[FairfieldLife] Re: Heidi Klum goes goddess on our asses
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scariest costume I've ever seen, but still less upsetting than the Ahnold pic. Still want to date her, guys? You betcha. That's the goddess Kali you're dissing, not Heidi Klum. And if you believe in goddesses and their purported powers, that's a risky thing to do. You could wind up on her belt. Heck, according to Kali's myth, you *will* wind up on her belt. :-) --- On Sun, 11/2/08, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Heidi Klum goes goddess on our asses To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 4:13 AM For enlightened_dawn, who mentioned her here recently, Heidi Klum's Halloween costume: http://i35.tinypic.com/2mhy2a1.jpg A veritable GILF. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama supports civilian paramilitary, FFL Obama-bots get suckered.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gun safety, esp. since it's a horrendous problem in the US, should look to nations with few gun problems and at least get some concrete plans. Vaj, with all due respect, the only plan that one could get from other countries with regard to guns would involve having a time machine that works. They'd have to go back in time and remove the backlog of guns that are *currently* owned by citizens. Most of the saner countries *always* had restrictions on gun ownership. And that's a hard thing to undo. All of the friends I've had who were gun freaks have plans in place to *hide* their guns should laws be enacted to cause them to turn them in to the guvmint. The existing guns are here to stay, sadly. The only laws that can have any effect will have to do with the purchase and ownership of new ones. But the larger problem is the temperament of the countries themselves. As pointed out in Bowling For Columbine, Canada has about the same percent- age of gun ownership that America does, but only a fraction of its gun deaths per year. The problem is not *necessarily* to be found in the guns but in the gun *owners*. I find all of this rather sad to read, because of the *assumption* on the part of FFL posters that life is a dangerous thing, and that they have to worry about carrying some weapon to protect them- selves with as they walk to their cars. I don't. I haven't had to for six years, in France or here in Spain. The problem is not the guns. The problem is the people who own them. Guns don't go crazy; people do. Here are the stats, from the CDC, on how that craziness breaks down by country. Note the ranking of Switzerland in the list, where every household is *required* to own a gun, as part of its militia preparedness. Compare to the US. The problem is not the guns; it's their owners. The United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths -- murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology. The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69. Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons. The 36 countries in the study were the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, having the highest GNP per capita income. The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths. The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows: * U.S.A. 14.24 * Brazil 12.95 * Mexico 12.69 * Estonia 12.26 * Argentina 8.93 * Northern Ireland 6.63 * Finland 6.46 * Switzerland 5.31 * France 5.15 * Canada 4.31 * Norway 3.82 * Austria 3.70 * Portugal 3.20 * Israel 2.91 * Belgium 2.90 * Australia 2.65 * Slovenia 2.60 * Italy 2.44 * New Zealand 2.38 * Denmark 2.09 * Sweden 1.92 * Kuwait 1.84 * Greece 1.29 * Germany 1.24 * Hungary 1.11 * Ireland 0.97 * Spain 0.78 * Netherlands 0.70 * Scotland 0.54 * England and Wales 0.41 * Taiwan 0.37 * Singapore 0.21 * Mauritius 0.19 * Hong Kong 0.14 * South Korea 0.12 * Japan 0.05
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama supports civilian paramilitary, FFL Obama-bots get suckered.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip Actually Obama never used the word paramilitary. Quite correct...it's my word but as you'll see from the dictionary.com definition it is 100% applicable: noting or pertaining to an organization operating as, in place of, or as a supplement to a regular military force: a paramilitary police unit. Nope, doesn't apply if the force isn't doing anything either military in nature or *for* the military. Sorry, Shemp. Here's a transcript from the entire 20-second youtube clip: We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. It sounds quite clear to me, Judy, that he is referring here to an alternative or supplement to a military FORCE. Are such organisations only military in nature if they are actively engaged in wars...is that what you are suggesting? If so, I would remind you that military forces do all sorts of things besides engage in wars, domestically and outside our borders: hurricane relief, postal service (when postal workers go on strike), escorting little minority girls to school when their governors symbolically block their entry to schools, etc. But, of course, Obama is most definitely referring to the force aspect of this civilian national security FORCE (my emphasis) wherein within the borders of the United States that force will be used with guns, tear gas, whatever...or he wouldn't have used the word force. If there is another context to this outside the 20-minute clip, I'm open to hearing about it... I was a member of the Civil Air Patrol, when I was about 13. A friend of mine joined and dragged me along. It was worth the experience, a short taste of the military, that relieved me of any desire to participate in Viet Nam era military anything. The point is, that this arm of the US Air Force, is a civilian branch that was formed during WWII to hunt for down planes in remote mountains, and other such rescue missions. Also, along the New Jersey coast, there were lookouts during WWII, for submarines. There could be all kinds of ways to protect and strengthen our country. Talking about military weapons, guns, etc., is not the point here. We need to rebuild our infrastructure, which will create many jobs. Expand the electrical grid, invest in alternate energy, have a more balance approach in the Middle East which will promote peace. Peace and rebuilding trust and truth for the United States in the world, will do more to re-establish our credibility, than just cash. This is what the new leadership will offer, in a higher vibration, a leap in evolution, which we are in the midst of the transition of, YOu Betcha! R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Election Eve Musings: The U-word
There have been many candidates for the lowest moment of this low, low, political campaign. Libby Dole's Godless ad is one, and Michele Bachmann's McCarthyesque anti-American rant is another. One of my personal favorites was when the McCain campaign bought the rights to the domain name VoteForTheMILF.com, and redirected clicks on it to the main John McCain website, where it ran a video of Sarah Palin. (The URL has since been changed to redirect to Google, but doesn't it just *scream* what they really thought of her?) But my candidate for the lowest moment of the campaign, by far, is the use of one word, thrown out as an epithet, and as a label to be attached to Barack Obama: UNELECTABLE In my opinion, this word captures the nature of this epic campaign better than any other, because it captures the mindset of the two warring sets of energies better than any other. The people who called Barack Obama unelectable are OLD. They are tired, they are devoid of life force, and they honestly don't see any other solution to the problems of the world than the ones they have been trying for decades now. And, worst of all, they are so devoid of HOPE that they react to the presence of hope in others by trying to demonize it, as if hope were a bad thing. THAT is the mindset that hopefully will go down in flames tomorrow. And about bloody time, too. You need go no further than the two slogans of the two main political parties to see the difference between the old and in the way mindset that will exiting the stage and the one that will be entering, stage left. One party aligned itself with the arrogant, shortsighted, and jingoistic Country First. They actually *like* the fact that the United States of America is the most feared and despised and distrusted nation on the planet. The other party swung behind a truth so simple that it inspired hatred and jeers from those so divorced from the notion of truth that they saw it as simplistic: Yes we can. Well, the polls seem to indicate that Yes, we really can. The polls suggest that those who posed as pundits and claimed to be speaking from a platform of greater and more meaningful insight when pinning the U-word label to Barack Obama were, in a W-word, WRONG. Not only that, by using that word, they revealed the poverty of their own lives, and their own view of what life can be. They had lost hope so completely that they not only pooh- poohed the idea of bucking the status quo, they declared anyone who tried unelectable. Well, we'll see, won't we? If, Wednesday morning, we find that these sad, hopeless fucks were right and that -- due to vote fraud and voter disenfranchisement -- Barack Obama really IS unelectable, I hope that another U-word will come into play: UNENDURABLE I hope that if that happens, those of us who are NOT with- out hope will rise up and burn the motherfuckin' country to the ground. It'll deserve it, and out of its ashes will rise a country that still believes that Yes, we CAN change. If things go as expected, then the real work is only start- ing, for Obama and for those of us he inspired. And the ones who reacted to someone who could still inspire (when their candidate could not) by screaming Unelectable? Well, frankly, fuck 'em. Let them crawl back into the fear- fenced hidey-holes they stuck their No-we-can't-change-and- anyone-who-claims-we-can-is-unelectable heads out of. Fuck 'em because some of us still have the ability to react to inspiration by becoming inspired, not fearful. We see the cry of Yes we can as a *reminder*, and a wake-up call, not as something to mock and be afraid of. And we're ready to start on Day One of a new, hopeful era of American history by pitching in to change things. Yes we can. Yes, we motherfuckin' can.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A well regulated militia our rights 2 bear arm's
On Nov 2, 2008, at 9:47 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 2, 2008, at 8:24 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: what is wrong with being dead when we are dead? one moment i am alive and the next i no longer exist ever again. perhaps my energy just becomes photonic waves between here and some distant galaxy. what's the problem? Maybe you're an Annihilationist. maybe you're a compulsive labeler, Mr. Vaj. it is a strange way to avoid my question. what if reincarnation is a scam? Sounds like you were surprised your View had a name. From my POV Annihilationism is a false View, based on personal experience. But I'd also add the conventional view of reincarnation may represent more of a parody than the facts. If one has lingering questions or lingering doubts, apply the practices which can clarify your way of seeing and then decide. Don't get stuck relying on external authorities.
[FairfieldLife] Be sure to -Vote- so you don't end up with this
The wingnuts' favorite... Photo: http://culturedecoded.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/bush-mccain-hug-72.jpg Watch: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FzX7vsdEybo More of the same policies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4TNt6I9vCY
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama supports civilian paramilitary, FFL Obama-bots get suckered.
On Nov 3, 2008, at 4:06 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gun safety, esp. since it's a horrendous problem in the US, should look to nations with few gun problems and at least get some concrete plans. Vaj, with all due respect, the only plan that one could get from other countries with regard to guns would involve having a time machine that works. They'd have to go back in time and remove the backlog of guns that are *currently* owned by citizens. Most of the saner countries *always* had restrictions on gun ownership. And that's a hard thing to undo. All of the friends I've had who were gun freaks have plans in place to *hide* their guns should laws be enacted to cause them to turn them in to the guvmint. The existing guns are here to stay, sadly. The only laws that can have any effect will have to do with the purchase and ownership of new ones. Good point. However if you made old, unregistered guns illegal, to avoid becoming criminals a huge number of people would turn theirs in. There is also money: gun buy outs. And then you just prosecute the gun nuts as they are exposed. Give lucrative rewards to turn gun nuts in. And so on. I agree with what you're describing, but if they're unwilling to disarm, we'll find a way to get them. But not all of them. Eventually they'll probably be able to scan your house from space and know just where the guns are and what kinds. But the larger problem is the temperament of the countries themselves. As pointed out in Bowling For Columbine, Canada has about the same percent- age of gun ownership that America does, but only a fraction of its gun deaths per year. The problem is not *necessarily* to be found in the guns but in the gun *owners*. Precisely. When you look at the consciousness of a typical gun nut in terms of the various scales of development, they score quite low when compared to the center of gravity of collective evolution in the US (which is moving towards the Green meme, Relativistic-personalistic— communitarian/egalitarian collective consciousness). Gun hoarding habits are more Red and Blue meme themes (Egocentric-exploitive power gods/dominionist collective consciousness and Absolutistic-obedience mythic order—purposeful/authoritarian collective consciousness). I find all of this rather sad to read, because of the *assumption* on the part of FFL posters that life is a dangerous thing, and that they have to worry about carrying some weapon to protect them- selves with as they walk to their cars. I don't. I haven't had to for six years, in France or here in Spain. A friend who lived in Philly for most of his life told me an interesting story. As he grew older he became more worried about crime, mugging, etc. So he, at first, began to carry simple weapons, but eventually began carrying a nice sized knife. As his perspective on his environment changed, his environment began to mirror back his inner state in increasingly menacing ways. Fortunately, as he was getting to the point where he felt he needed a gun to protect himself (and he did live a high-crime neighborhood) he realized he was helping to create his own environment based on the vibes he put out. So he decided to change the way he saw things. As soon as he did, the environment he lived in changed. Kids coming up to him to establish dominance, muggings and threats stopped. He remains weapon free to this day. And all he did was change the way he chose to see things. That might not work for everyone, but it did work for him. The problem is not the guns. The problem is the people who own them. Guns don't go crazy; people do. Here are the stats, from the CDC, on how that craziness breaks down by country. Note the ranking of Switzerland in the list, where every household is *required* to own a gun, as part of its militia preparedness. Compare to the US. The problem is not the guns; it's their owners. The United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths -- murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology. The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69. Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons. I find the stats on Japan very interesting as you can see a country where an internal and external connection between and inner sense of orderliness and an outer sense of orderliness is directly correlatable. I also remember hearing that Asian immigrants have the lowest levels of criminal activity here in the US.
[FairfieldLife] What remains of the GOP
You might think, perhaps hope, that Republicans will engage in some soul-searching, that they'll ask themselves whether and how they lost touch with the national mainstream. But my prediction is that this won't happen any time soon. Instead, the Republican rump, the party that's left after the election, will be the party that attends Sarah Palin's rallies, where crowds chant Vote McCain, not Hussein! ~~ Paul Krugman http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opinion/03krugman.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Most popular on Digg -- someone who gets this election
I know Barack is going to win because a few days ago my redneck neighbors put out an Obama yard sign. I couldn't believe it. Last time they were for Bush. The times, they are a'changin'! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My wife made me canvas for Obama; here's what I learned By Jonathan Curley Charlotte, N.C. - There has been a lot of speculation that Barack Obama might win the election due to his better ground game and superior campaign organization. I had the chance to view that organization up close this month when I canvassed for him. I'm not sure I learned much about his chances, but I learned a lot about myself and about this election. Let me make it clear: I'm pretty conservative. I grew up in the suburbs. I voted for George H.W. Bush twice, and his son once. I was disappointed when Bill Clinton won, and disappointed he couldn't run again. I encouraged my son to join the military. I was proud of him in Afghanistan, and happy when he came home, and angry when he was recalled because of the invasion of Iraq. I'm white, 55, I live in the South and I'm definitely going to get a bigger tax bill if Obama wins. I am the dreaded swing voter. So you can imagine my surprise when my wife suggested we spend a Saturday morning canvassing for Obama. I have never canvassed for any candidate. But I did, of course, what most middle-aged married men do: what I was told. At the Obama headquarters, we stood in a group to receive our instructions. I wasn't the oldest, but close, and the youngest was maybe in high school. I watched a campaign organizer match up a young black man who looked to be college age with a white guy about my age to canvas together. It should not have been a big thing, but the beauty of the image did not escape me. Instead of walking the tree-lined streets near our home, my wife and I were instructed to canvass a housing project. A middle-aged white couple with clipboards could not look more out of place in this predominantly black neighborhood. We knocked on doors and voices from behind carefully locked doors shouted, Who is it? We're from the Obama campaign, we'd answer. And just like that doors opened and folks with wide smiles came out on the porch to talk. Grandmothers kept one hand on their grandchildren and made sure they had all the information they needed for their son or daughter to vote for the first time. Young people came to the door rubbing sleep from their eyes to find out where they could vote early, to make sure their vote got counted. We knocked on every door we could find and checked off every name on our list. We did our job, but Obama may not have been the one who got the most out of the day's work. I learned in just those three hours that this election is not about what we think of as the big things. It's not about taxes. I'm pretty sure mine are going to go up no matter who is elected. It's not about foreign policy. I think we'll figure out a way to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan no matter which party controls the White House, mostly because the people who live there don't want us there anymore. I don't see either of the candidates as having all the answers. I've learned that this election is about the heart of America. It's about the young people who are losing hope and the old people who have been forgotten. It's about those who have worked all their lives and never fully realized the promise of America, but see that promise for their grandchildren in Barack Obama. The poor see a chance, when they often have few. I saw hope in the eyes and faces in those doorways. My wife and I went out last weekend to knock on more doors. But this time, not because it was her idea. I don't know what it's going to do for the Obama campaign, but it's doing a lot for me. Jonathan Curley is a banker. He voted for George H.W. Bush twice and George W. Bush once.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama supports civilian paramilitary, FFL Obama-bots get suckered.
