrote:
> > >
> > > do.rflex wrote:
> > > > How Pharma and Insurance Intend to 
> > > > Kill the Public Option..
> > > >
> > > "They still have to find a sound way 
> > > to pay for expanding health care, a 
> > > tough job amid staggering U.S. budget 
> > > deficits..."
> > 
> > 
> > willytex is right.
> > 
> > Look, with a $1.8 trillion deficit, Obammy has shot his wad.
> > 
> > There really is nothing else we can spend our money on 'cause we haven't 
> > got it.
> > 
> > The only good thing about the spending orgy that Obammy went on is that 
> > there isn't anything left for global warming.  And no one's interested 
> > anyway.  Pretty much everyone has concluded it's a scam.
> > 
> > Ha!
> 
> 
> Bananas.
>


How do you feel, John, about the $1.8 trillion deficit?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27

[shempmcgurk]

Thank you, Off Kilter, for reproducing the essense of my points, below, on this 
subject.

You have demonstrated the soundness of my arguments.  And, of course, where you 
and Barry were wrong.



-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> > 
> > > All this info above is FROM the site you posted ! You
> > > have dug yourself into a hole, just admit you are wrong.
> > > Its obvious to anyone.
> >
> > Shemp, several posts back:
> >
> > "Depending upon how much discretionary spending is for
> > any given year, defense may represent 600% of
> > discretionary spending."
> >
> > Off, several posts back:
> >
> > "Military spending is more than half of the US budget
> > when you take out Social Security and Medicare."
> >
> > "Your math sucks. You are digging yourself into a deep
> > hole here. Defense is more than 500 trillion in the
> > chart you linked to..."
> >
> 
> You are being dishonest Judy. Here below is Shemp's long arguments about
> the topic he and I were discussing. Your attempt to bring ALL posts back
> to your feud with Turq is arrogant. I think you should apologize. If you
> think this thread was still about Turq's mistake of terms, then read
> below Shemps LONG arguments in this thread over what the thread VERY
> QUICKLY became.
> 
> You and Turq do not own FFL ya know.
> 
> Shemp said:
> 
> "And, yes, I may agree with you vis a vis the Social Security spending
> inclusion.
> Both Social Security and Medicare are essentially insurance programs.
> Their
> contributions and benefits are taken and meted out completely
> differently than
> all other spending and taxing by the federal government and, as such,
> should be
> segregated from the budget."
> 
> "But defense is NOT about half of the budget even when SS and Medicare
> are taken
> out. See the following and do the math:"
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008
> 
> 
> Shemp said:
> 
> "Gosh, I was nervous when Bush had a deficit of $580 billion."
> 
> "This year Obama and his Democratic Congress have given us a $1.8
> trillion
> deficit. Divide that amount by the 300 million people in the U.S. and
> you come
> up with a figure of $6,000 per person. And that's just ONE YEAR. Obama's
> planning on doing this each and every year."
> 
> "Perhaps not the end of the world but pretty darn close to the end of
> America."
> 
> Shemp said:
> 
> "Oh, really?
> 
> "Here are the figures I linked to:"
> 
> "For 2008 (and, by the way, it's worse for 2009 -- which is what we were
> originally talking about -- because the budget for 2009 is $3.8
> trillion):"
> 
> Total budget: $2.9 trillion
> 
> Social Security: $608 billion
> Medicare: $386 billion
> Total SS and Medicare: $994 billion
> 
> $2,900 billion
> - 994 billion
> 
> = $1,906 billion
> 
> Defense spending: $481 billion
> 
> "Now, pray tell Off_World, how is $481 billion anywhere near half of
> $1.9
> trillion
> 
> Shemp said:
> 
> "Not only that but even assuming the change, Off_World is totally off on
> this.
> For example, "Homeland security" is the closest any of the categories he
> includes that come to "defense". But even that's a stretch. And he
> includes
> everything but the kitchen sink."
> 
> OffWorld
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 11:58 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> > On Behalf Of authfriend
> > 
> > "Absolutely," Clinton replied. "And, you know, the
> > president, in his public actions and demeanor, and
> > certainly in private with me and with the national
> > security team, has demonstrated just the kind of
> > weaknesses I was worried about.
> > 
> > "He's not well informed, and he vacillates all over
> > the place. I think he's doing a barely mediocre job.
> > And it's a major drag to serve with him," the former
> > secretary of state declared.
> 
> Yuk, yuk. Did you watch the interview, Judy? Obviously 
> that is not Hillary's opinion. it's quite apparent that 
> her private feelings and public statements are quite 
> in sync.