On Nov 3, 2008, at 5:51 AM, Hugo wrote: Long may the ban on hand guns continue, I hate to think what this place would be like with the American style approach to score settling. How many thousands are gunned down in US cities every year? Too many. That's why I predict in 20-50 years you'll see handguns banned in all major US cities. Hand guns are made for killin Aint no good for nothin else And if you like your whiskey You might even shoot yourself So why dont we dump em people To the bottom of the sea Before some fool come around here Wanna shoot either you or me -Ronnie Van Zant Satuday Night Special
[FairfieldLife] Governor Sarah Palin
When John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, I was interested in learning about her and her accomplishments. I've had a long wait. The main stream press not only failed to provide the salient points of her executive career, it instantly began creating its own Sarah Palin with a portrait not exactly flattering. So, I had to do my own research. Even the media couldn't suppress the fact that she has polled as the most popular governor of all 50 states. Another testament to her broad support: when she served as mayor, she was elected by her fellow Alaskan mayors throughout the state as president of the Alaskan Conference of Mayors. I wanted to find out the reasons behind her popularity, and here's a small summary of some of her accomplishments as Governor that most impressed me. 1. Natural Gas Pipeline: Before becoming governor, the plans for a natural gas pipeline were in the works. Governor Palin's predecessor, however, was cozy with big energy corporations and was pushing pipeline legislation which signed off on a plan he had already worked out with oil companies, which would have relinquished the state's sovereignty vis a vis the pipeline as part of the package deal. When Palin came into office, she wanted to limit big oil's influence over the state's affairs, and when she took over the project (from the executive end), she absolutely insisted there would be no deal with any company unless the state retained its sovereignty. The Bush Administration got wind of this and not surprisingly tried to intervene on behalf of Big Oil. Cheney himself even put in a couple calls to Palin asking her to kill it. Cheney's staff pressed the Palin administration to draw in the energy companies, said current and former state officials involved in those discussions. Palin had been warned twice by Vice President Dick Cheney, to bring in the oil producers to the pipeline project. (AP; Alaska Daily News) Sarah Palin, however, stood up to Big Oil and the good ole boys and the state of Alaska has now finalized a plan with TransCanada which, as a result of the governor's firmness, includes the sovereignty provision. After Alaska's Senate vote in favor of providing the AGIA license to TransCanada, Gov. Palin praised the Legislature: Our lawmakers have protected Alaska's sovereignty. They've really taken it back. 2. Big Oil Companies' Tax: Gov. Palin stood up to the big energy companies again when she worked with Alaska's lawmakers to increase the state's share of its oil wealth through new legislation that revamped the Alaska's state oil tax to include a progressive net-profits tax. Through this legislation known as ACES,Alaska's Clean and Equitable Share Plan, the state has achieved a budget surplus in the billions. The state's increased revenues have been put to good use by Gov. Palin. For example, under her governance, funding for special needs in education has tripled in per-pupil funding for over the course of the next three years. Palin also has implemented the Senior Benefits Program, which provides financial support for low-income older Alaskans, reduced the state's pension liability, established a revenue-sharing fund for local governments, helped homeowners directly with weatherization and home-heating costs, and has suspended the state's gasoline tax (at the pump) for one year. Alaskans will also be receiving a $1200 tax rebate. And the state's projected budget appears to be headed to a significant surplus into the foreseeable future. (For a detailed outline of Palin's energy-related goals and accomplishments, click this link from Alaska Daily News: http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/553653.html ) 3. Ethics Reform: One of Sarah Palin's greatest initiatives upon becoming Governor was to immediately begin an overhaul of the state's ethics laws. This was a big concern for the governor before taking office. She actually had resigned her membership (pre-Governor years) on Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she served as Chair, when a fellow member (who happened also to be head of the state's Republican Party), refused to stop conducting Party business on the commission's time. He was actually working closely with the companies he was supposed to be regulating. She brought it up in private initially, and asked him several times to stop his unethical practice. He ignored her request, and she resigned in protest, and forthwith filed a formal complaint. He himself eventually was forced to resign and pay a fine for ethics violations. After she was elected governor, she right away enlisted a Democrat and a Republican to work together to write up a position paper for the state on government ethics. This resulted in legislation, enthusiastically signed into law by the Governor, which included: tougher conflict of interest laws, greater restrictions on lobbyist gifts, a banning of lobbying activities by the spouses of legislators, and a ban on lobbying activities of recently resigned state
[FairfieldLife] Little evidence of a surge in young voter turnout
PRINCETON, NJ Gallup polling in October finds little evidence of a surge in young voter turnout beyond what it was in 2004. While young voter registration may be up slightly over 2004, the reported level of interest in the election and intention to vote among those under 30 are no higher than they were that year. [493] http://uppitywoman08.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/aaat8wzqxjcke61ihknq7r\ -vw.gif
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama supports civilian paramilitary, FFL Obama-bots get suckered.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Gun safety, esp. since it's a horrendous problem in the US, should look to nations with few gun problems and at least get some concrete plans. Vaj, with all due respect, the only plan that one could get from other countries with regard to guns would involve having a time machine that works. They'd have to go back in time and remove the backlog of guns that are *currently* owned by citizens. Most of the saner countries *always* had restrictions on gun ownership. And that's a hard thing to undo. All of the friends I've had who were gun freaks have plans in place to *hide* their guns should laws be enacted to cause them to turn them in to the guvmint. The existing guns are here to stay, sadly. The only laws that can have any effect will have to do with the purchase and ownership of new ones. But the larger problem is the temperament of the countries themselves. As pointed out in Bowling For Columbine, Canada has about the same percent- age of gun ownership that America does, but only a fraction of its gun deaths per year. The problem is not *necessarily* to be found in the guns but in the gun *owners*. I find all of this rather sad to read, because of the *assumption* on the part of FFL posters that life is a dangerous thing, and that they have to worry about carrying some weapon to protect them- selves with as they walk to their cars. I don't. I haven't had to for six years, in France or here in Spain. The problem is not the guns. The problem is the people who own them. Guns don't go crazy; people do. Here are the stats, from the CDC, on how that craziness breaks down by country. Note the ranking of Switzerland in the list, where every household is *required* to own a gun, as part of its militia preparedness. Compare to the US. The problem is not the guns; it's their owners. The United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths -- murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology. The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69. Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons. The 36 countries in the study were the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, having the highest GNP per capita income. The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths. The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows: * U.S.A. 14.24 * Brazil 12.95 * Mexico 12.69 * Estonia 12.26 * Argentina 8.93 * Northern Ireland 6.63 * Finland 6.46 * Switzerland 5.31 * France 5.15 * Canada 4.31 * Norway 3.82 * Austria 3.70 * Portugal 3.20 * Israel 2.91 * Belgium 2.90 * Australia 2.65 * Slovenia 2.60 * Italy 2.44 * New Zealand 2.38 * Denmark 2.09 * Sweden 1.92 * Kuwait 1.84 * Greece 1.29 * Germany 1.24 * Hungary 1.11 * Ireland 0.97 * Spain 0.78 * Netherlands 0.70 * Scotland 0.54 * England and Wales 0.41 * Taiwan 0.37 * Singapore 0.21 * Mauritius 0.19 * Hong Kong 0.14 * South Korea 0.12 * Japan 0.05 ++ Read recently that there were increasing numbers of knives killing people in Japan.
[FairfieldLife] Ani's Closing Argument against Obama: Deconstructing His Lies
I am delighted to see that Senator McCain currently has the wind at his back. Otherwise, this country stands at the precipice of one of the biggest electoral mistakes imaginable making the singularly unqualified http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/30/michelle-tells-it-like-it-i\ s/ Senator Obama Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces and leader of the free world. By his own rhetoric and associations, he doesn't seem to like America very much http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/28/obamas-world-view-sees-us-c\ omparable-to-hitlers-germany/ , and is so arrogant, he cannot even fathom how deeply unprepared http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/01/it-is-certain-to-be-a-dange\ rous-time-44s-first-365-3-am-moments/ he is to lead our country during this most difficult time. I have watched in horror and amazement as deeds, gaffes, falsehoods and gross errors in judgment that would have taken down any other politician just slide from Obama like Teflon, much like George Bush. Bush's problem is not that he's a Republican. It is that he is a petty, arrogant bully who thinks he is anointed by God, much like Barack Obama. I believe Obama's supporters are voting for a carefully crafted narrative; a symbol rather than a man. Symbols don't govern. Men do. Women do. A symbol is nothing if there is no substance behind it. Here is my closing argument that he is words, just words and the substance of Barack Obama is as thin as tissue paper. Campaign manager David Axelrod had to find a way to propel an affable but rather wishy-washy, under-achieving legislator from Illinois with only a couple of years in the Senate under his belt past a host of far more accomplished candidates. Therefore `experience' became a dirty word. With Senator Obama's silvery speeches, his slick, evasive way around all direct questions and no policy decisions one could pin on him, he was able to move close to the front of the field. But he could not get past his biggest obstacle: the brilliant Joan of Arc in a pantsuit, Hillary Clinton. All eight guys sharing the debate stage piled on, including Obama, but still, she came out on top with her preparedness and smarts. So the narrative had to be amended. Not only is experience a dirty word, Clinton had to become a dirty word as well. We were reminded of Republicans hunting Bill Clinton endlessly in the 90's and told that we didn't want to support political dynasties, i.e., Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Well, Hillary is Bill's wife, so technically, she's a Rodham. No dynasty there, but no matter. So first experience became a dirty word and Clinton became a dirty word, too. After seven years of George Bush, Democrats, starved to retake the presidency, were sick and tired of partisan bickering and infighting. Whether people loved the Clintons or not, some were afraid that perhaps the Clinton name meant that the hunt would start all over again so they were willing to buy Axelrod's first narrative in order to escape the second. And then the third narrative was born: Barack Obama is post-racial, post-partisan and stands apart from inside-the-beltway politics. He will cut through the gristle and build consensus because he has no enemies and is not set in his ways like some old pol. Axelrod then had to create a fourth narrative: Barack as rock star. He needed to draw the eye in order to bypass the Clintons' rock star status within the Democratic Party and to distract the American public from the most important reason not to vote for him: he didn't know what he was doing and had a paper-thin resume. Hence we got the super-sized rallies, the soaring speeches, the `fainting,' people screaming I love you, Barack from the throngs in the audience. We now know that many of his enormous rallies had freebie giveaways rock concerts and the like. But that was a well kept secret, like the rest of this well-crafted stage farce. So the mystique of Obama was born. The Democrats' antipathy toward the Iraq war also helped to birth the fifth Obama narrative Obama as the anti-war candidate, because of a speech he allegedly gave in the ultra liberal Hyde Park district of Illinois in 2002, at no political cost to himself. He was the man of good judgment for his war opposition. Not that he had the power to vote on any such a thing at the time. If he did, surely he would have found a way to do as he had always done in the State Senate when challenged by a politically risky vote: vote present as he did there 130 times. But then, an all too compliant media started to get the collective tingle up their leg. Whether this was out of fear of being called racist if they didn't `treat the black guy nicely', or just their obsession with taking Hillary down or both, I don't know. But they willfully decided not to do their jobs. He received no vetting whatsoever. Still, Hillary Clinton had a formidable lead in the polls and was winning the majority of primaries before Super Tuesday (including Michigan and Florida),
[FairfieldLife] How the US Election Became the World's Election
NEWSWEEK excerpt: Europe is thrilled by the prospect that whatever happens this week it will mean the end of George W. Bush, and enraptured by the sheer spectacle of it all. James Dickmeyer, the director of the Foreign Press Centers, which helps international press cover U.S. political campaigns, says foreign journalists swarmed not only the Iowa caucuses but even the Iowa State Fair's Straw Poll, which they had never covered before. Bob Worcester, the American-born founder of the London-based polling and research firm Mori, has worked in more than 40 countries, and says he has never ever seen any election in which so many people in so many places have been so interested. It's very clear who they are interested in: Barack Obama. John McCain and Sarah Palin are by all accounts still in the race, but McCain has become a political cipher in a world that has of late tuned into Obama 24/7. [...] Obama went into Election Day with a steady lead in U.S. polls, averaging about 50 percent to 44 percent for McCain, but he was headed for a landslide around the world, topping polls in virtually every nation often by strong margins: 70 percent in Germany, 75 percent in China and so on. Somewhere along the road to the White House, Obama became the world's candidatea reminder that for all the talk of America's decline, for all the visceral hatred of Bush, the rest of the world still looks upon the United States as a land of hope and opportunity. The Obama adventure is what makes America magical, French State Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Human Rights Rama Yade, a Senegalese immigrant who is the only black member of Nicolas Sarkozy's government, recently told Le Parisien. http://www.newsweek.com/id/166910
[FairfieldLife] Re: Governor Sarah Palin
Maybe she should have spent more time talking about these points than trying to make the public afraid of Obama as different and exotic and basically a terrorist in a $1,500 suit. Or she could have talked about these accomplishments instead of lying about the things she did. Here is another view of the rise and fall of Palin: http://tinyurl.com/6yt7ms http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/02/AR2008110201718.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 Maybe she isn't a bad governor, looking out for the practically socialist Alaskans like a mother hen, but just not ready for the international stage. (Glimpses of Russia notwithstanding.) But I believe she has kept McCain for getting into the White House and for that I will be grateful tomorrow night. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, I was interested in learning about her and her accomplishments. I've had a long wait. The main stream press not only failed to provide the salient points of her executive career, it instantly began creating its own Sarah Palin with a portrait not exactly flattering. So, I had to do my own research. Even the media couldn't suppress the fact that she has polled as the most popular governor of all 50 states. Another testament to her broad support: when she served as mayor, she was elected by her fellow Alaskan mayors throughout the state as president of the Alaskan Conference of Mayors. I wanted to find out the reasons behind her popularity, and here's a small summary of some of her accomplishments as Governor that most impressed me. 1. Natural Gas Pipeline: Before becoming governor, the plans for a natural gas pipeline were in the works. Governor Palin's predecessor, however, was cozy with big energy corporations and was pushing pipeline legislation which signed off on a plan he had already worked out with oil companies, which would have relinquished the state's sovereignty vis a vis the pipeline as part of the package deal. When Palin came into office, she wanted to limit big oil's influence over the state's affairs, and when she took over the project (from the executive end), she absolutely insisted there would be no deal with any company unless the state retained its sovereignty. The Bush Administration got wind of this and not surprisingly tried to intervene on behalf of Big Oil. Cheney himself even put in a couple calls to Palin asking her to kill it. Cheney's staff pressed the Palin administration to draw in the energy companies, said current and former state officials involved in those discussions. Palin had been warned twice by Vice President Dick Cheney, to bring in the oil producers to the pipeline project. (AP; Alaska Daily News) Sarah Palin, however, stood up to Big Oil and the good ole boys and the state of Alaska has now finalized a plan with TransCanada which, as a result of the governor's firmness, includes the sovereignty provision. After Alaska's Senate vote in favor of providing the AGIA license to TransCanada, Gov. Palin praised the Legislature: Our lawmakers have protected Alaska's sovereignty. They've really taken it back. 2. Big Oil Companies' Tax: Gov. Palin stood up to the big energy companies again when she worked with Alaska's lawmakers to increase the state's share of its oil wealth through new legislation that revamped the Alaska's state oil tax to include a progressive net-profits tax. Through this legislation known as ACES,Alaska's Clean and Equitable Share Plan, the state has achieved a budget surplus in the billions. The state's increased revenues have been put to good use by Gov. Palin. For example, under her governance, funding for special needs in education has tripled in per-pupil funding for over the course of the next three years. Palin also has implemented the Senior Benefits Program, which provides financial support for low-income older Alaskans, reduced the state's pension liability, established a revenue-sharing fund for local governments, helped homeowners directly with weatherization and home-heating costs, and has suspended the state's gasoline tax (at the pump) for one year. Alaskans will also be receiving a $1200 tax rebate. And the state's projected budget appears to be headed to a significant surplus into the foreseeable future. (For a detailed outline of Palin's energy-related goals and accomplishments, click this link from Alaska Daily News: http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/553653.html ) 3. Ethics Reform: One of Sarah Palin's greatest initiatives upon becoming Governor was to immediately begin an overhaul of the state's ethics laws. This was a big concern for the governor before taking office. She actually had resigned her membership (pre-Governor years) on Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she served as Chair, when a fellow member (who happened also to be head of the
[FairfieldLife] The makings of a Landslide for Obama
~Obama's national poll numbers: USA Today +11. CBS +13. WaPo/ABC +11. WSJ +8%. Link to each poll: http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/03/early-morning-swim-the-day-before-edition/ ~Electoral Vote Projection Obama 340.2 McCain 197.8 http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/todays-polls-3-am-edition-113.html ~Obama's favorables at 62% -- best since 1992 http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/11/final-usa-today.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Governor Sarah Palin
On Nov 3, 2008, at 8:56 AM, raunchydog wrote: When John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, I was interested in learning about her and her accomplishments. I've had a long wait. The main stream press not only failed to provide the salient points of her executive career, it instantly began creating its own Sarah Palin with a portrait not exactly flattering. So, I had to do my own research. Even the media couldn't suppress the fact that she has polled as the most popular governor of all 50 states. Another testament to her broad support: when she served as mayor, she was elected by her fellow Alaskan mayors throughout the state as president of the Alaskan Conference of Mayors. I wanted to find out the reasons behind her popularity, and here's a small summary of some of her accomplishments as Governor that most impressed me. Maybe she could run as an Independent in 2012 with Hillary as her Vice President? Just because Hillary is clearly not currently presidential material, she could get some 'on the job training' from Sarah and maybe have a shot in 2016 or 2020!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama supports civilian paramilitary, FFL Obama-bots get suckered.
The old evil gun argument... Pistols are the best weapon for self defense for law abiding citizens because, unlike shotguns or rifles, their barrels are not easy to grab. In a close range altercation, the most common scenario, they have the proper maneuverability. They are used by hundreds of thousands (millions?) of sport shooters, and only a tiny percentage of them are ever used in crimes. Because a small number of people misuse this technology, is that a reason to ban them? Is it the deaths from handguns that is the problem? OK, then lets ban all cars because they are killing far more people than guns and are an accessory in more crimes. (Even robbers without guns drive away in a get-away car.) The American way of score settling is to sue the shit out of somebody. only a tiny percent use weapons. In the US today, as in the 30's, we can trace the most gun violence to the inevitable criminal side effect of drug prohibition. Legalize it, don't criticize it, and I'll advertise it. Rastaman Peter Tosh I wonder how much law enforcement money we could raise with a tax on just weed? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 3, 2008, at 5:51 AM, Hugo wrote: Long may the ban on hand guns continue, I hate to think what this place would be like with the American style approach to score settling. How many thousands are gunned down in US cities every year? Too many. That's why I predict in 20-50 years you'll see handguns banned in all major US cities. Hand guns are made for killin Aint no good for nothin else And if you like your whiskey You might even shoot yourself So why dont we dump em people To the bottom of the sea Before some fool come around here Wanna shoot either you or me -Ronnie Van Zant Satuday Night Special
Re: [FairfieldLife] The makings of a Landslide for Obama
On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:31 AM, do.rflex wrote:~Obama's national poll numbers:USA Today +11.CBS +13.WaPo/ABC +11.WSJ +8%.That's good to hear.It's gotten quite scary in the last couple of days as McCains TV ads have gotten increasingly negative. I got a (mass) letter from Obama twice this weekend stating that "John McCain and the Republican National Committee had $20 million more in the bank than our campaign and the DNC combined as of October 15th. They are pouring it into crucial battleground states, and we're facing an onslaught of negative attacks."I saw one last night with him and Jeremiah Wright and mentioned the word terrorist numerous times in the type of "guilt by association" and "poisoning the well" tactics I'd thought they'd put behind them. Not so. It's worse now than ever. It's gone really, really negative and some of the ads are not from the McCain campaign or RNC but other "new swiftboat" type groups.The cool thing was previous Obama supporters were all given the chance this weekend, in the putsch to help counter the terrible negative ads, for a donation of 25 dollars or more, you're placed in a drawing for 5 couples to be there backstage Tuesday night in Chicago, flight and hotel paid--and then front row seats as history is made.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama supports civilian paramilitary, FFL Obama-bots get suckered.