I think what Judy is trying to imply with her
joke is that if Hillary really *did* feel that
way, she would not say so in public, because
that would cost her her job. So she'd lie.
I understand that, and I'm saying that if you watch the interview
(http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek) it's clear that Hillary wasn't coerced into
becoming Secretary of State, that she enjoys the job, and that she likes,
respects, and works well with Obama. She's not harboring some grudge and
putting on a happy face for the press.

[FairfieldLife] Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?

[shempmcgurk]

Rick: if it is inappropriate to ask for and receive from you free professional 
advice, please excuse me for it.

Regarding meta-tags, which I've just added to a website that I've created: is 
it true that the key words that one puts in as meta-tags must be identical to 
words that actually appear on the webpage in which the meta-tags have been 
placed?  Someone once told me that if they aren't then search engines such as 
google will reject them.

Is this true?

[FairfieldLife] Whale Wars

[Duveyoung]

Anyone watching the Whale Wars?

My jury is having a hard time deciding if these folks are terrorists or angels 
doing triage.

They be pirates fer shur, but maybe they's gots some fine ass halos too.

Edg

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon

[Duveyoung]

What a vile attack for no reason.

Sal, Sal, Sal, tsk tsk.

I have a relationship with a woman; get over it.  It's not an especially 
successful relationship by many measurements -- as I've said, it takes a ton of 
intimacy to shift a POV -- but we try to be honest and represent ourselves with 
considerable vulnerability.  If anyone else spent as much time together as we 
have, I cannot imagine that relationship being anything but hugely profitable 
to both. It's enjoyable as a process no matter the therapeutic values.  After 
about 6300 hours of shared bon mots, there's a country-unto-itself feel about 
us.  Me likes muchalotta.

We spend time together, we like it, it feels good to know that she knows that I 
know that she knows I know -- like that.

And who isn't a vastness unexplored?  There's experts still trying to figure 
out Hitler -- anyone is a Gordian Knot.  I like the puzzle dynamics.even 
two pieces found to fit together is an aha moment.

So, Sal, does ya know anyone well enough to know them maskless?  Does ya got 
anyone to whom you can say, "Honey, I fucked up again just exactly like the 
last time, and I know you're going to have to beat me up again about it, but 
GAWD I love to watch you swing the cudgel?"

Just askin'!

Edg






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Duveyoung wrote:
> 
> > My babe and I have spent two hours per day or more in conversation  
> > for the last nine years,
> 
> Is that before or after you inflate her?
> 
> > and I have yet to fathom her depths in most regards.  I know her,  
> > but I haven't a clue.  Like that.  The vastness of her underpinnings  
> > is equal to what Arjuna saw when Krishna yawned for him.
> 
> Yep, after 9 years that's just what a
> healthy relationship with an actual
> human looks like...Krishna yawning,
> whatever that means.
> 
> Sal
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon

[WillyTex]

Duveyoung wrote:
> > My babe and I have spent two hours 
> > per day or more in conversation  
> > for the last nine years, and I have 
> > yet to fathom her depths in most 
> > regards.  I know her, but I haven't 
> > a clue. Like that. The vastness of 
> > her underpinnings is equal to what 
> > Arjuna saw when Krishna yawned for 
> > him.
> >
Sal wrote:
> Yep, after 9 years that's just what a
> healthy relationship with an actual
> human looks like...Krishna yawning,
> whatever that means.
> 
Very impressive, Sal! LOL!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> > On Behalf Of authfriend
> > 
> > "Absolutely," Clinton replied. "And, you know, the
> > president, in his public actions and demeanor, and
> > certainly in private with me and with the national
> > security team, has demonstrated just the kind of
> > weaknesses I was worried about.
> > 
> > "He's not well informed, and he vacillates all over
> > the place. I think he's doing a barely mediocre job.
> > And it's a major drag to serve with him," the former
> > secretary of state declared.
> 
> Yuk, yuk. Did you watch the interview, Judy? Obviously 
> that is not Hillary's opinion. it's quite apparent that 
> her private feelings and public statements are quite 
> in sync.