On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:42 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Legalize it, don't criticize it, and I'll advertise it. Rastaman Peter Tosh I wonder how much law enforcement money we could raise with a tax on just weed? I agree. It would be interesting to see.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama supports civilian paramilitary, FFL Obama-bots get suckered.
snip Good point. However if you made old, unregistered guns illegal, to avoid becoming criminals a huge number of people would turn theirs in. There is also money: gun buy outs. We tried that in DC and the police bought a bunch of broken guns. They kept the working ones. And then you just prosecute the gun nuts as they are exposed. Give lucrative rewards to turn gun nuts in. And so on. I agree with what you're describing, but if they're unwilling to disarm, we'll find a way to get them. But not all of them. Eventually they'll probably be able to scan your house from space and know just where the guns are and what kinds. I don't believe that gun nuts which I would call collectors are doing the crimes. snip Precisely. When you look at the consciousness of a typical gun nut This seems completely bogus as a claim on face value. How could anyone know such a thing about a large diverse group of people? in terms of the various scales of development, they score quite low when compared to the center of gravity of collective evolution in the US (which is moving towards the Green meme, Relativistic-personalistic communitarian/egalitarian collective consciousness). Gun hoarding habits are more Red and Blue meme themes (Egocentric-exploitive power gods/dominionist collective consciousness and Absolutistic-obedience mythic orderpurposeful/authoritarian collective consciousness). Not the ones I know. They tend to be a bit geeky but most I know are highly intelligent and very responsible. I find all of this rather sad to read, because of the *assumption* on the part of FFL posters that life is a dangerous thing, and that they have to worry about carrying some weapon to protect them- selves with as they walk to their cars. I don't. I haven't had to for six years, in France or here in Spain. You may just have enough money to live in a better, less crime ridden neighborhood. You don't live in the hood. But every country has areas like the one I live in in their big cities. snip (and he did live a high-crime neighborhood) he realized he was helping to create his own environment based on the vibes he put out. So he decided to change the way he saw things. As soon as he did, the environment he lived in changed. Kids coming up to him to establish dominance, muggings and threats stopped. He remains weapon free to this day. And all he did was change the way he chose to see things. That might not work for everyone, but it did work for him. Crime is a low probability shot even in a dangerous area, especially for a man and even better if the guy who is in shape. (Women have more difficulty.) So you can change your POV, but that has nothing to do with what goes down if your number comes up. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about where I live because I am prepared,keep my eyes open and live according to simple safety routines. snip I find the stats on Japan very interesting as you can see a country where an internal and external connection between and inner sense of orderliness and an outer sense of orderliness is directly correlatable. I also remember hearing that Asian immigrants have the lowest levels of criminal activity here in the US. I think it depends on the area. Asian gangs are a big problem in DC. They had to open a police station right on the premises of our biggest Vietnamese shopping center to stop the killings. I've heard that Asian gangs are the dominant crime force in Toronto. Japan is very orderly because their cops interview every household each year. They have around a 99% conviction rate. Is that because they are just so much smarter than we are or because they don't mind slinging innocent people in jail. (As long as they have poor family connections.)
[FairfieldLife] The ultimate comment on Sarah Palin...
...is an unintentional one. Go to the following URL: http://www.sarahpalin.com/ Even though any comment from me seems redundant :-), this is a canned message because no one has bought this domain yet. But isn't it perfect? And for more election eve humor, see this one: http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/political-pictures-john-mccain-cindy-mccain-longevity.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: The makings of a Landslide for Obama
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:31 AM, do.rflex wrote: ~Obama's national poll numbers: USA Today +11. CBS +13. WaPo/ABC +11. WSJ +8%. That's good to hear. It's gotten quite scary in the last couple of days as McCains TV ads have gotten increasingly negative. I got a (mass) letter from Obama twice this weekend stating that John McCain and the Republican National Committee had $20 million more in the bank than our campaign and the DNC combined as of October 15th. They are pouring it into crucial battleground states, and we're facing an onslaught of negative attacks. I saw one last night with him and Jeremiah Wright and mentioned the word terrorist numerous times in the type of guilt by association and poisoning the well tactics I'd thought they'd put behind them. Not so. It's worse now than ever. It's gone really, really negative and some of the ads are not from the McCain campaign or RNC but other new swiftboat type groups. The cool thing was previous Obama supporters were all given the chance this weekend, in the putsch to help counter the terrible negative ads, for a donation of 25 dollars or more, you're placed in a drawing for 5 couples to be there backstage Tuesday night in Chicago, flight and hotel paid--and then front row seats as history is made. The ramped up smear campaign by the McCain camp and it's sleazy surrogate sycophant screechers just isn't holding up these days in comparison to the obviously superior high road Obama campaign. The minority right wing nutcase base is the only solid and enthusiastic backing McCain has.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama supports civilian paramilitary, FFL Obama-bots get suckered.
On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:01 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Precisely. When you look at the consciousness of a typical gun nut This seems completely bogus as a claim on face value. How could anyone know such a thing about a large diverse group of people? in terms of the various scales of development, they score quite low when compared to the center of gravity of collective evolution in the US (which is moving towards the Green meme, Relativistic-personalistic— communitarian/egalitarian collective consciousness). Gun hoarding habits are more Red and Blue meme themes (Egocentric-exploitive power gods/dominionist collective consciousness and Absolutistic-obedience mythic order—purposeful/authoritarian collective consciousness). Spiral Dynamics and other scales of human development that help people understand other points of view. (Spiral Dynamics is the system of human development that was used to dismantle Apartheid in South Africa) It's also popular in some leading edge corporations for employee orientation. It's a great tool for understanding how various styles of collective consciousness interact. A wonderful intro is Ken Wilber's novel Boomeritis: A Novel That Will Set You Free.
[FairfieldLife] Letter from Kevin Hosbond
He sent this as a letter to the editor but the Fairfield Ledger didn't have room for it last week. SO he is just sending it around this way. The election of 2008 is upon us, and it seems that once again our society has allowed discrimination to become the forefront of political campaigns. As an educator and contributor to this society, I feel unfortunate and wary for our future; as a consumer of media I feel absolutely appalled every time I watch the news, read the paper, or receive campaign-centered email. The promotion of discrimination I have witnessed from both national and local campaigns, via the media, speaks ill of many of our citizens and has no business in politics. Let us first consider what we've seen or heard from some supporters and members of the McCain-Palin hate-talk express. As reported in the media, people at rallies have shouted a variety of hateful verbiage (terrorist and kill him to name a couple) directed towards Senator Barack Obama. He has faced accusations or terrorism, socialism, and classism. Speakers at McCain-Palin rallies have continually used Mr. Obama's middle name, which creates another semantic beast-likening the senator to ousted dictator Saddam Hussein in the minds of the Republican and undecided base. (Should we, perhaps, shun anyone by the name of James because of domestic terrorist Timothy James McVeigh?) While these are only a few examples of the many instances, the intent remains clearly evident. These forms of attack on the individual remain rooted in ignorance and fear-the exact tools necessary for a campaign to manipulate voters. The tactics of supporters and members of the McCain-Palin ticket (even the candidates themselves) have put into play a term called antilocution. Antilocution at its core is a form of hate-speech. When used, it creates an environment where discrimination is acceptable and perpetuates seeds of ignorance, fear, and eventually hatred. Psychologist Gordon Allport cites antilocution as the first stage of prejudice. Antilocution leads to avoidance of that particular group or person, which leads to manifested discrimination against them, followed by the possibility of physical attack, and eventually-the highest level-extermination. Let us now consider local politics. The race for county supervisor has fired up the base because of supporters using ignorance and fear as the base for their claims. Mr. Dave Dickey, a supporter of Steve Burgmeier and Lee Dimmit, communicated (with prejudice) his views on the county supervisor race. By labeling Earl Shepard and Will Richards as meditators, Mr. Dickey has put into play the same tactics we've witnessed on the national level. His use of labels instead of issues, semantically implies that Mr. Shepard and Mr. Richards are not equal citizens in comparison to non-meditating community members. (His use of hasty generalizations regarding comments overheard at grocery stores weakens his argument further, I might add.) Mr. Dickey provides no hard evidence against the policies of Mr. Shepard or Mr. Richards, therefore he must instead attack the person-not the ideas. When he attacks the person by use of labels to instill fear and play on people's ignorance, he has instituted antilocution; this perpetuates the discriminative division within our community. It also calls into question if Mr. Dickey and others like him maintain avoidance of the meditating community as well. I can only assume Mr. Dickey enjoys football and good movies, however, he may tend to avoid such names as Joe Namath and Clint Eastwood-both of whom practice meditation. As we try to sift through the names, labels, speeches, and spars, we should all endeavor to keep the issues at the forefront. If we seek true change from the ground up, then bypassing prejudice must begin with each and every one of us. History has revealed on so many avenues that ruling by fear categorically takes society down the wrong path. Do not allow the hate speech of our local and national politics to steer you in the wrong direction as well. Sincerely Kevin Hosbond clip_image002.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Barry Wrong (was Re: Election Eve Musings: The U-word)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip But my candidate for the lowest moment of the campaign, by far, is the use of one word, thrown out as an epithet, and as a label to be attached to Barack Obama: UNELECTABLE One wonders whether Barry has been misled by Sal's hilariously erroneous post suggesting that Obama is the only candidate for president EVAH who has been called unelectable. She listed a bunch of candidates from the past who she couldn't remember having been called unelectable. In five minutes of Googling, I found quotes calling every one of them unelectable. I also found that George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan had also been called unelectable. It is, in fact, a very common label. This morning I did another bit of searching and noted the number of hits I got on the search terms +[candidate's name] +unelectable, for each of the major candidates for president this election, including in the primaries. This is what I found: Obama 1,050,000 McCain952,000 Hillary 884,000 Edwards 317,000 Romney224,000 Biden 199,000 Giuliani 183,000 Ron Paul 185,000 Huckabee 162,000 Obama's in the lead, obviously, but both McCain and Hillary aren't far behind. Sal also suggested that the only reason Obama has been called unelectable is because he's black (a bit of disgusting race-baiting that Barry pioneered back in April). Unfortunately for this theory, all the other candidates who've been called unelectable have been white. On FFL itself, participants have referred to Romney, Huckabee, Ron Paul, Giuliani, Ralph Nader, and Hillary as unelectable. snip The people who called Barack Obama unelectable are OLD. They are tired, they are devoid of life force, and they honestly don't see any other solution to the problems of the world than the ones they have been trying for decades now. And, worst of all, they are so devoid of HOPE that they react to the presence of hope in others by trying to demonize it, as if hope were a bad thing. How odd that Barry can't seem to see that Hillary's supporters were also full of hope. Nobody, of course, demonized Obama's use of the hope slogan because they thought hope was a bad thing. They criticized it because it appeared to be an *empty* slogan as he was using it, hope for its own sake, hope as its own justification. snip One party aligned itself with the arrogant, shortsighted, and jingoistic Country First. They actually *like* the fact that the United States of America is the most feared and despised and distrusted nation on the planet. The other party swung behind a truth so simple that it inspired hatred and jeers from those so divorced from the notion of truth that they saw it as simplistic: Yes we can. Actually, both campaigns have run through a bunch of different slogans. McCain: A Leader We Can Believe In Don't hope for a better life; vote for one Best Prepared to Lead from Day One; Experienced Leadership, Bold Solutions A Leader we can believe in The Change You Deserve Reform, Prosperity, Peace Change Is Coming Obama: Yes we can Change we can believe in Change we need Well, the polls seem to indicate that Yes, we really can. The polls suggest that those who posed as pundits and claimed to be speaking from a platform of greater and more meaningful insight when pinning the U-word label to Barack Obama were, in a W-word, WRONG. What the pundits didn't foresee was the economic crisis, which has given Obama's campaign a huge boost. Nor did they foresee the awful campaign McCain has run, including his selection of Palin; nor the fact that McCain and Republicans in general (to their credit) didn't use Rev. Wright against Obama (although a last- minute commercial is running now, not from the McCain campaign but from some Republican group, not sure which). And despite all these and other advantages, Obama's election *still* isn't a slam-dunk. It does appear very likely at this point, but he hasn't sewed it up. Not only that, by using that word, they revealed the poverty of their own lives, and their own view of what life can be. They had lost hope so completely that they not only pooh- poohed the idea of bucking the status quo, they declared anyone who tried unelectable. Of course, you couldn't possibly say that supporting Hillary involved bucking the status quo. snip And the ones who reacted to someone who could still inspire (when their candidate could not) by screaming Unelectable? And of course Hillary never inspired anybody...none of the 18 million who supported her in the primaries (almost as many, if not more than, those who supported Obama) did so because they found her inspiring. horselaugh Poor Barry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The ultimate comment on Sarah Palin...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...is an unintentional one. Go to the following URL: http://www.sarahpalin.com/ WTF? What a bizarre gaff in this day and age! Even though any comment from me seems redundant :-), this is a canned message because no one has bought this domain yet. But isn't it perfect? And for more election eve humor, see this one: http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/political-pictures-john-mccain-cindy-mccain-longevity.jpg Excellent! What a picture.
[FairfieldLife] Re: This should secure the Pennsylvania and West Virginia vote for Barky
I suspect what RP is talking about when he mentions technology is the liquefaction of coal. Coal can be turned into a liquid. http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/07/about_coal_liqu.html http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/07/about_coal_liqu.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Lol...Idiot republicans ACTUALLY THINK this is bad for Obama ! The coal industry is already doing what Obama suggested here. Even they are moving into greener technologies with zero emmissions plants. Its as if they are in lock step together in their vision for the future with Obama, and the people in those States are well aware of that. Its only idiots like you and the other republicans, that the coal industry has already left behind, are still part of the old school dustbin of history. OffWorld I guess I'm an idiot along with RON PAUL, your hero! Ha! Here's what Paul has to say about coal: What role do you think coal should play in America's energy future? Coal is a source of energy, and it should be used, but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. I think we're smart enough to do it. Technology is improving all the time. If oil goes to $150 a barrel because we've bombed Iran, coal might be something that we can become more independent with. I think technology is super, and we are capable of knowing how to use coal without polluting other people's property. Paul is also against a carbon tax, so what Obama says about coal is in direct opposition to Paul's stance. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: http://tinyurl.com/68oyz4 http://tinyurl.com/68oyz4 Hidden Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive) November 2, 2008 - 07:26 ET (Please read update about the San Francisco Chronicle neglecting to mention Obama's willingness to bankrupt the coal industry at bottom of this blog.) Imagine if John McCain had whispered somewhere that he was willing to bankrupt a major industry? Would this declaration not immediately be front page news? Well, Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt in a January 17, 2008 interview. The result? Nothing. This audio interview has been hidden from the public...until now. Here is the transcript of Obama's statement about bankrupting the coal industry (emphasis mine): Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. Story Continues Below Ad « That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them. Amazing that this statement by Obama about bankrupting the coal industry has been kept under wraps until this time. UPDATE: NewsBusters' Tom Blumer has found out that the San Francisco Chronicle story published on January 18 based upon this January 17 interview did not include any mention of Obama's willingness to bankrupt the coal industry which you can hear on the audio. You can read the story here when you scroll down to the In His Own Words section. Way to cover up for The One, SF Chronicle!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The makings of a Landslide for Obama
I noticed McCain is ending his campaign tonite in Roswell, NM. What an appropriate bizarre end to his campaign, though it would make more sense to send Sarah to get the undecided alien vote I think. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:31 AM, do.rflex wrote: ~Obama's national poll numbers: USA Today +11. CBS +13. WaPo/ABC +11. WSJ +8%. That's good to hear. It's gotten quite scary in the last couple of days as McCains TV ads have gotten increasingly negative. I got a (mass) letter from Obama twice this weekend stating that John McCain and the Republican National Committee had $20 million more in the bank than our campaign and the DNC combined as of October 15th. They are pouring it into crucial battleground states, and we're facing an onslaught of negative attacks. I saw one last night with him and Jeremiah Wright and mentioned the word terrorist numerous times in the type of guilt by association and poisoning the well tactics I'd thought they'd put behind them. Not so. It's worse now than ever. It's gone really, really negative and some of the ads are not from the McCain campaign or RNC but other new swiftboat type groups. The cool thing was previous Obama supporters were all given the chance this weekend, in the putsch to help counter the terrible negative ads, for a donation of 25 dollars or more, you're placed in a drawing for 5 couples to be there backstage Tuesday night in Chicago, flight and hotel paid--and then front row seats as history is made. The ramped up smear campaign by the McCain camp and it's sleazy surrogate sycophant screechers just isn't holding up these days in comparison to the obviously superior high road Obama campaign. The minority right wing nutcase base is the only solid and enthusiastic backing McCain has.
[FairfieldLife] Re: This should secure the Pennsylvania and West Virginia vote for Barky
I don't think there are any plants anywhere using coal that have zero emissions. We should explore clean coal technology but right now it's just a phrase, not a reality. There's cleaner coal than before but not clean. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, aztjbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suspect what RP is talking about when he mentions technology is the liquefaction of coal. Coal can be turned into a liquid. http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/07/about_coal_liqu.html http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/07/about_coal_liqu.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Lol...Idiot republicans ACTUALLY THINK this is bad for Obama ! The coal industry is already doing what Obama suggested here. Even they are moving into greener technologies with zero emmissions plants. Its as if they are in lock step together in their vision for the future with Obama, and the people in those States are well aware of that. Its only idiots like you and the other republicans, that the coal industry has already left behind, are still part of the old school dustbin of history. OffWorld I guess I'm an idiot along with RON PAUL, your hero! Ha! Here's what Paul has to say about coal: What role do you think coal should play in America's energy future? Coal is a source of energy, and it should be used, but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. I think we're smart enough to do it. Technology is improving all the time. If oil goes to $150 a barrel because we've bombed Iran, coal might be something that we can become more independent with. I think technology is super, and we are capable of knowing how to use coal without polluting other people's property. Paul is also against a carbon tax, so what Obama says about coal is in direct opposition to Paul's stance. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: http://tinyurl.com/68oyz4 http://tinyurl.com/68oyz4 Hidden Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive) November 2, 2008 - 07:26 ET (Please read update about the San Francisco Chronicle neglecting to mention Obama's willingness to bankrupt the coal industry at bottom of this blog.) Imagine if John McCain had whispered somewhere that he was willing to bankrupt a major industry? Would this declaration not immediately be front page news? Well, Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt in a January 17, 2008 interview. The result? Nothing. This audio interview has been hidden from the public...until now. Here is the transcript of Obama's statement about bankrupting the coal industry (emphasis mine): Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. Story Continues Below Ad « That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them. Amazing that this statement by Obama about bankrupting the coal industry has been kept under wraps until this time. UPDATE: NewsBusters' Tom Blumer has found out that the San Francisco Chronicle story published on January 18 based upon this January 17 interview did not include any mention of Obama's willingness to bankrupt the coal industry which you can hear on the audio. You can read the story here
[FairfieldLife] Most popular on Digg -- someone who gets this election
My wife made me canvas for Obama; here's what I learned By Jonathan Curley Charlotte, N.C. - There has been a lot of speculation that Barack Obama might win the election due to his better ground game and superior campaign organization. I had the chance to view that organization up close this month when I canvassed for him. I'm not sure I learned much about his chances, but I learned a lot about myself and about this election. Let me make it clear: I'm pretty conservative. I grew up in the suburbs. I voted for George H.W. Bush twice, and his son once. I was disappointed when Bill Clinton won, and disappointed he couldn't run again. I encouraged my son to join the military. I was proud of him in Afghanistan, and happy when he came home, and angry when he was recalled because of the invasion of Iraq. I'm white, 55, I live in the South and I'm definitely going to get a bigger tax bill if Obama wins. I am the dreaded swing voter. So you can imagine my surprise when my wife suggested we spend a Saturday morning canvassing for Obama. I have never canvassed for any candidate. But I did, of course, what most middle-aged married men do: what I was told. At the Obama headquarters, we stood in a group to receive our instructions. I wasn't the oldest, but close, and the youngest was maybe in high school. I watched a campaign organizer match up a young black man who looked to be college age with a white guy about my age to canvas together. It should not have been a big thing, but the beauty of the image did not escape me. Instead of walking the tree-lined streets near our home, my wife and I were instructed to canvass a housing project. A middle-aged white couple with clipboards could not look more out of place in this predominantly black neighborhood. We knocked on doors and voices from behind carefully locked doors shouted, Who is it? We're from the Obama campaign, we'd answer. And just like that doors opened and folks with wide smiles came out on the porch to talk. Grandmothers kept one hand on their grandchildren and made sure they had all the information they needed for their son or daughter to vote for the first time. Young people came to the door rubbing sleep from their eyes to find out where they could vote early, to make sure their vote got counted. We knocked on every door we could find and checked off every name on our list. We did our job, but Obama may not have been the one who got the most out of the day's work. I learned in just those three hours that this election is not about what we think of as the big things. It's not about taxes. I'm pretty sure mine are going to go up no matter who is elected. It's not about foreign policy. I think we'll figure out a way to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan no matter which party controls the White House, mostly because the people who live there don't want us there anymore. I don't see either of the candidates as having all the answers. I've learned that this election is about the heart of America. It's about the young people who are losing hope and the old people who have been forgotten. It's about those who have worked all their lives and never fully realized the promise of America, but see that promise for their grandchildren in Barack Obama. The poor see a chance, when they often have few. I saw hope in the eyes and faces in those doorways. My wife and I went out last weekend to knock on more doors. But this time, not because it was her idea. I don't know what it's going to do for the Obama campaign, but it's doing a lot for me. Jonathan Curley is a banker. He voted for George H.W. Bush twice and George W. Bush once.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: This should secure the Pennsylvania and West Virginia vote for Barky
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of boo_lives Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:34 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: This should secure the Pennsylvania and West Virginia vote for Barky I don't think there are any plants anywhere using coal that have zero emissions. We should explore clean coal technology but right now it's just a phrase, not a reality. There's cleaner coal than before but not clean. Clean coal technology is a long way off. It involves pumping CO2 into the ground, from where it might eventually bubble up into people's basements and kill them, or piping or trucking it long distances so it can be pumped into the ground elsewhere. Seems to me that decentralized power is the wave of the future. Solar panels on every rooftop and personal wind turbines where practical. This would eliminate so many infrastructure hurdles.
[FairfieldLife] Poll: McCain Camp's Attacks On Obama Completely Flopped
Some interesting numbers from the internals of the new NBC/WSJ poll illustrate as clearly as you could want that every one of McCain's major attack lines has been a complete flop: * Despite months of attacks on Obama's allegedly sinister background and cultural identity, a solid majority of likely voters, 57%, say that Obama has a background and set of values they can identify with, versus only 39% who say he doesn't. Those numbers are virtually identical to McCain's, which are 57%-38%. * Asked which would concern them more about an Obama presidency, his lack of experience or the possibility that he would raise taxes, 14% cite taxes and 20% cite inexperience. Forty-eight percent -- more than those two combined -- say that neither is a concern. This, despite weeks of attacks on Obama as a lightweight and empty suit who wants to hike taxes on ordinary plumbers and hockey moms everywhere. * Despite all the attacks suggesting that Obama harbors a secret and shadowy agenda that he has yet to reveal, a huge majority of 67% say that they know what Obama and Biden would do if elected. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/poll_mccains_attacks_on_obama.php http://tinyurl.com/6n23o9
[FairfieldLife] A good shaking out process
All in all, now that the Silly Season of the last few months is about to end, I have to look back upon it as useful because it's clarified a few things and made them clear to almost everyone. Based on what they've said and done, I think we all have a very clear idea now who can be trusted and who cannot. We know who sticks to the issues and who does anything possible to obscure them. We know who is willing to make things up and say them over and over -- *knowing* that they are not true -- to demonize someone they don't like. We know who is likely to play dodgeball and do anything -- ANYTHING -- rather than own up to having made a mistake or a misstatement, much less actually apologize. We know who is living in the past and who is living in the present, and we know who has some semblance of credibility and who does not. We know who to bother to listen to, and who to change the channel on immediately, because they're *never* going to have anything valuable to say. So on the whole I'd say that it's been a painful period, but instructive. And that was just Fairfield Life. There was also this thing called an election that taught these same lessons on a broader scale. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: This should secure the Pennsylvania and West Virginia vote for Barky
With RP you would get the opportunity to explore clean coal technology. McCain might pay it lip service, and really just take his orders from the big companies, back pedaling any concept of innovation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think there are any plants anywhere using coal that have zero emissions. We should explore clean coal technology but right now it's just a phrase, not a reality. There's cleaner coal than before but not clean. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, aztjbailey aztjbailey@ wrote: I suspect what RP is talking about when he mentions technology is the liquefaction of coal. Coal can be turned into a liquid. http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/07/about_coal_liqu.html http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/07/about_coal_liqu.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Lol...Idiot republicans ACTUALLY THINK this is bad for Obama ! The coal industry is already doing what Obama suggested here. Even they are moving into greener technologies with zero emmissions plants. Its as if they are in lock step together in their vision for the future with Obama, and the people in those States are well aware of that. Its only idiots like you and the other republicans, that the coal industry has already left behind, are still part of the old school dustbin of history. OffWorld I guess I'm an idiot along with RON PAUL, your hero! Ha! Here's what Paul has to say about coal: What role do you think coal should play in America's energy future? Coal is a source of energy, and it should be used, but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. I think we're smart enough to do it. Technology is improving all the time. If oil goes to $150 a barrel because we've bombed Iran, coal might be something that we can become more independent with. I think technology is super, and we are capable of knowing how to use coal without polluting other people's property. Paul is also against a carbon tax, so what Obama says about coal is in direct opposition to Paul's stance. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: http://tinyurl.com/68oyz4 http://tinyurl.com/68oyz4 Hidden Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive) November 2, 2008 - 07:26 ET (Please read update about the San Francisco Chronicle neglecting to mention Obama's willingness to bankrupt the coal industry at bottom of this blog.) Imagine if John McCain had whispered somewhere that he was willing to bankrupt a major industry? Would this declaration not immediately be front page news? Well, Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt in a January 17, 2008 interview. The result? Nothing. This audio interview has been hidden from the public...until now. Here is the transcript of Obama's statement about bankrupting the coal industry (emphasis mine): Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. Story Continues Below Ad « That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them. Amazing that this statement by Obama about
[FairfieldLife] Re: A good shaking out process
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All in all, now that the Silly Season of the last few months is about to end, I have to look back upon it as useful because it's clarified a few things and made them clear to almost everyone. Based on what they've said and done, I think we all have a very clear idea now who can be trusted and who cannot. We know who sticks to the issues and who does anything possible to obscure them. And some, like Barry, who haven't bothered to inform themselves about the issues well enough to discuss them at all. Instead, they resort to: We know who is willing to make things up and say them over and over -- *knowing* that they are not true -- to demonize someone they don't like. And: We know who is likely to play dodgeball and do anything -- ANYTHING -- rather than own up to having made a mistake or a misstatement, much less actually apologize. And: We know who is living in the past and who is living in the present, And: and we know who has some semblance of credibility and who does not. And: We know who to bother to listen to, and who to change the channel on immediately, because they're *never* going to have anything valuable to say. Barry Wright, Master of Inadvertent Irony. So on the whole I'd say that it's been a painful period, but instructive. Truer words were never spoken. Barry I already knew about, but I genuinely wish I had not learned what I've discovered about most FFL participants during this election campaign. The levels of ignorance, intolerance, viciousness, and blatant bigotry have been just extraordinary-- on both sides. But what's so shocking is that this has come *at least* as much from the Obamazoids as from the few McCainiacs here. What worries me as much as anything about a President Obama is the possibility that these attitudes will be perpetuated in his administration, given his unwilligness to do anything to change them among his campaign supporters.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj supports TM!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 2, 2008, at 5:33 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: [snip] I refuse to own a hand gun since a handgun is ostensibly for killing another person. Therefore I wouldn't own one on moral grounds. That's the way it was with most of my family, many refused to own handguns. Having said that, I live in a state with very little violent crime outside of family squabbles and drunks, although parts of Portland are becoming more dangerous and I have had some close calls. If eventually I felt I needed a weapon for protection of my life, I'd favor some modern non-lethal weapon. I'm hoping for something like a portable Maser or a device that would alter brain wave activity. [snip] You mean like TM! TM's not a gun Shemp! No, if someone asks me about meditation and says they really want to learn a Hindu style of meditation, TM is not the style of meditation I recommend any longer. Sorry, Vaj, but your opinion has next to zero effect on the global revival of Transcendental Meditation(R), that's about to start any month now... ;)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama supports civilian paramilitary, FFL Obama-bots get suckered.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Nov 2, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: I was not raised around guns, and my dad would love to see the 2nd Amendment repealed. I took riflery at summer camp, and I've remained a pretty good shot with a rifle (although I'm a *serious* flincher with larger caliber high-power rifles.) I bought a 9mm semi-auto handgun for Y2K and shot no more than a box or two of ammo through it. Earlier this year, I went to a firing range with a friend and discovered how *really* bad I am with a handgun. I couldn't hit a paper plate at 10 feet (part of the problem was the factory sights, which were way off)... lotta good that'll do me in a home invasion situation. So, I got rid of it. As a result of that experience, I strongly believe that concealed carry permits should require a shooting test to demonstrate competent shooting skill. It's bad enough that we have criminals out there with handguns; the last thing we need on the streets is armed law abiding citizens who can't shoot for shit. I refuse to own a hand gun since a handgun is ostensibly for killing another person. Therefore I wouldn't own one on moral grounds. That's the way it was with most of my family, many refused to own handguns. Having said that, I live in a state with very little violent crime outside of family squabbles and drunks, although parts of Portland are becoming more dangerous and I have had some close calls. If eventually I felt I needed a weapon for protection of my life, I'd favor some modern non-lethal weapon. I'm hoping for something like a portable Maser or a device that would alter brain wave activity. The only reason I even keep a shotgun is for the packs of coyotes that have moved into my area. About 8 of the buggers killed and eviscerated one of my pets (Boo Boo, a black Maine Coon cat) on the front lawn. If you've ever heard the death cry of a pack of coyotes or wolves, even at a distance, it's not the type of thing you're likely to forget in this lifetime. When you hear it being done to someone you loved, it changes how you see the world real quick. The cure is worse than the disease In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease. Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing. Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent. The British experience is further proof that gun bans don't reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves. Utter nonsense. The ban on guns is essential or otherwise everyone would be shooting the place up (Hell, I feel like it myself some mornings) Most of the increase in violent crime is knife related gang attacks, another crap American import. I would put the rest down to the relaxing of licencing laws and changes in policing like the reliance on CCTV rather than actual patrols whereby people think they can do whatever they like because there is no official presence on the street to remind people they have laws to abide by. CCTV is cheaper and they can sell the exciting footage to TV networks for real life soap operas. The government will tell you that the violent crime rate is falling. It depends how you measure it. There statistics are as reliable as the TMO's I think. Youth crime is up adult crime is down in some areas. Long may the ban on hand guns continue, I hate to think what this place would be like with the American style approach to score settling. How many thousands are gunned down in US cities every year?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A good shaking out process
What worries me as much as anything about a President Obama is the possibility that these attitudes will be perpetuated in his administration, given his unwilligness to do anything to change them among his campaign supporters. He refused to use the same attack strategy McCain has been using. He explicitly told his supporters that families were out of bounds. It was the McCain rallies where people shouted out things like terrorists and kill him. I haven't heard any reports of this kind of insanity at Obama rallies, have you? I don't really know what you expected Obama to do to control every communication from the millions of people who are about to elect him president. But from where I stand, he has run a much more disciplined and focused on the issues campaign than McCain and I hope he is rewarded for it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: All in all, now that the Silly Season of the last few months is about to end, I have to look back upon it as useful because it's clarified a few things and made them clear to almost everyone. Based on what they've said and done, I think we all have a very clear idea now who can be trusted and who cannot. We know who sticks to the issues and who does anything possible to obscure them. And some, like Barry, who haven't bothered to inform themselves about the issues well enough to discuss them at all. Instead, they resort to: We know who is willing to make things up and say them over and over -- *knowing* that they are not true -- to demonize someone they don't like. And: We know who is likely to play dodgeball and do anything -- ANYTHING -- rather than own up to having made a mistake or a misstatement, much less actually apologize. And: We know who is living in the past and who is living in the present, And: and we know who has some semblance of credibility and who does not. And: We know who to bother to listen to, and who to change the channel on immediately, because they're *never* going to have anything valuable to say. Barry Wright, Master of Inadvertent Irony. So on the whole I'd say that it's been a painful period, but instructive. Truer words were never spoken. Barry I already knew about, but I genuinely wish I had not learned what I've discovered about most FFL participants during this election campaign. The levels of ignorance, intolerance, viciousness, and blatant bigotry have been just extraordinary-- on both sides. But what's so shocking is that this has come *at least* as much from the Obamazoids as from the few McCainiacs here. What worries me as much as anything about a President Obama is the possibility that these attitudes will be perpetuated in his administration, given his unwilligness to do anything to change them among his campaign supporters.
[FairfieldLife] Clinton Obama; McCain's chances; Obama tries lucky charms
Obama, Clinton reach common ground By: Carrie Budoff Brown and Glenn Thrush November 3, 2008 10:10 AM EST GARY, Ind. While the relationship between Barack Obama and the Clintons remains complicated, associates in both camps say the dynamic has improved dramatically in recent months. Obama's embrace of Hillary Rodham Clinton's domestic agenda, the former first couple's admiration for his political acumen and the healing power of time and distance after a bruising 17-month primary battle all have had an ameliorative effect on what once appeared to be an irreparable rift. The detente undoubtedly has its benefits for the Clintons, who would be permanently damaged if their fellow Democrats so much as suspected they were only halfheartedly behind the nominee. And an additional force is pushing them closer together: Hillary Clinton's belief that a President John McCain would, more or less, destroy America After it became clear to her in the spring that her comeback against Obama would come up short, Hillary Clinton plopped down into the front seat of her campaign plane and shared her thoughts on the general election with a handful of wrung-out staffers. Clinton, whose relationship with Obama was still tense and tentative at that moment, professed no great affection or admiration for Obama, whom she regarded as less qualified than herself. But she would support him, body and soul, she said, because she was so terrified by the prospect of McCain sitting in the Oval Office. And that was before the credit markets crashed, setting off a domino effect on the U.S. economy. John McCain's my friend; I really like him, she said, according to a person who was within earshot. But there's just no way we can let him be president She's convinced he would destroy the country, said a source close to the former first lady. Her impression of McCain has gone even farther south since the troubles on Wall Street surfaced a few weeks ago. When supporters call to complain about Obama, as some still do, she invariably regales them with a polite but steely description of how McCain will drive the country off an economic cliff, people close to her say. It would be a mistake to underestimate the degree to which both Clintons feel the need for change, said Douglas Schoen, a pollster to the former president during his 1996 reelection campaign. It would be a mistake to read into the election that they are playing some Machiavellian game and they aren't saying what they believe © 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15157.html = Polls: More McCain Gains Of 20 new statewide polls, 15 show a shift in McCain's direction. The biggest comes from a SurveyUSA poll in Kansas, where McCain leads 58- 37; he led 53-41 in the same poll a week earlier. CNN/Time/Opinion Research Corp. and Quinnipiac polls in Florida showed shifts toward McCain of one and three points, respectively, though both polls still show Obama ahead. The same CNN/Time poll in Missouri shows a one- point shiftwithin the margin of errorto McCain, who leads 50-48. The largest shift to Obama was in a SurveyUSA poll in Delaware, where he increased his lead from nine points to 30 points. The previous survey was conducted in February. The CNN/Time poll in Georgia shows a three-point shift toward Obama. McCain is still ahead in the state 52-47.Abby Callard http://www.slate.com/id/2195956/ = Electoral College looks better for Obama 1 hr 4 mins ago ...Barack Obama is ahead, but what the map doesn't show at first glance is that many states could be in play. If America's vote mirrors these polls, Obama would get 353 electoral votes, far surpassing the 270 needed to win the presidency. (Note: A new poll out overnight moves North Carolina's poll average to an exact tie, putting Obama's total at 338 Monday morning.) This doesn't mean John McCain doesn't have a chance. He does -- in fact, a bigger one than this map indicates. Polls can be wrongThe poll averages that populate this map are closer than what the declarative blue and red colors imply Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl124 = Obama campaign tries lucky charms Carrie Budoff Brown Mon Nov 3, 4:44 am ET COLUMBUS, OhioBarack Obama's Ohio campaign manager has neither shaved his face in a month nor has he shown up to the office without his Columbus Clippers baseball hat The final days are a mix of strategy and superstition for those most intimately involved in the campaign. They fret over the precision of turnout models and early voting numbers and polling but also take comfort in the unscientific rituals that have provided some sense of control in a wildly unpredictable political season Chief strategist David Axelrod has been carrying the same pink quartz heart in his pants pocket for about three weeks. A woman he didn't know approached him at an
[FairfieldLife] Palin even less popular in new poll
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Sunday indicates McCain's running mate is growing less popular among voters and may be costing him a few crucial percentage points in the race for the White House. Fifty-seven percent of likely voters questioned in the poll said Palin does not have the personal qualities a president should have. That's up 8 points since September. Fifty-three percent say she does not agree with them on important issues. That's also higher than September. Just after the GOP convention in early September, 53 percent said they would vote for Palin over Joe Biden if there were a separate vote for vice president. Now, Biden would beat Palin by 12 points if the running mates were chosen in a separate vote, said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/02/poll.one.party/index.html
[FairfieldLife] For those who want to go to bed early tomorrow night
Here are the six states to watch between 7pm and 8pm ET: Virginia and Indiana after the last polls close at 7pm, Ohio and North Carolina after 7:30pm, and then Pennsylvania and Florida after 8pm. These are the canaries in the coal mine. McCain campaign manager Rick Davis conceded on This Week that John McCain has to win five out of six of these states to have a viable path to the presidency.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Heidi Klum goes goddess on our asses
TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scariest costume I've ever seen, but still less upsetting than the Ahnold pic. Still want to date her, guys? You betcha. That's the goddess Kali you're dissing, not Heidi Klum. And if you believe in goddesses and their purported powers, that's a risky thing to do. You could wind up on her belt. Heck, according to Kali's myth, you *will* wind up on her belt. :-) I do know who Kali is but I had to look up who Heidi Klum is. I don't pay that much attention to popular culture. I'll have to send the picture to my guru. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A good shaking out process
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What worries me as much as anything about a President Obama is the possibility that these attitudes will be perpetuated in his administration, given his unwilligness to do anything to change them among his campaign supporters. He refused to use the same attack strategy McCain has been using. He explicitly told his supporters that families were out of bounds. It was the McCain rallies where people shouted out things like terrorists and kill him. I haven't heard any reports of this kind of insanity at Obama rallies, have you? No, but I wasn't comparing comments about families or shouts at rallies or campaign attack ads, or even comparing the campaigns at all, so this would seem to be a non sequitur designed to misdirect-- especially since you know what I *am* talking about. I don't really know what you expected Obama to do to control every communication from the millions of people who are about to elect him president. Are you now beginning to hallucinate, like Barry? Could you show me where I said I expected Obama to control every communication from the millions of people who [may be] about to elect him president? Hallucinate a few more straw men, why don't you? They're really effective when you can't address the actual point. And for goodness' sake, whatever you do, at all costs IGNORE the slew of slanders in Barry's post that I was responding to.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A good shaking out process
snip Hallucinate a few more straw men, why don't you? They're really effective when you can't address the actual point. And for goodness' sake, whatever you do, at all costs IGNORE the slew of slanders in Barry's post that I was responding to. If I do understand your point Judy, I think it is unfair. Obama supporters are as diverse a group of people as any political supporters. I don't understand why you think they are especially bad in some way. I hope you will excuse me for not getting involved in the Barry feud. It reminds me of sticking my hand into a dogfight. You guys seem fine on your own without my help. If you wanted it all to stop you guys could have chosen that path long ago. But I do want to thank you for adding a lot to my understanding of the issues in this election. Although many people contributed interesting insights, your posts consistently helped me see some things I had missed.