I think what Judy is trying to imply with her
joke is that if Hillary really *did* feel that
way, she would not say so in public, because
that would cost her her job. So she'd lie.

And that's the kind of honest politician Judy
admires.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[WillyTex]

Duveyoung wrote:
> > Now why didn't you just do the below 
> > in the first place?
> >
Judy wrote:
> What I don't understand is why you're 
> asking me to explain why the aliens 
> aren't making intriguing circles when 
> you know I believe aliens are less 
> likely than humans to have made the 
> circles we have...
>
Because Edg is a troll and you pushed
one of his 'hot' buttons? LOL!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The answer to the astrology/Jyotish test

[Bhairitu]

TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> All they'd have to do is make a *concrete*,
> *verifiable* prediction about the near future,
> with absolutely no bullshit vague language
> in the prediction, and then see if it comes 
> true. If it did, I'd be impressed. But it 
> seems that's too much to ask of those who 
> believe in astrology and Jyotish.
You will have a major life change in the next two years. ;-)

However, you misunderstand that astrology is not about concrete black 
and white predictions.  It is a weather report of the propensity for an 
event.  However it is far better than a WAG (Wild Ass Guess).   As I 
have said before there is something too astrology.  It is not a junk 
science.  The criticism of it by people who have never tried to learn it 
is about like villagers say in the Amazon where they've never seen a 
satellite phone and a visitor has one and they start taking about the 
crazy man talking to a box.   There is a wide gap in knowledge.

With the proper data I've never seen a chart fail to disclose the career 
path that a person took or will take.  Many people go to astrologers to 
actually find if they are on the right career path.  I've never  seen a 
chart with proper data fail why the person was having difficulty in life 
with marriage or relationships.  Often when someone asks why they are 
going through such a bad time one can about guess that one of the lunar 
nodes in transit is causing the problem.   You can assure them when it 
will go away and it does.

What you can't do is look at an ephemeris and see the likely hood of 
some precise event happening.  You have to have a subject to see that.  
It can be a person or entity such as a country.

One thing you will have a really difficult time with is that many 
astrologers, particularly western astrologers, have big egos.  You can 
imagine if they get predictions right time after time without a strong 
spiritual base the ego gets bloated.  I've seen this with jyotishis too 
but mainly ones from the west who have also a background in western 
astrology and not a strong spiritual base.   I once attended an event 
with both western and eastern astrologers.  Many of the western 
astrologers reminded me of Amway salesmen.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 7, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Duveyoung wrote:

My babe and I have spent two hours per day or more in conversation  
for the last nine years,


Is that before or after you inflate her?

and I have yet to fathom her depths in most regards.  I know her,  
but I haven't a clue.  Like that.  The vastness of her underpinnings  
is equal to what Arjuna saw when Krishna yawned for him.


Yep, after 9 years that's just what a
healthy relationship with an actual
human looks like...Krishna yawning,
whatever that means.

Sal

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 11:13 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "do.rflex"  wrote:

> Clinton: Obama has 'absolutely' passed '3 a.m.' test 
> 
> WASHINGTON (CNN) - Secretary of State Hillary 
> Clinton says President Obama has answered the 
> central question that she raised about him when
> she was his chief rival for the Democratic
> presidential nomination.
> 
> In an interview with ABC's "This Week" broadcast
> Sunday, Clinton was asked about her famous "3 a.m."
> ad last year, which questioned whether Obama was the
> right candidate to handle a middle-of-the-night
> international crisis.
> 
> "Has the president answered it for you?" host George
> Stephanopoulos asked.

"Absolutely," Clinton replied. "And, you know, the
president, in his public actions and demeanor, and
certainly in private with me and with the national
security team, has demonstrated just the kind of
weaknesses I was worried about.

"He's not well informed, and he vacillates all over
the place. I think he's doing a barely mediocre job.
And it's a major drag to serve with him," the former
secretary of state declared.
Yuk, yuk. Did you watch the interview, Judy? Obviously that is not Hillary's
opinion. it's quite apparent that her private feelings and public statements
are quite in sync.
 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 11:07 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 ]
> On Behalf Of raunchydog
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 1:21 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 

> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
> 
> Good interview. Here's a quote they replayed from her
> concession speech: "Life is too short, time is too
> precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what
> might have been."