[FairfieldLife] Another Election Fight in California
I'm not gay but I am sure voting AGAINST Proposition 8 here in California. A few years back Californians voted to allow same sex marriage and now a bunch of religious fundies want to put an amendment in the California constitution banning it. That is essentially a step towards destroying equality and taking away given rights from a group. What harm is there in allowing gays to marry anyway! It is pretty much a given that Obama will win this state and I also believe he'll win the country but if Prop 8 passes then you'll see riots of a different kind in California. You'll see unnecessary pain being given to people who genuinely love each other and exercised their right to marry in this state. Is everyone else getting as tired as I am of a small group of religious fundamentalists pushing their stinking outdated beliefs on the public? ( Of course I know I'm preaching to the choir here).
[FairfieldLife] The US Becomes What It Wasn't
Asleep at the Wheel The US Becomes What It Wasn't October 3, 2008 The Pentagon, methinks, is out of control. We no longer have a military in service to the state, but a state in service to the military. Few notice (I suspect) because of two ingrained habits of mind. First, we think of the President as just that, the President, the country’s civilian governor who, oh yeah, is technically the Commander-in-Chief. “Technically,” because he isn’t really in the military and doesn’t strut about in a uniform with ribbons and feathers. He seems more a CEO than a general. Second, we tend to think of the military as a federal department under civilian control. The Pentagon carries out policy, we believe, but doesn’t make it. Would it were so. The military today is hardly under civilian control. Note that Congress long ago gave up its power to declare war. This is crucial. Politically it is far safer to acquiesce in a war than to declare one. In practical terms, the checks and balances in the Constitution no longer restrain the Commander-in-Chief, and thus not the soldiery. (The Supreme Court has become a mausoleum. It might be replaced by a wax museum without anyone’s noticing.) The Pentagon is now the private army of any president who chooses so to use it. Our foreign policy has been militarized. This is not just a matter of countless alliances and bases abroad. A few days ago, the military attacked Syria. This, an act of war, was a result not of national but of military policy. So far as I know, the attack was neither ordered nor authorized by Congress. The soldiers do as they please, and we find out about it later. This is not civilian control. Such occurrences are inevitable when the military controls policy. Soldiers are truculent by nature, think quickly of military solutions, and need enemies to justify both their existence and their budget. Among recent consequences: attacking Syria, occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan, bombing Somalia, threatening Iran, threatening North Korea, encouraging Israel to bomb Beirut, arming Georgia, and aggressively expanding NATO to encircle Russia. Ominously, we now accept that the behavior of the armed forces is none of our business. Note the years of expectancy as we waited to see whether the Commander-in-Chief, a de facto six-star general, would attack Iran. I suspect that few realize how militarized the United States itself has become. The transformation has been inconspicuous. The Pentagon avoids undue attention. Quietly it has expanded its reach. Abolishing the draft was an important step, since it severed any connection between the upper levels of society and the armed forces. The educated don’t much care what the army does as long as they don’t have to help do it. The economy also has been militarized. Although the United States has no national enemies, it spends phenomenally on a martial empire whose only purpose is to be a martial empire. Add up the “defense” budget (it was last used for defense in 1945), the war bills, black programs, Veterans Administration’s budget, on and on, and you reach a trillion dollars a year. A country in decline cannot long waste so much money. Perhaps as important, the military cannot spend so much without gaining great if unnoticed political power. In particular, the production of hugely pricey weapons has been woven into the economy to such an extent that it cannot be brought under control. Cancel the F22, the JSF, and suchlike, and the economies of politically powerful states go into recession. None dare do it. Close big bases? Whole towns would shut down. The country has no need of such a military, and especially not of the formidably costly weapons. Having no plausible enemy of any sophistication, the Pentagon exercises itself by attacking primitive nations in the Third World, and usually losing. For this you do not need an F22. You could lose as well with slingshots. The spectacle of an alleged superpower struggling to beat yet another collection of ragtag guerrillas may seem darkly comical, but winning or losing isn’t the point; the endless wars keep the contracts flowing, the promotions coming, and fuel demands for a larger army. We would do well to bear in mind the dangers of excessive military influence in national life. Professional soldiers have little in common with the rest of the country. We like to think of them as Our Boys in Uniform, the brave and the true and the patriotic, defenders of democracy, and so on. It isn’t so. The officer corps is authoritarian to the roots of its soul, has little use for democracy, and prides itself on blind obedience. Soldiers do not readily distinguish between dissent and treason. Further, they regard civil society as an unworkable anarchy of weaklings who lack the will to fight. The gap between military and civilian
[FairfieldLife] Re: The ultimate comment on Sarah Palin...
Expiration Date: 26-apr-2009 Race ya when it comes due! This was either a missed marketing opportunity for an all things Palin site, pro or con, or a missed political opportunity. Couldn't they at least have put up all the funniest Palin T-shirts? Here is the kind of stuff I would like to see on Palin.com: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1831461 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, the domain has been purchased an parked. That's why you get the page is blank rather than an error 404 (no such address). Domain Name: SARAHPALIN.COM Registrar: BLUE RAZOR DOMAINS, INC Whois Server: whois.bluerazor.com Referral URL: http://www.bluerazor.com Name Server: NS1.HE.NET Name Server: NS2.HE.NET Name Server: NS3.HE.NET Status: clientDeleteProhibited Status: clientRenewProhibited Status: clientTransferProhibited Status: clientUpdateProhibited Updated Date: 15-apr-2008 Creation Date: 26-apr-2004 Expiration Date: 26-apr-2009 On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:08 AM, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...is an unintentional one. Go to the following URL: http://www.sarahpalin.com/ Even though any comment from me seems redundant :-), this is a canned message because no one has bought this domain yet. But isn't it perfect? And for more election eve humor, see this one: http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/political-pictures-john-mccain-cindy-mccain-longevity.jpg To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Another Election Fight in California
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not gay but I am sure voting AGAINST Proposition 8 here in California. A few years back Californians voted to allow same sex marriage and now a bunch of religious fundies want to put an amendment in the California constitution banning it. That is essentially a step towards destroying equality and taking away given rights from a group. What harm is there in allowing gays to marry anyway! It is pretty much a given that Obama will win this state and I also believe he'll win the country but if Prop 8 passes then you'll see riots of a different kind in California. You'll see unnecessary pain being given to people who genuinely love each other and exercised their right to marry in this state. Is everyone else getting as tired as I am of a small group of religious fundamentalists pushing their stinking outdated beliefs on the public? ( Of course I know I'm preaching to the choir here). Yeah, but you said it very well, thanks.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The ultimate comment on Sarah Palin...
Loved the Realistic Hollywood Sex Scene at that URL. On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:39 AM, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Expiration Date: 26-apr-2009 Race ya when it comes due! This was either a missed marketing opportunity for an all things Palin site, pro or con, or a missed political opportunity. Couldn't they at least have put up all the funniest Palin T-shirts? Here is the kind of stuff I would like to see on Palin.com: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1831461 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, the domain has been purchased an parked. That's why you get the page is blank rather than an error 404 (no such address). Domain Name: SARAHPALIN.COM Registrar: BLUE RAZOR DOMAINS, INC Whois Server: whois.bluerazor.com Referral URL: http://www.bluerazor.com Name Server: NS1.HE.NET Name Server: NS2.HE.NET Name Server: NS3.HE.NET Status: clientDeleteProhibited Status: clientRenewProhibited Status: clientTransferProhibited Status: clientUpdateProhibited Updated Date: 15-apr-2008 Creation Date: 26-apr-2004 Expiration Date: 26-apr-2009
[FairfieldLife] Re: A good shaking out process
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip If I do understand your point Judy, I think it is unfair. Obama supporters are as diverse a group of people as any political supporters. I don't understand why you think they are especially bad in some way. Of course they're a diverse group. I'm referring specifically to those I've been exposed to via the Web and the media, who tend to be more politically involved (even if often they're not nearly as well informed as they think they are, as is the case on this forum). I'm also thinking of the campaign itself, in particular Obama's surrogates and campaign workers. (As I said earlier, I have *never* seen this kind of *intraparty* viciousness before. It's unique in my experience.) It's from among these people, the politically involved and politically active, that Obama's administration will be drawn. And these are also the people over whom Obama has the greatest influence, if he chose to exercise it to ask them to temper their attitudes--specifically the race-baiting and the misogyny, but also the intolerance for differing opinions in general. That he has done so little along these lines is why I'm concerned that these attitudes will be reflected in his administration.
[FairfieldLife] Obama, Shaman
Excerpts from a much longer piece in The City Journal this past summer. I don't agree with everything he says, but he makes some excellent points in these excerpts about the general flabbiness of Obama's hope and change meme: Obama, Shaman by Michael Knox Beran The candidate's post-masculine charisma tempts America in the age of Oprah. In the patois of punditry, charismatic has come to mean little more than like a rock star. But the striking thing about the charismatic leader is the extent to which his followers regard him as a healer of wounds, an alleviator of pain. In this sense, surely, Senator Barack Obama is charismatic...he has entered the American psyche not as a hero but as a healer. The country, or much of it, has longed for such a figure, a man from the once-oppressed race whose rise to power will atone for the sins of slavery and racial stigmatization. But Obama's rhetoric encompasses more than a promise of racial healing. He is not the first politician to argue that politics can redeem us, but in posing as the Adonis who will turn winter into spring, he revives one of the more pernicious political swindles: the belief that a charismatic leader can ordain a civic happy hour and give a people a sense of community that will make them feel less bad The danger of Obama's charismatic healer-redeemer fable lies in the hubris it encourages, the belief that gifted politicians can engender a selfless communitarian solidarity. Such a renovation of our national life would require not only a change in constitutional structure--the current system having been geared to conflict by the Founders, who believed that the clash of private interests helps preserve liberty--but also a change in human nature Obama revives a style of charismatic leadership that fell out of favor in the United States after the death of FDR. Of the three presidents since 1945 most often regarded as possessing charismatic qualities, the first, Kennedy, was a tax cutter who questioned liberal utopianism when he said that life is not fair, and the second, Reagan, sought to curb the hubris of New Deal étatisme. The third, Clinton, said that he could feel our pain but retreated from his pledge to heal it when he scrapped a plan to nationalize medicine. Obama, by contrast, is faithful to the old-style charismatics, whose slogans (social solidarity, for example) he has taken out of cold storage. Of course, he would not have gotten far had he simply defrosted the ideas of Henry Wallace and George McGovern. Obama's charisma is tuned to the mood of the moment. The charisma of American political leaders has typically rested on images of unflinching strength and masculine authority: Teddy Roosevelt in the North Dakota Badlands; Kennedy, the naval hero whose sexual prowess was acknowledged even in his Secret Service code name (Lancer); Reagan, the man on horseback whom the Secret Service called Rawhide. Obama's charisma, by contrast, is closer to what critic Camille Paglia has identified with today's television talk-show culture, [which] is occupied with the question of why we feel so bad, when it is our right under the liberal dispensation to feel eternally good Obama, in gaming this culture, has figured out a new way to bottle old wine. He knows that experience has taught Americans to suspect the masculine healer-redeemer who bears collectivist giftsStudiously avoiding the tough-hombre style of earlier charismatic figures, he phrases his vision in the tranquilizing accents of Oprah-land. His charisma is grounded in empathy rather than authority, confessional candor rather than muscular strength, metrosexual mildness rather than masculine testosterone. His power of sympathetic insight is said to be uncanny: Everybody who's dealt with him, columnist David Brooks says, has a story about a time when they felt Obama profoundly listened to them and understood them. His two books are written in the empathetic-confessional mode that his most prominent benefactress, Oprah, favors; he is her political healer in roughly the same way that Dr. Phil was once her pop- psychology one Obama-mania is bound in the end to disappoint. Not only does it teach us to despise our political system's wise recognition of human imperfection and the pursuit of private happiness; it encourages us to seek for perfection where we will not find it, in politics, in the hero worship of a charismatic shaman, in the speciousness of a secular millennium. Lacking the moral parables that made our ancestors wary of those delusions in which overweening pride is apt to involve us, we pursue false gods and turn away from traditions that really can help us make sense of our condition. Read more: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_3_obama.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: A well regulated militia our rights 2 bear arm's
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 2, 2008, at 9:47 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Nov 2, 2008, at 8:24 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: what is wrong with being dead when we are dead? one moment i am alive and the next i no longer exist ever again. perhaps my energy just becomes photonic waves between here and some distant galaxy. what's the problem? Maybe you're an Annihilationist. maybe you're a compulsive labeler, Mr. Vaj. it is a strange way to avoid my question. what if reincarnation is a scam? Sounds like you were surprised your View had a name. From my POV Annihilationism is a false View, based on personal experience. But I'd also add the conventional view of reincarnation may represent more of a parody than the facts. If one has lingering questions or lingering doubts, apply the practices which can clarify your way of seeing and then decide. Don't get stuck relying on external authorities. everything has a name. it sounds like you may be relying on some nebulous subjective experience to comfort yourself in the face of your eventual death. i have no doubts, questions or fears associated with my complete dissolution at death. sounds like you might. careful what others tell you, even those you trust associated with your religous or spiritual tradition. remember, tradition just means old.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Another Election Fight in California
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not gay but I am sure voting AGAINST Proposition 8 here in California. A few years back Californians voted to allow same sex marriage Californians voted to allow... Bhairitu, that means that Californians voted on a proposition or in a referendum on that question (you didn't write that California's legislature voted to allow it). I was not aware that Californians voted on this question. Could you please tell me when Californians voted to allow same sex marriage? and now a bunch of religious fundies want to put an amendment in the California constitution banning it. That is essentially a step towards destroying equality and taking away given rights from a group. What harm is there in allowing gays to marry anyway! It is pretty much a given that Obama will win this state and I also believe he'll win the country but if Prop 8 passes then you'll see riots of a different kind in California. You'll see unnecessary pain being given to people who genuinely love each other and exercised their right to marry in this state. Is everyone else getting as tired as I am of a small group of religious fundamentalists pushing their stinking outdated beliefs on the public? ( Of course I know I'm preaching to the choir here).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The US Becomes What It Wasn't
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Asleep at the Wheel The US Becomes What It Wasn't October 3, 2008 The Pentagon, methinks, is out of control. We no longer have a military in service to the state, but a state in service to the military. Few notice (I suspect) because of two ingrained habits of mind. [snip good post only for brevity] What President Dwight D Eisenhower warned about in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961 has actually come about. Here's that key portion of what he said then: Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
[FairfieldLife] Did Barry Wright vote in this election?
For all your pontificating, wind-bag bullshit on this election, I'm wondering whether you exercised your right to vote. I know you are in Spain but that shouldn't stop you. I am not a U.S. citizen yet I've voted in every single Canadian election in the past 14 years I've lived in the U.S., by absentee ballot. Details, please. Where and when did you vote in this election?
[FairfieldLife] Re: This should secure the Pennsylvania and West Virginia vote for Barky
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think there are any plants anywhere using coal that have zero emissions. We should explore clean coal technology but right now it's just a phrase, not a reality. There's cleaner coal than before but not clean. Do you agree with Barky Hussein that such plants should go out of business because of the prohibitively high carbon taxes he says he will impose on them? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, aztjbailey aztjbailey@ wrote: I suspect what RP is talking about when he mentions technology is the liquefaction of coal. Coal can be turned into a liquid. http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/07/about_coal_liqu.html http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/07/about_coal_liqu.htm l --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Lol...Idiot republicans ACTUALLY THINK this is bad for Obama ! The coal industry is already doing what Obama suggested here. Even they are moving into greener technologies with zero emmissions plants. Its as if they are in lock step together in their vision for the future with Obama, and the people in those States are well aware of that. Its only idiots like you and the other republicans, that the coal industry has already left behind, are still part of the old school dustbin of history. OffWorld I guess I'm an idiot along with RON PAUL, your hero! Ha! Here's what Paul has to say about coal: What role do you think coal should play in America's energy future? Coal is a source of energy, and it should be used, but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. I think we're smart enough to do it. Technology is improving all the time. If oil goes to $150 a barrel because we've bombed Iran, coal might be something that we can become more independent with. I think technology is super, and we are capable of knowing how to use coal without polluting other people's property. Paul is also against a carbon tax, so what Obama says about coal is in direct opposition to Paul's stance. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: http://tinyurl.com/68oyz4 http://tinyurl.com/68oyz4 Hidden Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive) November 2, 2008 - 07:26 ET (Please read update about the San Francisco Chronicle neglecting to mention Obama's willingness to bankrupt the coal industry at bottom of this blog.) Imagine if John McCain had whispered somewhere that he was willing to bankrupt a major industry? Would this declaration not immediately be front page news? Well, Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt in a January 17, 2008 interview. The result? Nothing. This audio interview has been hidden from the public...until now. Here is the transcript of Obama's statement about bankrupting the coal industry (emphasis mine): Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. Story Continues Below Ad « That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them. Amazing that this statement by Obama
[FairfieldLife] Vedic Pandit Update #11, 1055 Vedic Pandits Are Here
[image: Global Country of World Peace] Dear Supporters of the Vedic Pandits Creating Invincibility for America, It is a great joy to announce that as of last week there are 1055 Vedic Pandits in America, surpassing our goal of 1050!! With this large increase in the number of Vedic Pandits, the total number flying at the same time on the Invincible America Assembly has risen to over 1900 Yogic Flyers in the morning and 2200 in the evening. This surpasses the square root of one percent of the U.S. population of 1750. Half of the participants on the Invincible America Assembly are now Vedic Pandits!! Although we want to increase the numbers on the Invincible America Assembly to more than 2500 including additional Vedic Pandits, *the immediate need now is to maintain the 1050 Vedic Pandits we have and to not have that number decrease. In order to do this we need your help in two ways.* 1. Of the pioneering group of 300 Vedic Pandits who came here in October and November 2006 to create Invincible America, 250 will now be returning to India at the end of their two-year commitment. (The other 50 have committed for another year.) Vedic Pandits are in India to come to replace those leaving. But, as with the last groups who came, the up-front costs of $1800 per new Vedic Pandit are needed to cover their passports, travel, and other mobilization costs before reaching America. *As a result, $450,000 is needed now to bring in the 250 replacement Vedic Pandits. * 2. We need to build two more houses holding 20 Vedic Pandits each so that we can have replacement Vedic Pandits here before sending other Vedic Pandits back. Like the last houses that were built, *the cost is $120,000 per house and we are looking for one or two people who would loan the funds to build these two homes. *The loans could be for either 5 years paying 5% interest a year or a 10-year loan earning 6% per year. The houses would be delivered within four weeks. Donations to support the next group of Vedic Pandits can be made through the Global Country of World Peace secure websitehttp://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.451217/it.A/id.9/.for by sending contributions to Global Country of World Peace, 2000 Capital Boulevard, Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, 52556. Contributions can also be made through Maharishi Vedic City at its secure websitehttps://vediccity.securesites.com/contribute/contribution.cgior by sending contributions to City Hall, 1973 Grand Drive, Maharishi Vedic City, IA 52556. If you or someone you know is interested in loaning the funds to build one or both of the houses, please contact us at 1 (312) 324 0291 or email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you very much for all your continuing support for the great blessing of Maharishi's Vedic Pandits in America. Your contributions now will assure we are able to maintain the full complement of Vedic Pandits here. Below are some photographs of recently completed construction on the Vedic Pandit campus and also a photograph of a recent Vedic celebration attended by members of the community. This is another benefit of having the Vedic Pandits here—being able to listen to live Vedic recitations by large numbers of Vedic Pandits at one time. Thank you for your support in creating permanent invincibility for America. Jai Guru Dev. Raja Wynne [image: Photo1] New East Lake With Campus in Background [image: Photo2] Vedic Pandits in New Flying Hall [image: Photo3] Four New Mandaps for Vedic Performances [image: Photo4] Nine Days Celebration Click here to unsubscribe http://invincibleamerica.org/subscribe/
Re: [FairfieldLife] The ultimate comment on Sarah Palin...
Actually, the domain has been purchased an parked. That's why you get the page is blank rather than an error 404 (no such address). Domain Name: SARAHPALIN.COM Registrar: BLUE RAZOR DOMAINS, INC Whois Server: whois.bluerazor.com Referral URL: http://www.bluerazor.com Name Server: NS1.HE.NET Name Server: NS2.HE.NET Name Server: NS3.HE.NET Status: clientDeleteProhibited Status: clientRenewProhibited Status: clientTransferProhibited Status: clientUpdateProhibited Updated Date: 15-apr-2008 Creation Date: 26-apr-2004 Expiration Date: 26-apr-2009 On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:08 AM, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...is an unintentional one. Go to the following URL: http://www.sarahpalin.com/ Even though any comment from me seems redundant :-), this is a canned message because no one has bought this domain yet. But isn't it perfect? And for more election eve humor, see this one: http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/political-pictures-john-mccain-cindy-mccain-longevity.jpg To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Another Election Fight in California
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not gay but I am sure voting AGAINST Proposition 8 here in California. A few years back Californians voted to allow same sex marriage and now a bunch of religious fundies want to put an amendment in the California constitution banning it. That is essentially a step towards destroying equality and taking away given rights from a group. What harm is there in allowing gays to marry anyway! You're asking a very contentious question as it addresses the religious tradition of this state and country. For those who uphold the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which this country was founded, marriage is intended to create a family--that includes the raising of children, for the benefit of the community and the nation. The marriage of gays fundamentally goes against this paradigm as gays by natural definition cannot produce children. Therefore, the marriage for them does not follow the natural order of things. There is further an underlying message to this paradigm--and that is, marriage between a man a woman is not solely for the purpose of having sex and sensual gratification. It is to procreate children to insure the continuation of mankind. Of course, the nurturing of love is included for the benefit of the entire family. For people in northern California, Proposition 8 appears to be a simple question of equality for gays. But for the rest of California, the proposition is about the recognizing the traditional function of marriage in society.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama, Shaman
The real example of hubris in politics is not Barack, who seems to me to have a lot of common sense and groundedness, but the current occupant of the White House and the neocons who surround him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excerpts from a much longer piece in The City Journal this past summer. I don't agree with everything he says, but he makes some excellent points in these excerpts about the general flabbiness of Obama's hope and change meme: Obama, Shaman by Michael Knox Beran The candidate's post-masculine charisma tempts America in the age of Oprah. In the patois of punditry, charismatic has come to mean little more than like a rock star. But the striking thing about the charismatic leader is the extent to which his followers regard him as a healer of wounds, an alleviator of pain. In this sense, surely, Senator Barack Obama is charismatic...he has entered the American psyche not as a hero but as a healer. The country, or much of it, has longed for such a figure, a man from the once-oppressed race whose rise to power will atone for the sins of slavery and racial stigmatization. But Obama's rhetoric encompasses more than a promise of racial healing. He is not the first politician to argue that politics can redeem us, but in posing as the Adonis who will turn winter into spring, he revives one of the more pernicious political swindles: the belief that a charismatic leader can ordain a civic happy hour and give a people a sense of community that will make them feel less bad The danger of Obama's charismatic healer-redeemer fable lies in the hubris it encourages, the belief that gifted politicians can engender a selfless communitarian solidarity. Such a renovation of our national life would require not only a change in constitutional structure--the current system having been geared to conflict by the Founders, who believed that the clash of private interests helps preserve liberty--but also a change in human nature Obama revives a style of charismatic leadership that fell out of favor in the United States after the death of FDR. Of the three presidents since 1945 most often regarded as possessing charismatic qualities, the first, Kennedy, was a tax cutter who questioned liberal utopianism when he said that life is not fair, and the second, Reagan, sought to curb the hubris of New Deal étatisme. The third, Clinton, said that he could feel our pain but retreated from his pledge to heal it when he scrapped a plan to nationalize medicine. Obama, by contrast, is faithful to the old-style charismatics, whose slogans (social solidarity, for example) he has taken out of cold storage. Of course, he would not have gotten far had he simply defrosted the ideas of Henry Wallace and George McGovern. Obama's charisma is tuned to the mood of the moment. The charisma of American political leaders has typically rested on images of unflinching strength and masculine authority: Teddy Roosevelt in the North Dakota Badlands; Kennedy, the naval hero whose sexual prowess was acknowledged even in his Secret Service code name (Lancer); Reagan, the man on horseback whom the Secret Service called Rawhide. Obama's charisma, by contrast, is closer to what critic Camille Paglia has identified with today's television talk-show culture, [which] is occupied with the question of why we feel so bad, when it is our right under the liberal dispensation to feel eternally good Obama, in gaming this culture, has figured out a new way to bottle old wine. He knows that experience has taught Americans to suspect the masculine healer-redeemer who bears collectivist giftsStudiously avoiding the tough-hombre style of earlier charismatic figures, he phrases his vision in the tranquilizing accents of Oprah-land. His charisma is grounded in empathy rather than authority, confessional candor rather than muscular strength, metrosexual mildness rather than masculine testosterone. His power of sympathetic insight is said to be uncanny: Everybody who's dealt with him, columnist David Brooks says, has a story about a time when they felt Obama profoundly listened to them and understood them. His two books are written in the empathetic-confessional mode that his most prominent benefactress, Oprah, favors; he is her political healer in roughly the same way that Dr. Phil was once her pop- psychology one Obama-mania is bound in the end to disappoint. Not only does it teach us to despise our political system's wise recognition of human imperfection and the pursuit of private happiness; it encourages us to seek for perfection where we will not find it, in politics, in the hero worship of a charismatic shaman, in the speciousness of a secular millennium. Lacking the moral parables that made our ancestors wary of those delusions in which overweening pride is apt to involve us, we pursue
[FairfieldLife] Re: A well regulated militia our rights 2 bear arm's
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it sounds like you may be relying on some nebulous subjective experience to comfort yourself in the face of your eventual death. I cannot speak for Vaj, but my subjective experiences are anything but nebulous. They are memories as real and as clear to me as the memory of what I had for breakfast. i have no doubts, questions or fears associated with my complete dissolution at death. sounds like you might. Why? Because we remember having died, and what came afterwards? Does remembering what you had for breakfast SCARE you? Then why should remembering something a little further back sound like there are fears associated with it? careful what others tell you, even those you trust associated with your religous or spiritual tradition. remember, tradition just means old. Careful with projecting your own fears and assumptions onto others. I, for one, do not base my belief in reincarnation on what anyone has told me. I base it on my own subjective experience, my own memories. If my subjective experience turns out to be mistaken and thus my belief in reincarnation turns out to be wrong, when I die I will just blink out and never know it. No disappointment, no confusion, nada. Just blink, and out. However, if your belief that you will just blink out turns out not to be true, you've still got a heckuva confusing journey through the Bardo ahead of you. And you'll be unpre- pared for any of it. All in all, gettin' all Pascal's Wager on this issue, I contend that my belief, although it may be illusory, is by far the safer bet. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Obama relatives should do this on the White House lawn instead!
I said to someone the other day they will do anything and everything up to and not limited to a robotic phone call saying that FOUNDING FATHERS OF AMERICA DID NOT INTEND FOR A 3/5s HUMAN TO EVER BECOME PRESIDENT OF OUR COUNTRY VOTE MCCAIN PALIN BE AMERICAN BE PATRIOTIC VOTE FOR AMERICA --- On Mon, 11/3/08, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Obama relatives should do this on the White House lawn instead! To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:28 AM Bull awaits Obama win in Kogelo village By NATION CorrespondentPosted Saturday, November 1 2008 at 19:35Senator Barrack Obama's relatives have congregated at Nyangoma Kogelo village and will remain together until after Tuesday's US presidential elections. They have set aside a bull to slaughter in celebration should the Illinois senator whose father was Kenyan win, according to family spokesperson Mr Malik Abongo.
[FairfieldLife] Election 2008 redux -- the ads
Huffington Post has a wonderful resource page that lists and allows you to watch the 60 Most Memorable Campaign Ads Of 2008: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/03/top-60-memorable-campaign_n_140118.html or http://tinyurl.com/6kbydg There are all flavors here -- the good ads and the ones that make you want to throw up. My favorite is MoveOn.org's Not My Son. What's yours?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Another Election Fight in California
shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not gay but I am sure voting AGAINST Proposition 8 here in California. A few years back Californians voted to allow same sex marriage Californians voted to allow... Bhairitu, that means that Californians voted on a proposition or in a referendum on that question (you didn't write that California's legislature voted to allow it). I was not aware that Californians voted on this question. Could you please tell me when Californians voted to allow same sex marriage? Actually its the state constitution that guarantees the right. It's the prop 8 people who want to take it away: http://www.noonprop8.com/ You like gay weddings don't you Shemp? :-D
[FairfieldLife] Vedic Pandit Update #11, 1055 Vedic Pandits Are Here
Dear Supporters of the Vedic Pandits Creating Invincibility for America, It is a great joy to announce that as of last week there are 1055 Vedic Pandits in America, surpassing our goal of 1050!! With this large increase in the number of Vedic Pandits, the total number flying at the same time on the Invincible America Assembly has risen to over 1900 Yogic Flyers in the morning and 2200 in the evening. This surpasses the square root of one percent of the U.S. population of 1750. Half of the participants on the Invincible America Assembly are now Vedic Pandits!! Although we want to increase the numbers on the Invincible America Assembly to more than 2500 including additional Vedic Pandits, the immediate need now is to maintain the 1050 Vedic Pandits we have and to not have that number decrease. In order to do this we need your help in two ways. 1. Of the pioneering group of 300 Vedic Pandits who came here in October and November 2006 to create Invincible America, 250 will now be returning to India at the end of their two-year commitment. (The other 50 have committed for another year.) Vedic Pandits are in India to come to replace those leaving. But, as with the last groups who came, the up-front costs of $1800 per new Vedic Pandit are needed to cover their passports, travel, and other mobilization costs before reaching America. As a result, $450,000 is needed now to bring in the 250 replacement Vedic Pandits. 2. We need to build two more houses holding 20 Vedic Pandits each so that we can have replacement Vedic Pandits here before sending other Vedic Pandits back. Like the last houses that were built, the cost is $120,000 per house and we are looking for one or two people who would loan the funds to build these two homes. The loans could be for either 5 years paying 5% interest a year or a 10-year loan earning 6% per year. The houses would be delivered within four weeks. Donations to support the next group of Vedic Pandits can be made through the http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.451217/it.A/id.9/.fGlobal Country of World Peace secure website or by sending contributions to Global Country of World Peace, 2000 Capital Boulevard, Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, 52556. Contributions can also be made through https://vediccity.securesites.com/contribute/contribution.cgiMaharishi Vedic City at its secure website or by sending contributions to City Hall, 1973 Grand Drive, Maharishi Vedic City, IA 52556. If you or someone you know is interested in loaning the funds to build one or both of the houses, please contact us at 1 (312) 324 0291 or email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you very much for all your continuing support for the great blessing of Maharishi's Vedic Pandits in America. Your contributions now will assure we are able to maintain the full complement of Vedic Pandits here. Below are some photographs of recently completed construction on the Vedic Pandit campus and also a photograph of a recent Vedic celebration attended by members of the community. This is another benefit of having the Vedic Pandits here-being able to listen to live Vedic recitations by large numbers of Vedic Pandits at one time. Thank you for your support in creating permanent invincibility for America. Jai Guru Dev. Raja Wynne New East Lake With Campus in Background Vedic Pandits in New Flying Hall Four New Mandaps for Vedic Performances Nine Days Celebration
[FairfieldLife] REPLAY - Video Conference with Dr. Hagelin
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:33:37 -0600 From: Office of Raja Hagelin [EMAIL PROTECTED] National Office of Communication Dear Meditators, Sidhas, and Governors: I invite you to view an inspiring, informative, and compelling video of Dr. John Hagelin's recent address to all Meditators, Sidhas, and Governors of America. (You can view the replay online at: http://invincibleamerica.org/webcast/replay.htmlhttp://invincibleamerica.org/webcast/replay.html ) Dr. Hagelin, who serves as the national leader of the Transcendental Meditation program and the Raja (Administrator) for the United States, opens his fast-moving, 75-minute talk by highlighting the national upsurge of interest in Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation program, including: More people learned the Transcendental Meditation technique in October than any month in more than a decade. (The October numbers were almost 40% more than September, which was the second highest month.) More than 50,000 students have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique in dozens of public and private schools in the past two years. Note: You can see video highlights of the recent National Summit on TM in Education in New York City, which was attended by representatives of 140 local schools. And now at least 110 of these representatives have expressed interest in introducing the Quiet Time/Transcendental Meditation program into their schools. New student enrollment at Maharishi University of Management is growing at a record-setting pace of more than 120% in the past two years. In his address, Dr. Hagelin also provides a profound, deeply insightful analysis into the current global economic turmoil and outlines the scientifically proven programs offered by Global Financial Capital of New York to address the crisis-and prevent future problems. Dr. Hagelin concludes by urging everyone to be regular in his or her practice-and to grow rapidly in higher states of consciousness. I urge all Meditators to learn the TM-Sidhi program, and all Sidhas to practice their program in groups whenever possible and to participate in the Invincible America Assembly at Maharishi University of Management. This will help defuse the collective stress and fear that is fueling the market meltdown, and freezing the credit markets. Together, we will create the foundation for a healthy, prosperous, invincible nation. And America will rise to be an enlightened leader of a truly peaceful world. I hope you enjoy the replay Jai Guru Dev Mario Orsatti National Director of Communication
[FairfieldLife] Re: This should secure the Pennsylvania and West Virginia vote for Barky
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Lol...Idiot republicans ACTUALLY THINK this is bad for Obama ! The coal industry is already doing what Obama suggested here. Even they are moving into greener technologies with zero emmissions plants. Its as if they are in lock step together in their vision for the future with Obama, and the people in those States are well aware of that. Its only idiots like you and the other republicans, that the coal industry has already left behind, are still part of the old school dustbin of history. OffWorld I guess I'm an idiot along with RON PAUL, your hero! Ha! Here's what Paul has to say about coal: What role do you think coal should play in America's energy future? Coal is a source of energy, and it should be used, but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. What type of brain damage causes you to be so dumb Shemp? Coal should be used, but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody --- Ron Paul. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: This should secure the Pennsylvania and West Virginia vote for Barky
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives boo_lives@ wrote: I don't think there are any plants anywhere using coal that have zero emissions. We should explore clean coal technology but right now it's just a phrase, not a reality. There's cleaner coal than before but not clean. Do you agree with Barky Hussein that such plants should go out of business because of the prohibitively high carbon taxes he says he will impose on them? New Flash shemp, Sidney also is in favor of carbon taxes, it was the central focus of his climate change talk. The goal of carbon taxes is to provide a financial incentive for coal users and entrepreneurs to develop cleaner coal technologies. It's already happening slowly, but carbon taxes speeds the process. The purpose of carbon taxes is not to put plants out of business, it's to change the technology that plants use to burn coal, to make the dirty coal tech. obsolete. The tax is structured so that no plant goes out of business, but gradually new tech. come in. Economists have been thinking about carbon taxes for awhile and in all the models utilities are not put out of business, it's the old technologies that get put out of business gradually. here's Obama quote on the subject that drudge forgot: The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset here are the winners that we're picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right. I'm glad to know shemp favors dirty coal technology and doesn't favor entrepreneurship to solve env't problems. OF course, shemp doesn't believe in climate change, so that makes sense but even mccain believes in climate change and carbon taxes. Don't fret shemp, Palin in 2012, and you'll have someone in line with your thinking.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Another Election Fight in California
John wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not gay but I am sure voting AGAINST Proposition 8 here in California. A few years back Californians voted to allow same sex marriage and now a bunch of religious fundies want to put an amendment in the California constitution banning it. That is essentially a step towards destroying equality and taking away given rights from a group. What harm is there in allowing gays to marry anyway! You're asking a very contentious question as it addresses the religious tradition of this state and country. For those who uphold the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which this country was founded, marriage is intended to create a family--that includes the raising of children, for the benefit of the community and the nation. The marriage of gays fundamentally goes against this paradigm as gays by natural definition cannot produce children. Therefore, the marriage for them does not follow the natural order of things. There is further an underlying message to this paradigm--and that is, marriage between a man a woman is not solely for the purpose of having sex and sensual gratification. It is to procreate children to insure the continuation of mankind. Of course, the nurturing of love is included for the benefit of the entire family. For people in northern California, Proposition 8 appears to be a simple question of equality for gays. But for the rest of California, the proposition is about the recognizing the traditional function of marriage in society. Yup, northen and southern California are two different animals. Mexico can take back SoCal for all I care. Los Angeles is like some city in the future ... like 50 years into a bad future. As for religious concepts they are nothing more than mind control methods that kings invented to keep their subjects under control. They have little relevance to modern society. You can either live in the past or in the now. The deeper you go with your meditations the more you realize this and how you've been conned all your life.