For a professional partisan politician...

> No hint in the interview of Hillary having sour
> grapes. No indication that he regards Obama as a
> "stuffed suit." She clearly gave the impression
> that she is very impressed with Obama and enjoys
> working with him. Could it possibly be, Raunchy,
> that her perspective is a little bit better
> informed than yours?

If I may comment: Are you really suggesting that if
Hillary, Obama's secretary of state, thought Obama
was a stuffed suit and hated working with him, that
she'd be announcing it on a nationally televised
TV show on Sunday morning only a few months into his
term?
I don't think she would have taken the job in the first place if she thought
that. In fact, she said in the interview that she tried to wriggle out of it
at first, suggesting other candidates, etc., but that Obama was very
convincing, as was her awareness of the seriousness of world affairs.
 

[FairfieldLife] Weekly Address: President Obama Calls for Real Health Care

[do.rflex]

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g18BZnMgCY

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 3:31 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone
 
I mean, Rick didn't throw off one guy even after
he mounted a cyberattack on FFL by posting 
porn to it and then writing to the Yahoo admin-
istrators complaining about the porn *he* had
posted, in an attempt to get the forum taken down.
Just for the record, we often give spammers the boot (people promoting MLM
schemes, posting religious rants without participating in the conversation,
etc.), and if we can't discern the motives of someone signing up, we start
them out on moderated status. I've booted two legitimate FFL members: Kirk
Bernhardt, because I was in a rare pissy mood one day years ago, and he kept
posting fabricated Movement press releases made to look real. I don't know
what my problem was, as these days I'd probably get a good laugh out of
that. He resubscribed within minutes under a different name. The other guy
was the one you refer to. If I remember correctly, I did boot him for making
racist comments. He then slipped in under a pseudonym, posted the porn, and
reported it to Yahoo. Yahoo then switched our status to "Adult" or whatever
they call it, which was a problem, because you could no longer find FFL by
searching in Yahoo Groups, folks couldn't access the site on public library
computers, etc. One of our members (a lawyer) contacted Yahoo and
straightened that out. I have since met the porn poster in person, we've
become friends, and he has rejoined under a different name.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:

> Clinton: Obama has 'absolutely' passed '3 a.m.' test 
> 
> WASHINGTON (CNN) — Secretary of State Hillary 
> Clinton says President Obama has answered the 
> central question that she raised about him when
> she was his chief rival for the Democratic
> presidential nomination.
> 
> In an interview with ABC's "This Week" broadcast
> Sunday, Clinton was asked about her famous "3 a.m."
> ad last year, which questioned whether Obama was the
> right candidate to handle a middle-of-the-night
> international crisis.
> 
> "Has the president answered it for you?" host George
> Stephanopoulos asked.

"Absolutely," Clinton replied. "And, you know, the
president, in his public actions and demeanor, and
certainly in private with me and with the national
security team, has demonstrated just the kind of
weaknesses I was worried about.

"He's not well informed, and he vacillates all over
the place. I think he's doing a barely mediocre job.
And it's a major drag to serve with him," the former
secretary of state declared.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of shempmcgurk
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 11:04 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the
Public Option
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , WillyTex  wrote:
>
> do.rflex wrote:
> > How Pharma and Insurance Intend to 
> > Kill the Public Option..
> >
> "They still have to find a sound way 
> to pay for expanding health care, a 
> tough job amid staggering U.S. budget 
> deficits..."

willytex is right.

Look, with a $1.8 trillion deficit, Obammy has shot his wad.

There really is nothing else we can spend our money on 'cause we haven't got
it.

The only good thing about the spending orgy that Obammy went on is that
there isn't anything left for global warming. And no one's interested
anyway. Pretty much everyone has concluded it's a scam.
Pretty much everyone in your strange little world. In the real world, all
legitimate climatologists agree that it's a real and serious threat.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex  wrote:
> >
> > do.rflex wrote:
> > > How Pharma and Insurance Intend to 
> > > Kill the Public Option..
> > >
> > "They still have to find a sound way 
> > to pay for expanding health care, a 
> > tough job amid staggering U.S. budget 
> > deficits..."
> 
> 
> willytex is right.
> 
> Look, with a $1.8 trillion deficit, Obammy has shot his wad.
> 
> There really is nothing else we can spend our money on 'cause we haven't got 
> it.
> 
> The only good thing about the spending orgy that Obammy went on is that there 
> isn't anything left for global warming.  And no one's interested anyway.  
> Pretty much everyone has concluded it's a scam.
> 
> Ha!


Bananas.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of raunchydog
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 1:21 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
>  
> Good interview. Here's a quote they replayed from her
> concession speech: "Life is too short, time is too
> precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what
> might have been."

For a professional partisan politician...

> No hint in the interview of Hillary having sour
> grapes. No indication that he regards Obama as a
> "stuffed suit." She clearly gave the impression
> that she is very impressed with Obama and enjoys
> working with him. Could it possibly be, Raunchy,
> that her perspective is a little bit better
> informed than yours?

If I may comment: Are you really suggesting that if
Hillary, Obama's secretary of state, thought Obama
was a stuffed suit and hated working with him, that
she'd be announcing it on a nationally televised
TV show on Sunday morning only a few months into his
term?

Just how long do you think she'd last in that job if
she did?

Give me a *break*.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , off_world_beings 
wrote:
> 
> > All this info above is FROM the site you posted ! You
> > have dug yourself into a hole, just admit you are wrong.
> > Its obvious to anyone.
>
> Shemp, several posts back:
>
> "Depending upon how much discretionary spending is for
> any given year, defense may represent 600% of
> discretionary spending."
>
> Off, several posts back:
>
> "Military spending is more than half of the US budget
> when you take out Social Security and Medicare."
>
> "Your math sucks. You are digging yourself into a deep
> hole here. Defense is more than 500 trillion in the
> chart you linked to..."
>

You are being dishonest Judy. Here below is Shemp's long arguments about
the topic he and I were discussing. Your attempt to bring ALL posts back
to your feud with Turq is arrogant. I think you should apologize. If you
think this thread was still about Turq's mistake of terms, then read
below Shemps LONG arguments in this thread over what the thread VERY
QUICKLY became.

You and Turq do not own FFL ya know.

Shemp said:

"And, yes, I may agree with you vis a vis the Social Security spending
inclusion.
Both Social Security and Medicare are essentially insurance programs.
Their
contributions and benefits are taken and meted out completely
differently than
all other spending and taxing by the federal government and, as such,
should be
segregated from the budget."

"But defense is NOT about half of the budget even when SS and Medicare
are taken
out. See the following and do the math:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008


Shemp said:

"Gosh, I was nervous when Bush had a deficit of $580 billion."

"This year Obama and his Democratic Congress have given us a $1.8
trillion
deficit. Divide that amount by the 300 million people in the U.S. and
you come
up with a figure of $6,000 per person. And that's just ONE YEAR. Obama's
planning on doing this each and every year."

"Perhaps not the end of the world but pretty darn close to the end of
America."

Shemp said:

"Oh, really?

"Here are the figures I linked to:"

"For 2008 (and, by the way, it's worse for 2009 -- which is what we were
originally talking about -- because the budget for 2009 is $3.8
trillion):"

Total budget: $2.9 trillion

Social Security: $608 billion
Medicare: $386 billion
Total SS and Medicare: $994 billion

$2,900 billion
- 994 billion

= $1,906 billion

Defense spending: $481 billion

"Now, pray tell Off_World, how is $481 billion anywhere near half of
$1.9
trillion

Shemp said:

"Not only that but even assuming the change, Off_World is totally off on
this.
For example, "Homeland security" is the closest any of the categories he
includes that come to "defense". But even that's a stretch. And he
includes
everything but the kitchen sink."

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of raunchydog
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 1:21 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
>  
> Finally, Secretary Clinton will be interviewed on a Sunday TV show. This
> Sunday, June 7, she'll appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It'll
> be her first Sunday show interview as secretary of state and her first
> Sunday show since she ended her presidential campaign almost exactly a year
> ago.
> 
> http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/05/secretary_clinton_on_sunda
> y_tv_finally
> Good interview. Here's a quote they replayed from her concession speech:> 
> "Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to> 
> dwell on what might have been." No hint in the interview of Hillary having> 
> sour grapes. No indication that he regards Obama as a "stuffed suit." 