[FairfieldLife] Neil Young Converting Cars
Neil Young on gas guzzlers: Long may you run Al Saracevic, Chronicle Staff Writer Monday, November 3, 2008 (11-02) 21:16 PST -- Leave it to Neil Young to make green technology cool. The rock legend has created a company called Linc Volt Technology to promote the conversion of existing gas-guzzling cars into vehicles that run on alternative energy. But we're not talking about boxy little e-cars here. Young, who likes his cars old and big, is launching his effort by converting a 1959 Lincoln Continental to run on electricity and natural gas. He'll be at Salesforce.com's Dreamforce conference at Moscone Center this morning to show off his ride. All 5,000 pounds of it. More... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/03/MNLC13S45F.DTL
[FairfieldLife] Re: This should secure the Pennsylvania and West Virginia vote for Barky
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] New Flash shemp, Sidney also is in favor of carbon taxes, it was the central focus of his climate change talk. [snip] SO WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I CARE? LISTEN, YOU ADDLE-BRAINED SPAWN OF SHEEPLE, JUST BECAUSE I CAN'T STAND THE MARXIST COMMUNITY ORGANISER DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY MEAN I SUPPORT McCAIN. I DON'T. NOW KINDLY FUCK OFF AND START TO THINK FOR YOURSELF INSTEAD OF LIKE A KOOL-AID DRINKING OBAMA-BOT.
[FairfieldLife] Milk Re: Another Election Fight in California
Prop 8 is just more hate from the Mormons and other fundys who are sponsoring the bill. What a pox on the consciousness of Californians if this thing passes. This weekend I got to see the new Sean Penn, Gus Van Sant film, Milk. What a great movie. It managed to show grass roots activism, and the anti gay mentality of 70's really well. Remember Anita Bryant? I was living in San Francisco at the time and the movie really captured the period. Entertaining and powerful. s. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not gay but I am sure voting AGAINST Proposition 8 here in California. A few years back Californians voted to allow same sex marriage and now a bunch of religious fundies want to put an amendment in the California constitution banning it. That is essentially a step towards destroying equality and taking away given rights from a group. What harm is there in allowing gays to marry anyway! It is pretty much a given that Obama will win this state and I also believe he'll win the country but if Prop 8 passes then you'll see riots of a different kind in California. You'll see unnecessary pain being given to people who genuinely love each other and exercised their right to marry in this state. Is everyone else getting as tired as I am of a small group of religious fundamentalists pushing their stinking outdated beliefs on the public? ( Of course I know I'm preaching to the choir here).
[FairfieldLife] Re: A good shaking out process
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: All in all, now that the Silly Season of the last few months is about to end, I have to look back upon it as useful because it's clarified a few things and made them clear to almost everyone. Based on what they've said and done, I think we all have a very clear idea now who can be trusted and who cannot. We know who sticks to the issues and who does anything possible to obscure them. And some, like Barry, who haven't bothered to inform themselves about the issues well enough to discuss them at all. Instead, they resort to: We know who is willing to make things up and say them over and over -- *knowing* that they are not true -- to demonize someone they don't like. And: We know who is likely to play dodgeball and do anything -- ANYTHING -- rather than own up to having made a mistake or a misstatement, much less actually apologize. And: We know who is living in the past and who is living in the present, And: and we know who has some semblance of credibility and who does not. And: We know who to bother to listen to, and who to change the channel on immediately, because they're *never* going to have anything valuable to say. Barry Wright, Master of Inadvertent Irony. So on the whole I'd say that it's been a painful period, but instructive. Truer words were never spoken. Barry I already knew about, but I genuinely wish I had not learned what I've discovered about most FFL participants during this election campaign. The levels of ignorance, intolerance, viciousness, and blatant bigotry have been just extraordinary-- on both sides. But what's so shocking is that this has come *at least* as much from the Obamazoids as from the few McCainiacs here. What worries me as much as anything about a President Obama is the possibility that these attitudes will be perpetuated in his administration, given his unwilligness to do anything to change them among his campaign supporters. Today Palin said dems think terrorists are the good guys. Their stump speeches routinely attack obama as terrorist, anti american, socialist and many other character attacks that are absurd. I live in a rep. leaning swing state and get about 10 republican robocalls a day with such interesting facts as obama as president would lead to a holocaust, forced abortions against mother's will even during birth, laws outlawing flying the flag outside your home, a destruction of american values, putting muslims in his cabinet, the destruction of marriage between men and women. I've gotten a total of 2 calls from dems, both from a real person, asking me if I've voted, if I know where to vote, if I have any questions about voting, and I hope I can count on you to vote for change and obama. Quite a difference. But then dems call mccain impulsive so I guess it's even.
[FairfieldLife] Re: This should secure the Pennsylvania and West Virginia vote for Barky
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Lol...Idiot republicans ACTUALLY THINK this is bad for Obama ! The coal industry is already doing what Obama suggested here. Even they are moving into greener technologies with zero emmissions plants. Its as if they are in lock step together in their vision for the future with Obama, and the people in those States are well aware of that. Its only idiots like you and the other republicans, that the coal industry has already left behind, are still part of the old school dustbin of history. OffWorld I guess I'm an idiot along with RON PAUL, your hero! Ha! Here's what Paul has to say about coal: What role do you think coal should play in America's energy future? Coal is a source of energy, and it should be used, but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. What type of brain damage causes you to be so dumb Shemp? Coal should be used, but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody --- Ron Paul. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. OffWorld Schmuck-face, of coure it has to be used without ever hurting anyone. That's so obvious, no one needs to say it. But it's such a Mom-and- apple-pie-statement and so innoculous that only an idiot like you would pick up on it. It's like saying: I am opposed to unhappiness and I stand for happiness. But Paul is still 100% on the opposite side of the fence from Obama who is for a carbon tax and Paul is against it (that's why you conveniently snipped that part of my post).
[FairfieldLife] Milk Re: Another Election Fight in California
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Prop 8 is just more hate from the Mormons and other fundys who are sponsoring the bill. What a pox on the consciousness of Californians if this thing passes. This weekend I got to see the new Sean Penn, Gus Van Sant film, Milk. What a great movie. It managed to show grass roots activism, and the anti gay mentality of 70's really well. Remember Anita Bryant? I was living in San Francisco at the time and the movie really captured the period. Entertaining and powerful. s. With this movie, Sean Penn will do for the Sodomites what he did for the Baath Party. Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles. -- Sean Penn doll, Team America: World Police --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: I'm not gay but I am sure voting AGAINST Proposition 8 here in California. A few years back Californians voted to allow same sex marriage and now a bunch of religious fundies want to put an amendment in the California constitution banning it. That is essentially a step towards destroying equality and taking away given rights from a group. What harm is there in allowing gays to marry anyway! It is pretty much a given that Obama will win this state and I also believe he'll win the country but if Prop 8 passes then you'll see riots of a different kind in California. You'll see unnecessary pain being given to people who genuinely love each other and exercised their right to marry in this state. Is everyone else getting as tired as I am of a small group of religious fundamentalists pushing their stinking outdated beliefs on the public? ( Of course I know I'm preaching to the choir here).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
Vaj wrote: Actually MMY's system bares very little similarity to Patanjali's system. It's sounds like you've been fooled by believing what you were told, without really looking into things experientially. Kashmir Shaivism resembles Hindu tantra, and both have as their key symbol the Shri Yantra. Kashmir Shaivism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_Shaivism Aham is the concept of supreme reality as heart. It is considered to be a non-dual interior space of S'iva, support for the entire manifestation, supreme mantra and identical to S'akti. Aham in Kashmir Shaivism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aham_(Kashmir_Shaivism) The following notable authors came to study with Lakshmanjoo: Paul Reps, Lillian Silburn, Andre Padoux, Thakur Jaideva Singh, Rameshwara Jha, Prof. Alexis Sanderson, Dr. Mark Dyczkowski, Pandit Jankinath Kaul, John Hughes, Dr. Bettina Baumer. In an hours time you will feel your mind has started settling softly into a subtle state of thought and mood. Gradually you will experience your mind moving quickly into the domain of meditation filled with peace and rest. Here your mind will become one-pointed and subtle. - Lakshman Joo Swami Lakshman Joo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Lakshman_Joo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj supports TM!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Nov 2, 2008, at 5:33 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: [snip] I refuse to own a hand gun since a handgun is ostensibly for killing another person. Therefore I wouldn't own one on moral grounds. That's the way it was with most of my family, many refused to own handguns. Having said that, I live in a state with very little violent crime outside of family squabbles and drunks, although parts of Portland are becoming more dangerous and I have had some close calls. If eventually I felt I needed a weapon for protection of my life, I'd favor some modern non-lethal weapon. I'm hoping for something like a portable Maser or a device that would alter brain wave activity. [snip] You mean like TM! TM's not a gun Shemp! No, if someone asks me about meditation and says they really want to learn a Hindu style of meditation, TM is not the style of meditation I recommend any longer. Sorry, Vaj, but your opinion has next to zero effect on the global revival of Transcendental Meditation(R), that's about to start any month now... ;) ALready has. Seriously. Tucson, AZ has several hundred charter public school students in a single school who have learned TM via the Lynch Foundation. If it can happen in Tucson, it can happen almost anywhere. And... with the economy the way it is, lots of rich people are looking to invest their money in all sorts of things to get the economy moving. While I only hear about TM-related stuff, I'm sure there are people pouring money into voodoo rites as well. It doesn't matter to me. Assuming the TM stuff works, then hopefully there will be enough funding of that particular program to make a difference. OTOH, if its the voodoo rites that are the key, here's to them instead. Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Election 2008 redux -- the ads
TurquoiseB wrote: Huffington Post has a wonderful resource page that lists and allows you to watch the 60 Most Memorable Campaign Ads Of 2008: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/03/top-60-memorable-campaign_n_140118.html or http://tinyurl.com/6kbydg There are all flavors here -- the good ads and the ones that make you want to throw up. My favorite is MoveOn.org's Not My Son. What's yours? What you're missing being across the pond is all the spam one gets if you donate to a campaign. ;-) Save the electronics companies and Amazon spamming me about every day which used to be rare but gee times must be tough in the retail business (my local Circuit City will be having a going out of business sale on Weds as they are closing 155 stores). The sheer amount of herding by the various organizations has been almost overwhelming. It's interesting to note I've never told any of them I have a cellphone, they just assume it. And they just assume you would have no problem cold calling people. I don't particularly feel comfortable doing that. I even got a phone call inviting me to do so and I said I would rather contribute money. And I actually didn't hang up on a survey which I suspect was from the Pro 8 people as when it got to that question there were 5 answers ranging from Yes, Maybe Yes to Don't Know, Maybe No and No. Well they now have me on their list as quite a liberal. So after tomorrow I will be looking forward to a less cluttered inbox and fewer landline calls.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A good shaking out process
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Today Palin said dems think terrorists are the good guys. Not all Dems...just some. But I doubt she said that. Care to quote her exactly? Their stump speeches routinely attack obama as terrorist, I've never heard her say Obama is a terrorist. Please provide evidence that she did. Of course, Obama pals around with terrorists. That's a demonstrable fact. anti american, That's a subjective call. Yes, I'd agree that Obama is most definitely anti-american. socialist Absolutely. and many other character attacks that are absurd. many other character attacks? Many? Which ones? If there are many you should be able to name at least 3. Please do. I live in a rep. leaning swing state and get about 10 republican robocalls a day They were Republican calls? You know that for a fact? Which organisations are they specifically, please. with such interesting facts as obama as president would lead to a holocaust, forced abortions against mother's will even during birth, laws outlawing flying the flag outside your home, a destruction of american values, putting muslims in his cabinet, Well, as a Muslim himself, Obama as president would be in the cabinet, no? That's at least one... But being a Muslim is not a reason to not vote for him. Vote for or against Obama because you believe or don't believe in him and his policies. the destruction of marriage between men and women. I've gotten a total of 2 calls from dems, both from a real person, asking me if I've voted, if I know where to vote, if I have any questions about voting, and I hope I can count on you to vote for change and obama. Quite a difference. But then dems call mccain impulsive so I guess it's even.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A good shaking out process
On Nov 3, 2008, at 2:01 PM, boo_lives wrote: putting muslims in his cabinet Why shouldn't Î he? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Governor Sarah Palin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, I was interested in learning about her and her accomplishments. I've had a [...] Getting back to my initial reason for writing this up, does all this sound like the supposedly clueless Sarah Palin you've been hearing about in the mainstream media? Maybe there are sound reasons that Governor Palin is so popular with her state's citizens, including many Democrats and Independents. IT doesn't sound like the Sarah Palin *I* did research on, either. short post script: Governor Palin's personal gubernatorial expenses have been reduced, by her own modifications, 80% below her predecessor's. Must have had a much larger family to charge trips for, then. It is possible that what I have heard is completley biased. It is ALSO possible that should Palin lose in this election that she will face even more serious ethics charges than TrooperGate when she returns to Alaska. We will see. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip In an hours time you will feel your mind has started settling softly into a subtle state of thought and mood. Gradually you will experience your mind moving quickly into the domain of meditation filled with peace and rest. Here your mind will become one-pointed and subtle. - Lakshman Joo A light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack. - Barack Obama
[FairfieldLife] Re: The ultimate comment on Sarah Palin...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: ...is an unintentional one. Go to the following URL: http://www.sarahpalin.com/ WTF? What a bizarre gaff in this day and age! For $2 or something, you could have bought that site and put up that webpage. Since the normal default webpage is either an Apache (or other server) boilerplate, or an advertisement for the web hosting service, I'm pretty sure this was NOT a gaffe but a cute joke. Lawson Even though any comment from me seems redundant :-), this is a canned message because no one has bought this domain yet. But isn't it perfect? And for more election eve humor, see this one: http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/political-pictures-john-mccain- cindy-mccain-longevity.jpg Excellent! What a picture.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The makings of a Landslide for Obama
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I noticed McCain is ending his campaign tonite in Roswell, NM. What an appropriate bizarre end to his campaign, though it would make more sense to send Sarah to get the undecided alien vote I think. Really does support the idea that McCain has been having fun all along and has never intended to win the election but instead, is trying to destroy the Republican Party in retaliation for selecting Bush twice instead of him. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: A good shaking out process
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Barry I already knew about, but I genuinely wish I had not learned what I've discovered about most FFL participants during this election campaign. The levels of ignorance, intolerance, viciousness, and blatant bigotry have been just extraordinary-- on both sides. But what's so shocking is that this has come *at least* as much from the Obamazoids as from the few McCainiacs here. What worries me as much as anything about a President Obama is the possibility that these attitudes will be perpetuated in his administration, given his unwilligness to do anything to change them among his campaign supporters. Today Palin said dems think terrorists are the good guys. Their stump speeches routinely attack obama as terrorist, anti american, socialist and many other character attacks that are absurd. I live in a rep. leaning swing state and get about 10 republican robocalls a day with such interesting facts as obama as president would lead to a holocaust, forced abortions against mother's will even during birth, laws outlawing flying the flag outside your home, a destruction of american values, putting muslims in his cabinet, the destruction of marriage between men and women. I've gotten a total of 2 calls from dems, both from a real person, asking me if I've voted, if I know where to vote, if I have any questions about voting, and I hope I can count on you to vote for change and obama. Quite a difference. But then dems call mccain impulsive so I guess it's even. And all this was relevant to what I wrote exactly how?
[FairfieldLife] Is a Jew for Jesus still Jewish?
Of course, he is. And he/she would be the first to say it even though, spiritually, they subscribe to the New Testament and accept J.C. and their personal savior and all that bullshit. Same thing with atheist Jews. Many of the Jews I know don't believe in God, haven't been in a synagogue in years, don't observe the High Holidays, and feast on pork and lobster every chance they get. But in spite of not only not adhering to the tenets of Judaism -- and indeed, go out of their way to express their opposition to them -- they still consider themselves as Jews. And, according to Israel's law of return as well as the laws of Judaism regarding who is a Jew, the above-described Jews are Jews by virtue of their mothers being Jewish (the father could be Pope and the children would still not be any less Jewish). That's all it took; just the matri-linear connection. No need to believe in Judaism or adhere to its principles. Islam, as it was pointed out in a post here (by raunchydog?), is defined patrilinearly. And, like Judaism, you don't have to have much, if any, belief in Islam and its tenets. You just have to have been born to an Islamic father who could even be an atheist (as Barack's father apparently was). So Barack is and always will be a Muslim. Of course, like a Jew for Jesus who are often referred to as Messianic Jews, Barack is, we could say, a Messianic Muslim because he, too, has accepted the ole J-Meister as his personal free ticket to ever-lasting heaven. Why doesn't Barack identify himself as Muslim? Is he ashamed of it? Why not embrace your heritage instead of hiding from it? Why instruct your minions to strictly keep head-garb-wearing Muslim women AWAY from any backdrops in photo-ops so that the Muslim connection is hidden? I don't trust people who try to hide things about themselves. Being Muslim is NOT a reason not to vote for Obama. Don't vote for him or do vote for him based upon his stance on issues and his character.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Milk Re: Another Election Fight in California
For Prop 8 to win would begin a long slippery slope towards taking away the rights of groups and individuals in the state. We can't allow that. I saw the trailer for Milk at the Changeling showing the other night (funny how all the trailers were aimed at an older demographic given what else plays at the theater). It looks to be a good film. Maybe we should all chip in and get a ticket for Shemp. :-D Stu wrote: Prop 8 is just more hate from the Mormons and other fundys who are sponsoring the bill. What a pox on the consciousness of Californians if this thing passes. This weekend I got to see the new Sean Penn, Gus Van Sant film, Milk. What a great movie. It managed to show grass roots activism, and the anti gay mentality of 70's really well. Remember Anita Bryant? I was living in San Francisco at the time and the movie really captured the period. Entertaining and powerful. s. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not gay but I am sure voting AGAINST Proposition 8 here in California. A few years back Californians voted to allow same sex marriage and now a bunch of religious fundies want to put an amendment in the California constitution banning it. That is essentially a step towards destroying equality and taking away given rights from a group. What harm is there in allowing gays to marry anyway! It is pretty much a given that Obama will win this state and I also believe he'll win the country but if Prop 8 passes then you'll see riots of a different kind in California. You'll see unnecessary pain being given to people who genuinely love each other and exercised their right to marry in this state. Is everyone else getting as tired as I am of a small group of religious fundamentalists pushing their stinking outdated beliefs on the public? ( Of course I know I'm preaching to the choir here).
[FairfieldLife] Re: This should secure the Pennsylvania and West Virginia vote for Barky
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think there are any plants anywhere using coal that have zero emissions. We should explore clean coal technology but right now it's just a phrase, not a reality. There's cleaner coal than before but not clean. The cost of these clean technologies has to include all the attendant technologies and other costs/subsidies used to create them. That's why nuclear isn't as cheap as people think it is, nor ethanol, nor gasoline. On the other hand, solar thermal farming, for all its space-wasting issues, may be cheap enough already, to be of use without any subsidies whatsoever. The only special cost for solar thermal farming is construction costs, much of it in the form of energy to melt the sand to make the glass panels. It has the added bonus that since the primary component is sand, there's not too much danger of running out of the needed raw materials, unlike solar cell technology, which often uses the same rare earths used to make computer chips. Imagine if there were so many solar cells being made that they impacted the price of new computer chips. It is a definite possibility. Solar thermal farming is where its at, at least in sunny places, IMHO. And Adriene and Marjorie Meinel proved that you could supply the energy needs of the USA in 2070 using 1970 technology, based on energy cost projections that were NOT taking the current price of gas into account. In fact, energy in the US is probably already at their projected 2070 levels, cost-wise. Here's hoping that Obama is able to start his public works programs and get massive construction of solar farms int he southwest. The Dineh ( Navajo Nation) would benefit greatly if the farms were built on the tribal lands, killing two birds with one stone by providing an incentive and funds for a lot of Original Peoples to get high tech degrees to run the operations instead of casinos (not that the Dineh live close enough to population centers to run them anyway) while creating a huge non-carbon-footprint contributor to our nation's power grid. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Another Election Fight in California
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For those who uphold the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which this country was founded, marriage is intended to create a family--that includes the raising of children, for the benefit of the community and the nation. The marriage of gays fundamentally goes against this paradigm as gays by natural definition cannot produce children. Therefore, the marriage for them does not follow the natural order of things. So we should therefore ban marriage between infertile couples? Should we forbid women who are past menopause from marrying? FYI, gay women can have children via artificial insemination. So I guess we should allow gay women to marry, but not gay men. (Or should we ban artificial insemination too?) And in some cases, one or both members of a gay couple have children from a prior marriage. Plus which, many gay couples adopt children (just like heterosexual but infertile couples) and do very well at raising them. I think you need to reexamine the basis for your objections to gay marriage.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A well regulated militia our rights 2 bear arm's
However, if your belief that you will just blink out turns out not to be true, you've still got a heckuva confusing journey through the Bardo ahead of you. And you'll be unpre- pared for any of it. All in all, gettin' all Pascal's Wager on this issue, I contend that my belief, although it may be illusory, is by far the safer bet. :-) Pascal's wager made more sense in the context of a simple Christian belief option. Now that we are aware of the literally thousands of optional beliefs about what happens after death, it stops being much insurance. For example if the Jains are right, we are all F'ed just on our typical 10 year old boy ant colony destructions alone! So the chances that whatever is learned about the the other side from various belief systems over here, is gunna be useful, seems kinds slim. If the Egyptians are right, we will have nothing to eat and will only have the things buried with us for the next life. I'd better pack a guitar in my coffin just to be safe! I have a feeling that we will all be equally unprepared for anything other than light's out forever. Ain't no heaven, Ain't no burn'n hell Where we go when we die Can't nobody tell. John Lee Hooker, who is taking a dirt bath as I write this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: it sounds like you may be relying on some nebulous subjective experience to comfort yourself in the face of your eventual death. I cannot speak for Vaj, but my subjective experiences are anything but nebulous. They are memories as real and as clear to me as the memory of what I had for breakfast. i have no doubts, questions or fears associated with my complete dissolution at death. sounds like you might. Why? Because we remember having died, and what came afterwards? Does remembering what you had for breakfast SCARE you? Then why should remembering something a little further back sound like there are fears associated with it? careful what others tell you, even those you trust associated with your religous or spiritual tradition. remember, tradition just means old. Careful with projecting your own fears and assumptions onto others. I, for one, do not base my belief in reincarnation on what anyone has told me. I base it on my own subjective experience, my own memories. If my subjective experience turns out to be mistaken and thus my belief in reincarnation turns out to be wrong, when I die I will just blink out and never know it. No disappointment, no confusion, nada. Just blink, and out. However, if your belief that you will just blink out turns out not to be true, you've still got a heckuva confusing journey through the Bardo ahead of you. And you'll be unpre- pared for any of it. All in all, gettin' all Pascal's Wager on this issue, I contend that my belief, although it may be illusory, is by far the safer bet. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: snip In an hours time you will feel your mind has started settling softly into a subtle state of thought and mood. Gradually you will experience your mind moving quickly into the domain of meditation filled with peace and rest. Here your mind will become one-pointed and subtle. - Lakshman Joo A light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack. - Barack Obama Shame on you, Judy. That was lifted from a joke he was telling at a speech. He introduced the organizer for that particular speech and said that it was the guy's job to get you to vote for Obama and that it was Obama's job to convince you of his worthiness. That somehow, due to his words at the speech, in the next half hour, A light will shine through that window... Everybody else thought it funny. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is a Jew for Jesus still Jewish?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, he is. You are mixing up logical levels here. Religiously they are Christian, and culturally they are Jewish. Islam, as it was pointed out in a post here (by raunchydog?), is defined patrilinearly. By Muslims. Not by people with a father who happened to be born in that part of the world who now chooses to be Christian. Saying that a person can be a religion against their own will is absurd. And, like Judaism, you don't have to have much, if any, belief in Islam and its tenets. You just have to have been born to an Islamic father who could even be an atheist (as Barack's father apparently was). So it is a magical connection that has nothing to do with a person's choice? And we should take this one belief of Muslims seriously because... I don't trust people who try to hide things about themselves. Hiding his magical connection that would only be believed by people who grew up as Muslim and bought into this belief. We should all adapt this superstitious POV? Obama's religion is the pseudo-cannibalistic Christian religion. But thank God he's not a Muslim! They believe some weird stuff don't they? And he/she would be the first to say it even though, spiritually, they subscribe to the New Testament and accept J.C. and their personal savior and all that bullshit. Same thing with atheist Jews. Many of the Jews I know don't believe in God, haven't been in a synagogue in years, don't observe the High Holidays, and feast on pork and lobster every chance they get. But in spite of not only not adhering to the tenets of Judaism -- and indeed, go out of their way to express their opposition to them -- they still consider themselves as Jews. And, according to Israel's law of return as well as the laws of Judaism regarding who is a Jew, the above-described Jews are Jews by virtue of their mothers being Jewish (the father could be Pope and the children would still not be any less Jewish). That's all it took; just the matri-linear connection. No need to believe in Judaism or adhere to its principles. Islam, as it was pointed out in a post here (by raunchydog?), is defined patrilinearly. And, like Judaism, you don't have to have much, if any, belief in Islam and its tenets. You just have to have been born to an Islamic father who could even be an atheist (as Barack's father apparently was). So Barack is and always will be a Muslim. Of course, like a Jew for Jesus who are often referred to as Messianic Jews, Barack is, we could say, a Messianic Muslim because he, too, has accepted the ole J-Meister as his personal free ticket to ever-lasting heaven. Why doesn't Barack identify himself as Muslim? Is he ashamed of it? Why not embrace your heritage instead of hiding from it? Why instruct your minions to strictly keep head-garb-wearing Muslim women AWAY from any backdrops in photo-ops so that the Muslim connection is hidden? I don't trust people who try to hide things about themselves. Being Muslim is NOT a reason not to vote for Obama. Don't vote for him or do vote for him based upon his stance on issues and his character.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama, Shaman
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The real example of hubris in politics is not Barack, who seems to me to have a lot of common sense and groundedness, but the current occupant of the White House and the neocons who surround him. Maybe you want to give this piece another read. Hubris wasn't the main point at all, nor did it suggest that Obama didn't have common sense or groundedness. Where it used the term hubris, it was in the context that it encouraged the belief that gifted politicians can engender a selfless communitarian solidarity. I don't recall that being part of GWB's pitch, do you? In any case, *my* point had to do with what some of us perceive to be the emptiness of the hope and change meme that Barry was warbling blissfully about earlier, as if anyone who isn't enraptured by it is somehow stuck in the past and considers hope a dirty word. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Excerpts from a much longer piece in The City Journal this past summer. I don't agree with everything he says, but he makes some excellent points in these excerpts about the general flabbiness of Obama's hope and change meme: Obama, Shaman by Michael Knox Beran The candidate's post-masculine charisma tempts America in the age of Oprah. In the patois of punditry, charismatic has come to mean little more than like a rock star. But the striking thing about the charismatic leader is the extent to which his followers regard him as a healer of wounds, an alleviator of pain. In this sense, surely, Senator Barack Obama is charismatic...he has entered the American psyche not as a hero but as a healer. The country, or much of it, has longed for such a figure, a man from the once-oppressed race whose rise to power will atone for the sins of slavery and racial stigmatization. But Obama's rhetoric encompasses more than a promise of racial healing. He is not the first politician to argue that politics can redeem us, but in posing as the Adonis who will turn winter into spring, he revives one of the more pernicious political swindles: the belief that a charismatic leader can ordain a civic happy hour and give a people a sense of community that will make them feel less bad The danger of Obama's charismatic healer-redeemer fable lies in the hubris it encourages, the belief that gifted politicians can engender a selfless communitarian solidarity. Such a renovation of our national life would require not only a change in constitutional structure--the current system having been geared to conflict by the Founders, who believed that the clash of private interests helps preserve liberty--but also a change in human nature Obama revives a style of charismatic leadership that fell out of favor in the United States after the death of FDR. Of the three presidents since 1945 most often regarded as possessing charismatic qualities, the first, Kennedy, was a tax cutter who questioned liberal utopianism when he said that life is not fair, and the second, Reagan, sought to curb the hubris of New Deal étatisme. The third, Clinton, said that he could feel our pain but retreated from his pledge to heal it when he scrapped a plan to nationalize medicine. Obama, by contrast, is faithful to the old-style charismatics, whose slogans (social solidarity, for example) he has taken out of cold storage. Of course, he would not have gotten far had he simply defrosted the ideas of Henry Wallace and George McGovern. Obama's charisma is tuned to the mood of the moment. The charisma of American political leaders has typically rested on images of unflinching strength and masculine authority: Teddy Roosevelt in the North Dakota Badlands; Kennedy, the naval hero whose sexual prowess was acknowledged even in his Secret Service code name (Lancer); Reagan, the man on horseback whom the Secret Service called Rawhide. Obama's charisma, by contrast, is closer to what critic Camille Paglia has identified with today's television talk-show culture, [which] is occupied with the question of why we feel so bad, when it is our right under the liberal dispensation to feel eternally good Obama, in gaming this culture, has figured out a new way to bottle old wine. He knows that experience has taught Americans to suspect the masculine healer-redeemer who bears collectivist giftsStudiously avoiding the tough-hombre style of earlier charismatic figures, he phrases his vision in the tranquilizing accents of Oprah-land. His charisma is grounded in empathy rather than authority, confessional candor rather than muscular strength, metrosexual mildness rather than masculine testosterone. His power of sympathetic insight is said to be uncanny: Everybody who's dealt with him, columnist David Brooks says, has a story about a time when they
[FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: snip In an hours time you will feel your mind has started settling softly into a subtle state of thought and mood. Gradually you will experience your mind moving quickly into the domain of meditation filled with peace and rest. Here your mind will become one-pointed and subtle. - Lakshman Joo A light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack. - Barack Obama Shame on you, Judy. That was lifted from a joke he was telling at a speech. He introduced the organizer for that particular speech and said that it was the guy's job to get you to vote for Obama and that it was Obama's job to convince you of his worthiness. That somehow, due to his words at the speech, in the next half hour, A light will shine through that window... Everybody else thought it funny. Lawson Thanks for clarifying the context Lawson, I wondered where that came from.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A good shaking out process
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I hope you will excuse me for not getting involved in the Barry feud. It reminds me of sticking my hand into a dogfight. You guys seem fine on your own without my help. If you wanted it all to stop you guys could have chosen that path long ago. BTW, Curtis, this is crap. The Barry-post in question wasn't just an attack on me, it was an attack on all the Obama nonsupporters here. And not only did he say things about them that were by no means true, every single one of them was particularly and egregiously true *of Barry himself*. Have another look: Based on what they've said and done, I think we all have a very clear idea now who can be trusted and who cannot. We know who sticks to the issues and who does anything possible to obscure them. We know who is willing to make things up and say them over and over -- *knowing* that they are not true -- to demonize someone they don't like. We know who is likely to play dodgeball and do anything -- ANYTHING -- rather than own up to having made a mistake or a misstatement, much less actually apologize. We know who is living in the past and who is living in the present, and we know who has some semblance of credibility and who does not. We know who to bother to listen to, and who to change the channel on immediately, because they're *never* going to have anything valuable to say. I think your reluctance to criticize Barry is a bit of bros over hos, a matter of male solidarity. Plus which, I think you prefer to criticize me rather than Barry because he's a *lot* harder to deal with if you rub him the wrong way, and you don't want to make yourself a target of his attacks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: snip In an hours time you will feel your mind has started settling softly into a subtle state of thought and mood. Gradually you will experience your mind moving quickly into the domain of meditation filled with peace and rest. Here your mind will become one-pointed and subtle. - Lakshman Joo A light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack. - Barack Obama Shame on you, Judy. That was lifted from a joke he was telling at a speech. He introduced the organizer for that particular speech and said that it was the guy's job to get you to vote for Obama and that it was Obama's job to convince you of his worthiness. That somehow, due to his words at the speech, in the next half hour, A light will shine through that window... Everybody else thought it funny. Yes, Lawson, I thought it was funny too. I also thought it was funny how much it sounded like the Manjoo quote, which is why I posted it underneath that quote, you see. Shame on *you* for assuming otherwise.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A well regulated militia our rights 2 bear arm's
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: it sounds like you may be relying on some nebulous subjective experience to comfort yourself in the face of your eventual death. I cannot speak for Vaj, but my subjective experiences are anything but nebulous. They are memories as real and as clear to me as the memory of what I had for breakfast. i have no doubts, questions or fears associated with my complete dissolution at death. sounds like you might. Why? Because we remember having died, and what came afterwards? Does remembering what you had for breakfast SCARE you? Then why should remembering something a little further back sound like there are fears associated with it? careful what others tell you, even those you trust associated with your religous or spiritual tradition. remember, tradition just means old. Careful with projecting your own fears and assumptions onto others. I, for one, do not base my belief in reincarnation on what anyone has told me. I base it on my own subjective experience, my own memories. If my subjective experience turns out to be mistaken and thus my belief in reincarnation turns out to be wrong, when I die I will just blink out and never know it. No disappointment, no confusion, nada. Just blink, and out. However, if your belief that you will just blink out turns out not to be true, you've still got a heckuva confusing journey through the Bardo ahead of you. And you'll be unpre- pared for any of it. All in all, gettin' all Pascal's Wager on this issue, I contend that my belief, although it may be illusory, is by far the safer bet. :-) rhetorical question to you: do you ever push something just to see what happens next? thanks for your answer- i enjoyed reading it, and learned something about you in the process.
[FairfieldLife] Re: This should secure the Pennsylvania and West Virginia vote for Barky
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Lol...Idiot republicans ACTUALLY THINK this is bad for Obama ! The coal industry is already doing what Obama suggested here. Even they are moving into greener technologies with zero emmissions plants. Its as if they are in lock step together in their vision for the future with Obama, and the people in those States are well aware of that. Its only idiots like you and the other republicans, that the coal industry has already left behind, are still part of the old school dustbin of history. OffWorld I guess I'm an idiot along with RON PAUL, your hero! Ha! Here's what Paul has to say about coal: What role do you think coal should play in America's energy future? Coal is a source of energy, and it should be used, but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. What type of brain damage causes you to be so dumb Shemp? Coal should be used, but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody --- Ron Paul. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. OffWorld Schmuck-face, of coure it has to be used without ever hurting anyone. That's so obvious, no one needs to say it. But it's such a Mom-and- apple-pie-statement and so innoculous that only an idiot like you would pick up on it. It's like saying: I am opposed to unhappiness and I stand for happiness. But Paul is still 100% on the opposite side of the fence from Obama who is for a carbon tax and Paul is against it You moron, that is like saying a muslim that believes in Allah is a different belief than a christian that believes in Jehova. The both believe in God, and only morons think there is any difference. Ron Paul states that it is unconstitional to pollute someone, and also to tax someone. The bottom line is the same for Obama and for Paul: If you pollute, you pay, and their attitude to coal is identical, unlike old-school brainless fools like you, who is irrational and has no understanding of the world. If you pollute, you pay - Obama/Paul. If you pollute, you pay - Obama/Paul. If you pollute, you pay - Obama/Paul. If you pollute, you pay - Obama/Paul. If you pollute, you pay - Obama/Paul. If you pollute, you pay - Obama/Paul. If you pollute, you pay - Obama/Paul. If you pollute, you pay - Obama/Paul. If you pollute, you pay - Obama/Paul. If you pollute, you pay - Obama/Paul. If you pollute, you pay - Obama/Paul. OffWorld