She> clearly gave the impression that she is very impressed with Obama and 
enjoys> working with him. Could it possibly be, Raunchy, that her perspective 
is a> little bit better informed than yours?
>



Clinton: Obama has 'absolutely' passed '3 a.m.' test 

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says President Obama has 
answered the central question that she raised about him when she was his chief 
rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

In an interview with ABC's "This Week" broadcast Sunday, Clinton was asked 
about her famous "3 a.m." ad last year, which questioned whether Obama was the 
right candidate to handle a middle-of-the-night international crisis.

"Has the president answered it for you?" host George Stephanopoulos asked.

"Absolutely," Clinton replied. "And, you know, the president, in his public 
actions and demeanor, and certainly in private with me and with the national 
security team, has been strong, thoughtful, decisive, I think he is doing a 
terrific job. And it's an honor to serve with him."

~CNN: http://snipurl.com/jmtfr

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex  wrote:
>
> do.rflex wrote:
> > How Pharma and Insurance Intend to 
> > Kill the Public Option..
> >
> "They still have to find a sound way 
> to pay for expanding health care, a 
> tough job amid staggering U.S. budget 
> deficits..."


willytex is right.

Look, with a $1.8 trillion deficit, Obammy has shot his wad.

There really is nothing else we can spend our money on 'cause we haven't got it.

The only good thing about the spending orgy that Obammy went on is that there 
isn't anything left for global warming.  And no one's interested anyway.  
Pretty much everyone has concluded it's a scam.

Ha!



> 
> Read more:
> 
> 'Health, climate change vie for boost 
> in US Congress'
> Reuters, June 7, 20009
> http://tinyurl.com/p46xwp
> 
> "Even the liberal-leaning Center on 
> Budget and Policy Priorities suggested 
> last week that Congress is unlikely to 
> be able to pay for universal coverage 
> unless it takes the unpopular step of 
> limiting the tax exclusion for the 
> value of the health insurance provided 
> by an employer..."
> 
> Read more:
> 
> 'Paying for Universal Health Coverage'
> New York Times Editorial, June 6, 2009 
> http://tinyurl.com/qc995v
>

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Judy,
> 
> Now why didn't you just do the below in the first place?

Because (a) Lurk was much politer than you were;
(b) he admitted his impression could be mistaken
about my views; (c) I hadn't gone around with him
before on this, as I had with you.

> -- it is a great presentation, and you've done us all a
> service thereby.

Uh-huh. Did the same presentation the last time we
discussed it.

> That said, let me have some funzies:
> 
> Here's some crop circles that would get me into all
> sorts of obsessing:

> Where are these crops circles?

You seem to be suggesting that if aliens made the crop
circles, they'd make them more intriguing in various
ways, and because there are no such intriguing circles,
therefore it's unlikely to be aliens. Right?

What I don't understand is why you're asking me to
explain why the aliens aren't making intriguing circles
when you know I believe aliens are less likely than
humans to have made the circles we have.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of raunchydog
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 1:21 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
 
Finally, Secretary Clinton will be interviewed on a Sunday TV show. This
Sunday, June 7, she'll appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It'll
be her first Sunday show interview as secretary of state and her first
Sunday show since she ended her presidential campaign almost exactly a year
ago.

http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/05/secretary_clinton_on_sunda
y_tv_finally
Good interview. Here's a quote they replayed from her concession speech:
"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to
dwell on what might have been." No hint in the interview of Hillary having
sour grapes. No indication that he regards Obama as a "stuffed suit." She
clearly gave the impression that she is very impressed with Obama and enjoys
working with him. Could it possibly be, Raunchy, that her perspective is a
little bit better informed than yours?
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option

[WillyTex]

do.rflex wrote:
> How Pharma and Insurance Intend to 
> Kill the Public Option..
>
"They still have to find a sound way 
to pay for expanding health care, a 
tough job amid staggering U.S. budget 
deficits..."

Read more:

'Health, climate change vie for boost 
in US Congress'
Reuters, June 7, 20009
http://tinyurl.com/p46xwp

"Even the liberal-leaning Center on 
Budget and Policy Priorities suggested 
last week that Congress is unlikely to 
be able to pay for universal coverage 
unless it takes the unpopular step of 
limiting the tax exclusion for the 
value of the health insurance provided 
by an employer..."

Read more:

'Paying for Universal Health Coverage'
New York Times Editorial, June 6, 2009 
http://tinyurl.com/qc995v